The Royal Air Force has officially revealed its first Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft, marked with the new RAF livery.

Designated WT001, the aircraft has been painted in the colours of No. VIII Squadron, which will operate the Wedgetail in service.

This milestone took place at Southend Airport, where the aircraft rolled out of the hangar showcasing its new look, including the emblem of NATO’s Airborne Early Warning & Control Force (NAEW&CF). The Wedgetail will play a role in NATO’s operations, enhancing air and maritime surveillance capabilities to protect Allied airspace.

The VIII Squadron badge displayed on the aircraft is a sheathed Arabian dagger known as a Jambiya, symbolising the squadron’s guardian duties. The RAF’s Wedgetail will be based at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland, joining the Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, both of which are built on the Boeing 737 Next Generation airframe. This allows the RAF to benefit from operational synergies between the two fleets.

Wing Commander McDonnell, Officer Commanding VIII Squadron, expressed enthusiasm, stating:

“Seeing the first UK Wedgetail, painted, with a visual representation of No. VIII Squadron’s history is an exciting moment in the journey towards operational capability for the squadron, for RAF Lossiemouth and the RAF.”

Once operational, the mission crew will use state-of-the-art systems to deliver multi-domain battle management, enabling the Wedgetail to direct both offensive and defensive forces while maintaining continuous surveillance. The aircraft will provide crucial support for the UK and NATO by significantly enhancing the combat capabilities and survivability of friendly forces in hostile environments.

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

59 COMMENTS

    • Five would be better but with new drone based capabilities the force may be augmented. F35 can go along way to supplement the air picture as well. It’s as good as some of the smaller awacs on its own.

      • Agree UAVs like the RAAFs Ghost Bat will expand and complement the Wedgtail’s C4ISR role. So too platforms like the RAAFs MQ4 Triton long range UAVs (first of 4 now operational in Australia).

        Although manned platforms still have a role to play hence the RAAFs investment in 4 MC55 Perigrine (similar to Rivet Joint) not to mention the surveillance capabilities of the P8 fleet.

        The RAAF recently deployed 2 of its 6 E7 Wedgtails along with 6 F35As to Red Flag Alaska 24-3 a distance of more than 12,000 kilometers. It demonstrates the platform’s importance in the Pacific where vast distances mean ground based radars are often unavailable to coordinate combat air operations.

        USAF personnel were on board training with the RAAF to gain experience in preparation for USAFs first E7s. Good to see the RAF growing the global Wedgetail fleet.

    • The new rule of thumb, probably, is that countries bordering Russia need to supply their own early warning kit. I am not convinced the current UK Government intend to do anything other than defend their share of the NATO border and that is it.

      • I would suggest that the current Govt will provide the capability they are asked to provide by NATO… that probably doesn’t include MBTs.

        However, C4ISR is up there with deterrence.

        You can’t win a football game on your own, and now we really must be part of a team.

        Interesting Defence Review inbound.

        • Agreed. I suspect European Countries feel the days of having British or American MBTs on their soil are coming to an end. If Ukraine can stop the likes of Russia in their tracks then every Country should be able to do the same.

          Totally agree on the subject of C4ISR and perhaps this is a case whereby all NATO countries should share the costs centrally and benefit from the results.

          The defence review seems likely to send mixed messages. NATO we support but everything else perhaps or perhaps not. The Falklands war was caused by mixed messages with Argentina believing the British people no longer cared about the Islands or their people.

          • Logically, undertaking procurement centrally would lead to major items being procured, however, from whom?

            It’s a dichotomy within NATO; it makes sense, and yet, MS want cash spent in their States.

            Then consider the Bradley vs CV10, Leopard vs Abrams and of course, T26 vs anything out there.

            An absolute nightmare but, I do know 2 assault ships and two carriers looking for good second homes and a Chancellor looking for cash 😉

            Great EU projects if NATO can’t be bothered, say £5Bn and we could throw in the assault ships?

          • The QE carriers were originally a shared project with France. We have them now and to my mind that’s our contribution to nato and Europe. They will rely on nato escorts. Agree about MBTs are less likely these days for UK. Remember though in Ukraine invasion warm up uk surveillance flights had to avoid German airspace initially, politics is always there.

          • MBTs less likely? What does that mean? We are building 148 CR3s which will be declared to NATO.

          • Sir, with respect to your service and knowledge, however, do we need 500 MBTs? 300?.

            Estonia is a tripwire, there is no strategic depth and they will die.

            It is the RN and RAF who will do the heavy lifting; and NATO wants nichè capabilities – that is not our tanks.

