The House of Commons Defence Committee, in its report “Aviation Procurement: Winging it?”, has pinpointed serious threats arising from adjustments to the Airborne Early Warning & Control programmes.

The decision to trim the UK’s Wedgetail E-7 fleet from five to three aircraft is attracting major concerns.

The cut results in a 40% decrease in capability but brings a mere 12% savings in acquisition costs. This decision, as outlined in the report, stands as one of the most critical issues, stressing that three aircraft might be insufficient to meet both the UK’s NATO commitments and its own sovereign needs.

Witnesses consulted in the creation of the report have highlighted that with only three aircraft in service, there could be considerable difficulty in meeting the UK’s NATO commitments and sovereign needs simultaneously.

The E-7 aircraft, although technologically capable, has its procurement process mired in delays and budget overruns, a trend that the report labels as a “depressingly familiar story of MoD failings and contractor underperformance.”

The committee’s firm stance is that this decision needs an urgent revisit. Their recommendation is clear: a renewed commitment to a fleet of at least five aircraft to ensure the nation’s defence does not suffer due to short-sighted budgetary decisions.

Moreover, the report emphasises the need for transparency and communication with NATO, particularly concerning the UK’s Airborne Early Warning & Control obligations to the Alliance.

With global tensions on the rise and the current Ukraine conflict as a potential flashpoint, the UK’s decisions on defence can have far-reaching implications not just for the nation, but for its allies as well.

You can read more by clicking here.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

61 COMMENTS

  1. I like a few of the characters on the DSC and feel they ask pertinent questions. However, can anybody tell me when one of their outputs has led to a change in government policy?

    • Politicals relies on an independent media that challengers the government. Instead we have the bbc that actively avoids it (you can see it almost daily with their newspapers front pages site, whever there is a single paper questionning the government that paper is left off, they are running scared after so many threats to bin tbe licence fee) and large number of papers that blindly report in favor of the government.

      In a perfect world, the defense committee questions and answers would be picked up by the media, reported in the news and the people would then put pressure on their local MP to do something or lose their vote, if they felt it was imporant enough issue to do so. The committee itself has zero chance of changing policy directly.

      That combined with the average person having next to zero interest in government policies and decisions and just passing votes on headline policies rather than the details behind them.

      • “Politicals relies on an independent media”

        Haha! That never occurred in History.

        The only reason that there journalism exists is to make propaganda for politics. No one wants to be a journalist to tell the news, they go there to change the world.
        That is why BBC is political organisation. Worse, it is a political organisation that takes money by the violence of the law from people that don’t agree with its ideology. Private media at least don’t force you to pay them.

    • It is unfortunate that they have no actual power to change government policy. Possibly if we didn’t have whips and MPs were free to vote as they saw fit irrespective of party affiliation (essentially how things work in the US), then the views of these comittees would carry more weight.

  2. Bit late aren’t they. This needed to be said at the purchase point. How much more than 12% will it cost now for 2 more airframes.
    Perhaps commitees like these need some ability to raise extra funds or big purchase decisions need reviewed before approval to prevent stupidity.
    We know the decision to cut the number was due to no money available not what was needed.

  3. They will have the 5 sets of radar, so why not go and purchase the airframes? Makes little sense really. Still WOKE lead it seems.

    • Totally Angus, why is it so difficult to rectify this? They’ve got the spare radars, just two aircraft needed. Money well spent on key assets and key capabilities. Some additional P8s would be useful for the UK too. All been said here before.

      • Hi QD63, I would love to see more P8s but, cutting our cloth, I hope they put Protector to more use in the maritime arena. I’m not sure we’ve committed to the maritime ‘pod’ for this system but it would make a lot of sense to have it. Time-on-station and a comparatively smaller crew to operate than P8 are big positives for me that would mean our P8s are free to be tasked with the more complex and sub-surface ops. P8s need more lethality also, though I think it would need to be a system not currently in UK stocks, such as AGM or SLAM-ER. Needs rapid certification of an air-launched NSM or the FC/ASW, as/when it happens. I think the E-7 cut to 3 was utter non-sense, given the lack of a viable ‘autonomous’ alternatives at present and, as this article suggests, the comparatively small saving it generated. Is the E-7 another asset that would need a boom to refuel it? That leads me on to another capability gap where we rely on US AAR assets to support us re: refuelling RivetJoint and P8s!

