The UK Government has signalled its intent to expand its fleet of E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft as part of the newly published Strategic Defence Review (SDR), following sustained criticism over the earlier decision to reduce the order from five aircraft to just three.
The SDR states: “More airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft and ground-based radar would enable the UK to maintain round-the-clock airborne surveillance in support of UK and NATO offensive and defensive operations.”
The document makes clear that such capabilities are critical to enabling persistent surveillance and deep strike options in high-intensity conflict scenarios.
The previous decision to cut the Wedgetail fleet from five to three airframes was widely criticised by defence analysts and parliamentary committees, who warned that three aircraft were insufficient to meet the UK’s operational needs—especially for simultaneous NATO and national commitments.
Now, the review indicates that this gap may be addressed, with an explicit reference to the potential for “cost-sharing with NATO Allies in procuring more E-7 Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft.” This suggests the Government is exploring multinational solutions to reduce the financial burden of expanding the fleet, while strengthening interoperability across the Alliance.
In a direct recommendation, the review notes: “Further E-7 should be procured when funding allows (taking account of infrastructure and operating costs). This may be expedited by a cost-sharing arrangement with NATO Allies.”
The Wedgetail, based on the Boeing 737 airframe and equipped with the MESA radar system, is designed to replace the retired E-3D Sentry aircraft. It provides a modern, network-enabled capability for managing the battlespace and extending the reach of UK and allied strike assets.
Critics have long maintained that a fleet of only three aircraft lacks the resilience and availability required for sustained operations. The SDR appears to acknowledge these concerns, framing additional AEW&C capability as vital to the UK’s evolving approach to deterrence and homeland defence.
The Royal Air Force expects its first Wedgetail to enter service in 2025. If the Government follows through on the SDR’s recommendations—as it says it intends to do for all 62—more aircraft may follow, restoring a capability many believe was scaled back prematurely.
The SDR says a lot but not a single order yet its like a wish list with no one explaining when or how to get all these things. I hope to see many orders this year but have a feeling its a lot of hot air with not enough money to go around, love to be proved wrong.
News about actual equipment orders will be announced in the autumn spending round.
They chose to announce up to 12 SSN(A) submarines as the headline procurement in the review—fully aware that we’re years away from needing to commit to the order, and likely decades away from having 12 operational. By then,it will almost certainly fall to a completely different government anyway!
Yes, we’ll get more detail in the autumn, but they could have used the headline announcement to highlight something actionable in the near term—such as a fighter jet order, additional escorts, or a new IFV. That would have at least signaled some sense of urgency to those paying attention. Instead, we get a vague long-term promise that may or may not materialize, wrapped in familiar language like “up to.”
I agree.
The Government are not committing to spending very much at all – probably because of the pressure from Labour party politicians to spend the money elsewhere. However this should permit the military to start ordering stuff with the treasury worrying at a later point which year the cost will hit the accounts. Major bits of kit are not going to cost anybody anything for a little while. The military will be getting their priorities straight about now and I would expect orders over the summer months when everyone is on holiday.
I must admit. I was at least expecting it to announce Tranche 2 F35B order. It does mention the need for more F35’s, maybe even a mix of A and B. But no firm commitment. The whole review is a recommendation list. Now the gov needs to act on it.
With respect to SSNA….the big bits like reactors have to be ordered well ahead….so now is the time.
I think there will be a drip feed of orders for F35[flavours]….basically for political effect and for burying bad news…..
I’ve been mulling this over all day, as to why they announced this as an headline as well as the warhead commitment ? And unfortunately I think it has more to do with Political visuals than engineering timescales. It ticks multiple boxes, it sends a very clear message to Putin (he likes waving the nuclear word at us) and also to European NATO countries (AKA the EU) that we bring a lot to the table that they need.
For rather risk averse Politicians and the Treasury the nice thing is it costs absolutely zero right now and won’t till the SSN(A) design is nearer sign off (they don’t need to wait for main gate for certain items to be ordered). And just in case they do change their minds a few years down the line, nothing is lost as all those long lead items just go into the RAN boats instead.
Pessimist, Cynic or realist or just a bloke that remembers the Astute fiasco ?
@ABC
I agree that optics are central to this.
Sending clear messaging to Mad Vlad, AUS and The Tangerine Toddler is central to this.
Mad Vlad – nuclear is his button as you say
AUS – student politics aside UKPLC is on this
Tangerine Toddler – it is a beautiful big deal.
EU – they can only dream of this.