            One of my first memories of a Chieftain, as an Irish Ranger was finding somewhere to hold on to and deciding that boots either side of the barrel and gripping onto anything was a good choice. I subsequently slid down turret, wacked my knackers, became inverted with the driver telling me to hold on for dear life as we had gathered speed over Salisbury plain. However, do we need tanks for the niche capabilities that NATO wants from us?

            I like tanks to, I have fond albeit painful and slightly mortifying memories of them…. 😉

    • Fleet sizes always decline. You must know that by now, Criss?

      We bought seven E-3Ds back in the day (contract signed in 1987, deliveries 1991-92).

      We have had a capability gap since July 2021.

    • Unfortunately it is impossible to justify the substantial cost of separate basing and maintenance facilities for just 3 x E-7s. Best we can hope for is that provision has been made for dispersal in the event of a high threat to RAF Lossiemouth.

      • Imagine losing all of your AWACS and MPA/Fixed wing ASW in one attack. Regardless of the costs, there needs to be redundancy.

        • Agreed, but the MOD presumably decided that the cost/risk balance didn’t justify a second operating base. Not much point in, for example, upgrading RAF Waddington as a E-7 base if there was then no money left to actually buy any aircraft.

        • Exactly, this is what the bods in charge should be thinking about. Goes for the Naval ports, sub bases, radar installations, power infrastructure, etc, too. Besides sub launched missiles, all that’s in range of the UK/Europe, in Kaliningrad, how would that be contained or neutralised? Let’s hope that the nuclear deterrence along with strong conventional forces and alliances will be enough to stop a lunatic or lunatics.

      • We have a very robust capability in land captor which would be deployed to air bases in a time of war, it’s not great at defeating ballistic missiles but there is no conventional ballistic missiles in range of RAF Lossimouth. Having fewer airbases also means less targets to defend with our limited numbers.

        • Not enough batteries cover all our key bases e.g. Devonport, Faslane, Coningsby…

          It’s a long(ish) list and so few batteries.

          According to a Sky News online article the Royal Artillery have around 6 batteries which is a number I have seen elsewhere as well…

          So I would agree that the Land Ceptor is a pretty good system by all accounts but 6 is way too few – as usual. I should also point out that there is a battery on the Falkland Islands and another in Poland. So may be 4 batteries to cover the whole of the UK. Sorry but I don’t think robust is a word that springs to mind. 40 Batteries – now that would be robust…

          Cheers CR

          • And where exactly are they? From previous posts on here i think it was said that they’re more for army deployments, nothing for RAF or Navy bases. Shorad/GBAD seems to have huge potential for inter-force sharing of assets and inventories.

          • They are. 16 RA which operate the system support the Field Army, so 3 UK Divisions brigades, on operations.
            It is not meant to be sitting in the UK.

          • Having had a brief rummage around the interweb I have found mention for 24 batteries but only orders for 6..! So I think 24 or 25 were the original ‘plan’ but… Hope I am wrong, but not sure who we would crew any more to be honest.

            Cheers CR

          • Do you have a reference? I cannot believe the figure of 25. They are only held by one army unit – 16 Regt RA.

          • Hi Graham, It was mentioned on this site a while back, I think at the time of it’s first deployment to Poland, I can’t remember exactly who, it was a regular poster on here who mentioned a planned order of 25 Land Ceptor under the former PM Cameron. And criticised it as insufficient.

          • I think there are 4 Fire Batteries in 16RA mate.
            Each is split into 2 “Fire Groups”
            I believe the Poland and Falklands commitments are met by one Battery, not two.
            The Battery is split, one FireGroup each.
            I read each FG may contain 2 or 3 launchers, a FC vehicle, and a radar.

          • Thanks mate, that’s very helpful. Does the FireGroup have its own Radar or is that the Fire Control vehicle..?

            Cheers CR

          • I am sure that the army’s Land Ceptors do not cover any RN base or any other base in the UK.
            They were procured to protect the deployed Field Army and Mount Pleasant Airfield.

        • “which would be deployed to air bases in a time of war,”

          You say that, Jim. It is not a given at all.
          As repeated many times, Land Ceptor is an army system which is deployed to defend the Field Army, in the field, as the MRAD umbrella for 3 Division.

          The fact that it has been used in peacetime to cover the G7 meeting in Cornwall and earlier when Rapier FSC was used in London 2012 does not mean that in a real war those Batteries would be sat at sites in the UK.

          The army might want a word if they are!

        • Land Ceptor (aka CAMM) has been procured only by the army (as the RAF Regt opted out of anti-aircraft duties many moons ago) for the air defence of deployed army units and Mount Pleasant Airfield (MPA).

          It was never procured for defence of any UK sites.

          It is held in very limited numbers.