  4. This is the worst Tory defence policy since their MRA4 Razer blade festival in 2010.

    Thank god the previous government locked in the carrier contract cancelation price so they could not turn them in to shaving implements as well.

    • Jim., my Labour friend. You do try mate, I’ll give you that. Nimrod was a £.4 billion pound fiasco. When it was cancelled in 2010 there were “still several hundred technical problems to be solved” and the number going to be available had dropped from 21 to 9. Even the wings didn’t fit the revised fuselage.
      As for Labour fixing the price of the carriers they started out as £5.3 billion, immediately went to £5.9 billion and ended up costing £7.6 billion. Still Gordon Brown got re elected so everything turned out fine.😏

      • Geoff I thought the increase in carrier cost was caused by the 2010 Tory government slowing the build rate by two years and spending a year flopping between F35C and F35B meaning possible build changes if the C variant ended up being selected.
        Regardless of what New Labour did the Tories found defence in a not great shape and have spent 13 years making it worse whilst spending more. The Wedgetail cut perfectly epitomising the old adage ‘they know the price of everything and value of nothing’.

        • Hi.

          Indeed, the Tories did, Jim is right, that blasted Osborne would have cancelled given the chance.
          Now for balance. Labour too delayed the QEC build. This “myth” that it is all Tories fault has been perpetrated here many times.

          Labour DS John Hutton had already delayed causing 1 billion to be added, it was widely reported at the time.
          Last time I posted and linked this info the bloke refused to concede and has been hiding ever since.

          Link. There are many out there. Deniers, please note the date. 2008.

          https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/dec/12/defence-military-budget-john-hutton

          Also note the words “crisis in the defence budget”
          That is because at that time they were treating the military in the same way the Tories are treating the military now.
          Many Labour don’t like me posting this. I will not be silenced.

          Both are as bad as the other since the end of the Cold War.

          • Totally correct re. Hutton delaying the build in December 2008, I can remember the outcry it created at the time. 6 months earlier the government had announced that the 7th and 8th T45s would not be built and Hutton himself only lasted until mid-2009 with 8 months in post before he bottled out. To be replaced in Labour’s revolving door of stellar defence secretaries by . . . Bob Ainsworth.

          • I know. So do I. All those sad years of despair, just as we read now. Not much has changed apart from the numbers keep dropping.

            At least many a program has begun under this lot compared to the previous.

            Jesus Christ…Ainsworth. I remember him for announcing the closing of Cottesemore as an RAF Station, and the cuts to Harriers. This was to give funds to by more Chinooks, 22 if my memory serves. Never happened until a good few years later when the Tories ordered, I think, 14.

          • I remember the day well. We all gathered in the hangar to be told by the station commander that the Harrier has been axed with immediate effect. Top brass wanted flying to stop immediately. But the JFH commander argued for another couple of months of flying, but night flying stopped. They could at least give the Harrier a good send-off with the final flypast and 9 ship formation. The weather was awful that day, and the flying nearly didn’t happen. The station commander was the last to land. And the 9 pegasus engines all shut down in unison. It was a sad day. I stayed at Cottesmore until late February 2011, and then I was drafted to Faslane for 18 months, where I finished my Naval career.

          • Morning mate. I had actually forgotten when I was outlining that period that we have a community member in your good self with first hand experience of Cottesmore at that time.

          • Yeah, it was an unsettling few months. People slowly started getting new drafts and postings. After Christmas 2010, Cottesmore was like a ghost town. It was such a nice camp. Glad it stayed open in the hands of the Army. But it lost its magic when Harrier operations finished.

        • I’m not sure about your first point because I think Labour had already intervened but I won’t argue with your second point either. Having said that a lot of the cuts and delays started before 2010.

        • I don’t think it’s entirely fair to blame the F35B/C flip flop on the incoming government. BAE and Labour deserve an honourable mention here.