France – they can only dream of getting the EU to fund this for them….as well as PANG. To a certain extent it is to cut Micron down to size.
so nothing until then, not a great defence review its just not funded wish list. Warm words, but nothing really getting ordered
Unfortunately for us this is what a real strategic defence review looks like. It’s not up to them to ascertain platforms and numbers rather required capabilities. This is not done by the MoD.
So its a wish list really, what we need and should have but likely can not afford
Thank you Jim for saying this.
Martin, an SDR is a very high level document. The Defence Command Paper which follows, probably in several months time, will have much of the detail you wish to see.
Evening, thank for explaining that, I look forward to the Defence Command Paper. The whole SDR is well above my pay grade and understanding, and i am happy to admit it.
Graham, I know people keep saying that, but I seem to remember 1998 saying things like: “We want to be able to project power so we will order two large aircraft carriers”
“We’ve reviewed our elite forces and we need to maintain a commando Bde. However, the need for an airborne Bde is no longer there do well combined 5Ab and 24 Air Mobile and create 16 AA” etc etc
And 2010 painfully “At the conclusion of combat operations in Afghanistan in 2014 weeks will reduce the size of the Army to 82k”
This seems to be one of the lightest in details I’ve seen.
Did we previously have a much quicker turn around in the associated command plans?
So what you’re saying is, it’s like a reverse Father Ted – “Up with this sort of thing”
@Martin. The govt is getting its political ducks in a row. 2 June SDR; 11June financial statement; end June National Security review; 9July NATO summit; then Defence Industrial Strategy – and lastly the equipment plan; what we will manufacture in the UK and what we will buy from the US.
Final step is the autumn budget – how everything else is impacted by the changes in defence.
How many in total, 4,5,6 ?
i would hope at least 5, since there are 2 radar kits already gathering dust somewhere
Wonder if they still work?!
“They should. The power cells have a half-life of five thousand years.”
– Egon Spengler, Ghostbusters 2
(Sorry, it’s just such a great quote)
Lol. I bit of Glen 20 and she’ll be right then!
I wonder if this NATO allies bit, means we will give our spare 2 radars to the joint euro NATO E-7 force, in the hope of getting access to it? Given Starmer’s track record on foreign deals, my guess is we would get little back.
It’s an aspiration for more if/when funding is available. Not a confirmed order.
Which has been the position for some time.
Also, we have to ask some allies to chip in as well.
Minimum requirement is 6
Wedgetails.
We need 1 in the air 1 on standby. Ready to take off if urgently needed or to replace 1 in the air.
1 on training.
So that leaves 3 more.
You will probably have 2 or 3 on maintenance. If not they will be on training or helping other NATO duties
We could have a smaller platform like the Saab 380 but you would still need 6. A lot cheaper and could work closer to front line.
That would make sense 6 wedgetails 6 Saab 380s.
What are your thoughts.
it not our job to deliver for other counties… so we need enough for us, with other countries needing enough for them, with them all talking to each other.
Did they order 5, got 5 radars but only 3 airframes… so it makes complete sense to build the other 2.
5 makes great sense, 7 if NATO is chipping in.
Is there a definitive plan for UK to acquire the additional two airframes w/:UK funds? If ENATO funds are solicited, wouldn’t operational control be almost inevitably diluted?
Personally, I’d see some sort of “Far North Alliance” with Norway, maybe Finland, Sweden and even Denmark. We already have good defence ties with Norway and Denmark.
That way, a joint buy of the additional 2 airframes is already essentially assigning them to our primary AO- the GIUK gap and environs.
Yes operational command would be diluted.
What is ENATO? We still count Canada as a good friend, a trustworthy and reliable ally.
An original 49’ member of NATO.
I imagine their are talking about the European Commission’s plan “ReArm Europe” package which includes €150bn of new joint EU borrowing that would be lent to EU governments to fund pan-European capabilities in areas such as air and missile defence, artillery systems, missiles, ammunition, drones and other needs.
Apprently the Uk can gain access to the five-part plan that could raise nearly €800bn (£660bn) if they sign a security and defence partnership agreement with the EU.
@Joe16
Joint Expeditionary Force already brings together the Nordic, Baltic, Netherlands and UK nations.
Complementary to the Nordic Aviation Alliance.
Let’s hope they can find the airframes after this ill thought out and self defeating delay.
Yes that’s what happened. 5 radar sets ordered and delivered but inexplicably to save the price of a postage stamp they cut the airframes to 3 which is frankly ridiculous.