    • Yes it is not good putting all your eggs in one basket. By all means move them there for maintenance but not keep them all there.

      • As I said to another guy the other day. Russia can’t accurately hit a tower block in its neighbour. It can’t achieve air superiority against a very limited Air force. Has lost more warships to a nation that doesn’t have a proper Navy. And people think it can somehow muster up the capability to mount a very long range precision strike against the UK and get through the whole of NATO without anyone noticing.

          • Yes. I wouldn’t want to take the risk of waiting to be hit to find out. Be forewarned and forearmed, as broadly as possible.

          • If they have, they haven’t used them to very good affect in Ukraine. Or display any real accuracy or survivability. That is the reality of Russian capability on display. And it isn’t very good. Despite what rubbish the Kremlin comes out with.

          • Apparently they only have about 4 or 5 Kilo Class subs in the Black Sea with a couple deployed in the Med or in refit in the Baltic. So not exactly a huge war winning capability.

            However, given the Kalibr has been reported as hitting civilian targets I would suggest that it’s very inaccuracy could be an issue given the lack of UK GBAD. Blocks of flats being hit with apparently little or nothing being visibly done to stop it wouldn’t go down well with a public that knows little about modern defence issues i.e. I don’t think they’d be impressed with the message that our SSN’s sank half a dozen enemy subs but one got through…

            Impressions do count.

            Cheers CR

    • Lack of SHORAD/GBAD for such a significant site and all the others seems like high level something….LOL. If the fleet was 5+10-12 respectively maybe a second site for these would be more justified. Even a joint Army/RAF deployable Boxer based shorad/c-uas might be a start. Bring it out when you need it.

      • There’s a working Sampson radar outside Portsmouth. Surely it needs to be able to plug in to a few silos of camm to protect Portsmouth and a good chunk of the south of England?
        AA

    • In terms of capability, I’m hoping the SDR will question why we paid for 5 Radars and then only purchased 3 airframes, realising the abject stupidity involved in that decision and opts to purchase the two additional airframes

      • Isn’t Boeing going through a downsize and questions on their reputation and quality?Might be a good time to get a bargain price on two more E7 airframes? And a few more P8s if there’s a gap there too.

      • You will probably find that when the UK was considering purchasing the E7 there were very few, if any, countries interested in placing real contracts for the E7. The production line for the radar ha been closed for some years with some of its original components obsolete or out of production. When the UK came along NG probably said they would reopen the production line and update the radar to today’s standard but they wanted an order for at least 5 radars to make it profitable. So when the RAF cut its buy to 3 aircraft they were left with having buy 5 radar sets or none at all. At time the UK was desperate to replace its E3s because they were becoming very expensive to keep flying because of a lack of the sort of investment the USAF, NATO and the French had put into their E3s so having announced the retirement of the E3s they were between a rock and hard place and had to continue with the 5 E7 radar sets. So the UK took a capability Gap and sold the remaining E3s (3 I believe) to Chille. Oh! and what a surprise the E7 conversions are behind the schedule which supported the original decision to take a Capability Gap and scrap the E3s. I could go on about the capability of a fleet of 3 aircraft but won’t bore the reader.

  5. just a shame the other 2 arent in line for the same treatment even though the hardware was still ordered for what should have been the full quantity of planes

    • Probably because that was where the painting could take place with a contractor able and certified to apply the military paint and had a vacancy which matched the availability of the externally completed airframe. None of this is a surprise given the small number of large military aircraft jobs which takes place today. The days of the RAF or a fixed military supplier painting all military aircraft especially the large aircraft have been over for many years and civilian paint company’s do it alongside civilian airliners depending on available Hangar space. The main complication is if the aircraft contain classified equipment which is removed for the painting or exceptionally the the RAF/MOD will provide suitable guards. Its not clear to me how much of the internal equipment for the E7 has still to be fitted – it could be largely empty and it is partly a PR exercise to demonstrate progress.

  7. We had 7 E3 AWACS which were going to be replaced by 5 E7 Wedgetails…which was then reduced to <laugh> 3.

    However at the moment and whilst a large part of the world is on fire or about to catch fire we’re enjoying a treasury sponsored capability gap. The RAF has no airborne early warning at all. None to defend the UK North or vulnerable UK bases in the Eastern Mediterranean (where the sky is full of all sorts of nasties right now).

    In the private sector there’s a sniff test of if you say something out loud and it sounds stupid then it probably is actually stupid. I would recommend the next time someone in the Treasury\MOD\RAF recommends something as outrageously insane as this again then we should nominate a suitably burly and red faced shouty man to go visit them in the staff car park and help correct their worldview.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here