          Up until 2010 it was widely understood that the carriers were being built ‘for but not with’ the capacity for CATOBAR operations. Turns out the spaces that would have been used for EMALS and the arrestor gear had slowly been deleted out of the design or designated for other purposes throughout various design iterations. Something ministers pre-2010 were aware of but chose not to make public.

          I think we can all agree that, CATOBAR would have been the preferred option were it available, it provides so may more options; cross-decking with France and the US, E2C/D for AEW, larger drone options for refuelling which the USN are currently testing, COD etc. etc.

          I for one can’t blame the incoming government for at least looking at the option.

          • I suppose it depends on what you see to be preferable. You are thinking militarily advantageous = preferred, right? To understand, you need to switch your mindset and ask preferred by whom?

            I sometimes think decisions are made to avoid having to explain why we aren’t spending the money on things we don’t want. If you aren’t going to buy E-2D or expensive organic tanking and you wouldn’t ever cross deck with the French even if you did go CATOBAR, why not go V/STOL instead? Then there’ll be no pressure on you to do any of that nonsense because the carrier can’t handle it. It’ll also need fewer crew so you don’t need to worry as much about recruitment or training. And if you need to spend £20m more per plane, well you can always cut the number of planes — besides, with delays to the JSF, that’s a problem for a future administration. The only reason to go CATOBAR is if you could sell one of the carriers to the Indians. As they don’t want one, why bother?

            Just as well Crowsnest is a cheap, low-risk upgrade to the Sea Kings that will see us through to 2030. Use the same old radar with a few tweaks and cannibalise some existing Merlins. What could possibly go wrong?

    • What is the UK culture? Is there more woke than defence learning in schools? If so you can expect that more resources go to woke causes in the future.
      Tories do no produce much culture. They are lazy an unimaginative but there there is also an inherent inbalance between who wants to defend what exists from who wants to attack. Those who attack can expose any idea that undermine even crazy ones, it is easier to deconstruct and destroy than to defend.
      The culture producers are almost all in the Left.
      Unless Tories start to build culture they can be the government but will be unable to govern. Because you can only govern with culture.

  5. Unfortunately, that particular airframe type is no longer in production and, with the US now procuring E-7s as well, in high demand. Prices will be high for decent examples now, far higher than when we made the decision to go with 3 rather than 5. I doubt that 12% Vs 40% is accurate anymore.

      • And then the mods and upgrades to a unique frame / tech combo?

        Nightmare stuff.

        If AUS and US are going down one pathway then it makes sense to follow the herd in this instance.

        Mind you AUS are already onto the next upgrade cycle.

    • But they are sunset as they will be coming off lease to be replaced with more fuel efficient versions.

      The cost of the S/H frames is peanuts in the great scheme of things.

      • Maybe, issue is that they’re a 737-700 but only very specific versions, with 737-800 wings and uprated landing gear. That’s 2 (low mileage preferably) aircraft you need to procure for every one E-7. The USAF want 26, and you know that if they want them then others may well follow suit as well.
        I agree that the airframes are probably the cheapest part of the process, but the cost of those parts is going to be a lot higher than they were when we cancelled numbers 4 and 5. Even the mighty USAF reckons they can only get a couple of aircraft completed every 4 years.
        The end of this article describes the challenge of getting them built
        This Is What USAF’s Future E-7 Radar Jet Is Actually Capable Of (thedrive.com)

      • I thought all the Wedgetails were generally new-build air-frames with a a secondhand example used for the first UK wedgetail to speed up IOC?

          • I’m certainly no expert either… maybe it was the P8s I read that about, that said its just as likely that I’ve dreamed it!

    • The USAF have mandated new build airframes so it looks as if production of the 737-700 will restart. This would reinforce NATO selecting the E7 as they are probably a few years away from a final decision. Changing to the 737Max would introduce changes which would add many months to the test/certification process and the USAF are in a big hurry as E3s are already arriving at the ‘boneyard’. The USAF are on record as wanting to initially stay as close to the RAF and latest RAAF E7 standard to reduce risk and build on RAF/RAAF test results. They probably plan to add USAF specific requirements piecmeal after deliveries have started and training is well underway.