I think returning to 5 ASAP and then increasing to 7 or 8 is required for resilience. We should not be beholden to our allies for this capability although if the European countries lacking an AWACS capability want to fund the RAF fleet to ensure at times of conflict we are there for them, then so be it. I’m looking at Norway, The Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Finland and Baltic states.
I appreciate the general thrust of your comment Mr Bell, but I feel I should point out that Poland has recently acquired a modest AEW&C capability, two former UAEAF Saab 340s.
Aside from UK politics, this relates to the 737 Max fiasco because that type was planned to replace the 737-700 fleet that is required for more E7 airframes so impacting the price and availability.
737-700 operators (airlines) look ruthlessly at their cost per passenger mile so expect to replace with the successor type as soon as its more profitable however the Max is still not available as expected so they’re forced to hang on to 737-700 which prevents favourable cost and availability
Chris , most training is on synths/simulators. I doubt a dedicated airframe is required for training. 1 to 2 in maintenance, 3 operational is the bare minimum required
I’m no Labour lover, but at least there is recognition that things have to change. Improve. I say it through my teeth, but Labour are the first government for 20 odd years to address defence as any kind of priority. The peace dividend has gone now, like a special offer in a supermarket. UK needs now, to address at least 3.5% in the next 2 years and pursue 5% by 2030, ideally much, much sooner.
If my taxes go up, so be it. I’d rather pay them in pounds, not roubles.
They’ve inherited a tough situation all around with no easy fixes regardless of whose in charge. Defense has become a priority but a number of the announcements are very much welcome and unexpected; the plans to increase the attack submarine fleet over the next class to up to 12 is phenomenal, more or less confirmation of a surface fleet expansion (through T-32 or other) is much needed and the prior plans have been very wishy washy and the reprisal of air launched battlefield nuclear weapons is definitely a priority if we are to ever realistically fight Russia (Soviet and now Russian peer war doctrine evolves around battlefield usage of tactical low yield weapons and we need proportional responses to a situation where a few hundred British soldiers are potentially being the victims of a limited nuclear strike instead of going straight to glassing Moscow and dooming Europe or just waving such a provocation and relying on conventional responses that wouldn’t prevent further strikes).
Good point here. They aren’t perfect but unlike the others who had a big majority; there’s a sense of change and actions to turn the ship.
I think if voters really pushed for it INSTEAD of a chosen social service they would get more defense spending as a trade off … but I don’t think the public will unless bombs start dropping on their heads or if their internet access was impacted
So in every case it requires a brave Leader to advocate for defense out of a principle over any political agenda. It’s the most important equation/calculation a leader of a country faces but very few have bother with it
I think the SDSR is excellent, much much better than we all feared and finally an awakening in government that just continuing with the Tory disaster strategy of cuts followed by cuts followed by more cuts was no way to defend our nation.
As the government have accepted all 62 recommendations we can clearly see they mean business and finally we can say Labour (not the Tories) are the party for the armed forces.
That’s what I took away too.
The multi level program was quite impressive to me – simultaneously necessary, radical and conceptually feasible, and I came away from it reassured that Healey et al are a serious bunch of people who acknowledge the threats, and grasp the kinds of things needed to move Defence into the 21st century proper. If the recommendations are fully implemented UK will have a modestly sized, but absolutely Tier 1 AF and would be well placed to lead ENATO.
I also note the (somewhat?) ‘pregnant pauses’ from Healey and Starmer when pressed for the definitive commitment on spending. My feeling is that they are pretty sure they’ll be able to increase spending before ~2030, but just can’t come out and say it because there aren’t any solid figures to point to. Maybe that’s me projecting, but so much of politics is performed through the lens of ‘what we know to be the case right now and can make justified statements on’, and don’t realistically take into account possible future situations. On one hand this is for good reason as we don’t want policy being decided on conjecture and hopes, but it does limit the scope of factoring in potential progression paths (HMG in general seem to be doing the right kinds of things to get the line moving up, not perfect but right direction). There’s also the high likelihood for the Industrial reforms and broad signalling to private sector to add to the growth project.
Still having to cross my fingers, but the SDR was a serious document addressing decades of systemic challenges in an encouraging way. Just got to keep calm and stay the course
The Peace Dividend delusion has allowed politicians to safeguard their electoral prospects by shifting Defence spending to social provision and even war in Europe hasn’t enabled them to pivot back to Defence, the first responsibility of the nation state.
When the Chief of Defence Staff said that “we are in the pre-war phase and conscription” he meant that we can pay now, or pay much more blood and treasure later as the terrorist state expands into Europe.
We bailed out the bankers in 2008, now it’s their turn to invest in UK Defence since their business depends on peace and stability. Lower risk means lower cost than standard gilts from UK government as a funding instrument.
UK Defence Bonds now!
That’s how we get 5% GDP Defence spending and rebuild UK defense industry to be able to deliver it. Over to you, Rachel from accounts…
And herein lies the problem. The review has a key feature missing, namely a commitment to spend the money required to make it happen. There simply is no commitment, nor will there be at amy time in the future. Defence of the realm is not considered a high priority.
That was excluded specifically in the terms of reference. Had they included something like that they would have been told to think again.
“as it says it intends to do for all 62—more aircraft?” Is that including F-35?
The SDR was pretty specific about the requirements for an increased fast jet fleet. It mentions F-35A and F-35B as two possibilities. As the government has already committed to implementing all 62 recommendations, I think it is likely that we see an order for.more fast jets in the autumn.
Given that USA has decided to be unreliable, the reason to favour interoperability is gone. USAF and USMC will not be directed to uphold Article 5.
So the Radar 2.0 upgrade to Eurofighter Typhoon for 4.5G capabilities that are built in Europe looks a much better investment in sovereign capabilities and has good side effects like keeping Typhoon production healthy until Tempest is ready to build at scale.
Also it makes European NATO much more credible in the air domain.
As I understand it we paid for 5 E7 radars. They are main cost… so it should not be too expensive to get 2 more airframes in with the NATO buy…
The savings from the reduced buy were £350 million on the actual buy according to Hansard and a further £720 million on life cycle support according to the defence committee in 22/23. So a shade over a billion.
Boeing’s 737 production backlog is huge, (4763 737s!) since we gave up our build slots getting anything is going to be extremely difficult or alot of arm twisting by politicians (several hundred 737 orders from airlines is going to count alot more than the handful the RAF or even NATO is buying.
The air frames are second hand, refurbed.
Even second hand airframes are hard to come by at the moment because it’s effectively impossible to get new ones….
Might change if Trump manages to screw up the worlds economy but at that point there wont be any money for stuff anyway…
They are even harder to come by for E7 conversion. E7 is based on a 737-700BBJ (Boeing Business Jet), not the standard 737-700 found in regular airlines.
Exactly for the price of two 737 airframes and refit cost to fit the radar and electronics we’ve already purchased we should be able to rapidly get back to at least 5 Wedgetails then have a joint funding scheme with some of our European NATO allies to fund and man more under RAF control.
Needs to be done NOW whist the skills set is together in the UK. Couple of airframes should be able to be sourced either new or used and those pounds will be spent in the UK so the UK gains max benefit from it whilst the RAF gets the airframes it really needs to at least do some of its role of defending the UK. The money saved will now still cost us double what the last lot saved in the end regardless.
Not impressed by the SDR really.
Navy is pretty good in terms of numbers, getting back to 12 SSNs (like when the Swiftsures and Trafalgars were about)
Again getting back to a half decent number of escorts- essentially undoing the cuts to surface fleet.
No comment on the need for amphibious capability if we’re going to be involved in a war in the far east (so I guess CSG 25 is just posing).
Doesnt look like the Army is getting anything more than a lack of cuts. (Where’s the new artillery, new drones perhaps a draw back from large armoured units to smaller more agile things- it really worries me that we’re going from snall agile scorpion etc to bigger slower Ajax with what’s happening in Ukriane. Also what about decent antidrone/shorad
Similarly the RAF isn’t getting much either no anti balistic missiles capability/patriot/aster etc. All of which is a massive hole in uk capability and has been shown to be critical in Ukraine. More aircraft is fine but a half hearted commitment to more E7s is ridiculous at the moment one loss knocks out our capability completely.
Similarly no comments on network centric warfare or CEC, given we already have had problems when operating with the US with IFF ans friendly fire we really need to be matching their systems. Not to mention the obvious benefits for the UK forces moving up-to-date.
Blatantly obvious that you haven’t read the SDR.
I do not think we will be involved in a war in the “far east”.
I wouldn’t be too sure with that statement. Firstly we do have defence commitments with Australia and New Zealand, along with British overseas territories in the Pacific. There has also been rumours of a formal defence pact with Japan, which have fallen out of the GCAP agreement. Which if the rumours are true, would place us in precarious position, as Japan is faced with Russia to the North with China and North Korea to its West. If China did invade Taiwan, then it will need to silence or keep Japan in its box. You can guarantee that China will call in Russia’s debt over its back door logistical support. But also call on North Korea to cause trouble, by tying up US Forces in Korea. If this was the case we would then be obliged to support Japan.