  6. What is the point of the Defence Select Committee if governments are going to ignore their recommendations?

    Equivalent to taking your car to a garage for a mechanical check then ignoring their recommendations.

  7. Well don’t hold your breathe waiting for HMG to listen to a committee about anything, nor expect Grant Scrapps to do anything dynamic.
    IMHO the only way this stupid decision would be reversed is if the local MP’s and conservative associations for Meriden and Solihull get involved.
    They were safe Tory seats, but not now !
    It isn’t like there aren’t 7000+ airframes available to buy !

  8. Anyone with aircraft conversion background would have warned that integrating a complex mission system, not in current production, into second hand airframes with an inexperienced (on the Type) contractor would have run into problems especially as the production run is only 3 aircraft so not meriting significant investment . But of course the MOD had to turn a blind eye to these risks in order to justify taking the E3 out of service. Anyone with an Air Defence background would have also warned that at best, in times of tension requiring 24/7 coverage over several weeks, of multiple areas several hundred miles from base would need more than 3 aircraft – that was why 7 E3s were purchased (with UK AAR capability). So only now the chickens are coming home, the E3s have been sold off to Chile and the E7 conversion programme is running late oh what a surprise!. and how long will we have a major capability gap?

  9. Illogical cut for such a paltry saving, even if Boeing raised the costs for 5.

    Out of interest, and ignoring the bigger NATO AWACS force and that of the US, what comparison do we have for other medium – major power nations?

    How many AWACS/ASCS aircraft are operated by France, Japan, Germany, and other NATO powers?

    • Germany relies on the NATO AEW Force as does most NATO countries. Sweden has 6 home grown SAAB AEWs but its integration into NATO Ops has still to be developed. Japan has 4 E767 (E3G system on Boeing 767) and 13 E2Cs. Italy has 2 AWACS based in the G550 for National tasking. . Turkey has 4 E7s (early version) for National tasking but both Turkey and Italy are also members of the NATO AEWF. France has 3 E3Gs (originally purchased with the British E3s) France isn’t integrated with NATO AEW force but they work closely with the NATO Force but retain French control and tasking.

      • Thanks. So we are not the only country to have few AWACS. If we got 5 we’d look pretty good co compared to many given E7s capabilities.

    • It is hard to compare as it depends on which version and how fully outfitted with the most sensitive kit it is.

      Not all E3’s were created equal. Some of the export variants had decidedly less kit on board.

      Very few people will really know the answer to how the different systems stack up and won’t be saying much!

      • Understood. My question was about numbers, not capability or upgrades, performance.

        So France also has 3 AWACS, for example, as detailed by AB above. I think the UKADR may be bigger, though.

        • Yes the UKADR is bigger that Fench European Territorial interests and AEW orbits will be pushed as far out in the UADR as possible to give earliest warningtime (GIUK Gap). Consequently transit time to and from orbit will be a factor in 24/7 orbit manning as will crew availabilty and MTBMF’s.

  11. It’s amazing how this shit show of a government has no money for defence but they come up with money for their friends in business, fxxxxxg disgrace these tory cxxts ,what is happening in this country?it is fxxxxxg sickening .

      • Well £30 billion is one years fradulent use of Government money PRE COVID money fraud. Thats accoding to the OBDR (so that will be a guestimate) FYI £30 billion equates to a huge tax cut Some fraud is unavaiodable but HMG is not even tryoing to recover it. Given the size of the defence budget £10billion uplift year on year may go some way to fill the hole

  12. It is quite insane the cut in numbers is cutting off your nose to spite your face. 3 take no account of unserviceable planes, maintenance and God forbid attrition….! It is obviously a token force the Government can point at to say we have modern AEW without telling the people how few planes they have got….

    • Ron – you are 100% correct. I spent some time in Air Force operations and echo your point based on my experience. If something can go wrong, it will and you end up with a snagged aircraft. 3 affords no redundancy and no ability to scale up operatisonal tempo.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here