The only BOT in the Pacific is the Pitcairn Islands, 12,000 km from the SCS.
I think the only defence “Treaty” with Japan is Japan-UK Reciprocal Access Agreement. This agreement sets out mechanisms between Japan and the UK for one visiting the other, and defines official classification of the visiting force. The UK is the second country, after Australia, to sign the RAA with Japan. Signed by Rishi Sunak in 23’.
The UK-Australia Defence and Security Cooperation Agreement (DSCA) is not a formal alliance it does not contain an “act to meet the common danger” clause, like the ANZUS treaty does.
Australia has a policy of no foreign bases on Australian soil. which is why the AUKUS Submarine Rotational Force—West in WA is what it is and the The United States Marine Rotational Force in NT, Darwin is what it is … rotational, not permanent.
Does Japan have defence treaties with Taiwan? No, they don’t even recognise Taiwan as a sovereign nation like most nations.
To be brutally honest, I don’t think Japan worries about Taiwan’s inevitable fate, they are more concerned with China’s Nine-Dash Line and China’s hegemony over the SCS. I would expect that China would leave all Japanese islands that are close to taiwan, and some are very close like the Ryukyu Islands, well alone.
All said, the UK and Australia are bound inextricably by affinity and kinship, who knows what that will lead to in the future.
Can I just say to you DaveyB … I like reading your posts, I like your insights, thoughts and opinions. You always add positive, knowledgeable comments.
Hi Magenta, you’re more than welcome. Thanks for fleshing out the agreements for me and where we stand with Oz and NZ. Though I thought we also had agreements with Samoa, Tonga and Fiji? I wasn’t too sure hence why it is only top level. Though now that GCAP has set up the joint project office. There has been mutterings about closer ties with Japan, with a mentioning of a defence pact. What that would entail is open to speculation. But it is probably along the lines that the UK would provide aid in Japan’s hour of need. Whether this includes boots on the ground, again not for me to say.
China has increasing been deliberately causing Japan problems, in regards to its Miyako islands south west of Okinawa in the East China Sea. These islands are east of Taiwan and have a strategic interest. As they form a blocker for maritime traffic sailing east past Taiwan. China has also said they have claims over the Senkaku islands which are just north of Taiwan, which are currently Japanese. Japan now has a number of its ships presently patrol this island chain. As China parked one of its carrier fleets in international waters off its coast and conducted some exercises.
I think these islands are a problem for China if it wants to control Taiwan or form a blockade around it for an amphibious invasion. Like I said they are strategically important. With Okinawa a few hundred miles to the northeast and with a large US presence. It could prove to be a major thorn in China’s ambitions!
The army is getting a lot of you read the whole package.. 76000+ and 1st division being developed so it’s actually a deployable division with headquarters, 3 brigades and CS CSS.. that’s a massive change from it essentially being a parking place for the air assault brigade and 2 holding brigades for light role infantry battalions… with drones at all levels.
RAf is looking to be a huge winner.. with GBAD, more strategic transport, more F35b the addition of F35A more AEW platforms and more drones
The navy with upgrades to the carrier airwing, more F35B, more SSNs and a ton of drone based ships.
Finally also the elements that actually win a peer war and not just a campaign or battle
1) huge upgrades and rethink about civil defence and critical national infrastructure
2) massive upgrade to industrial capability
3) development of a culture of defence across the county and more people linked to the armed forces.
4) far greater offensive and defensive political warfare capability
Not impressed by the SDR really.
Navy is pretty good in terms of numbers, getting back to 12 SSNs (like when the Swiftsures and Trafalgars were about)
Again getting back to a half decent number of escorts- essentially undoing the cuts to surface fleet.
No comment on the need for amphibious capability if we’re going to be involved in a war in the far east (so I guess CSG 25 is just posing).
Doesnt look like the Army is getting anything more than a lack of cuts. (Where’s the new artillery, new drones perhaps a draw back from large armoured units to smaller more agile things- it really worries me that we’re going from snall agile scorpion etc to bigger slower Ajax with what’s happening in Ukriane. Also what about decent antidrone/shorad
Similarly the RAF isn’t getting much either no anti balistic missiles capability/patriot/aster etc. No EW aircraft ir SEAD All of which is a massive hole in uk capability and has been shown to be critical in Ukraine. More aircraft is fine but a half hearted commitment to more E7s is ridiculous at the moment one loss knocks out our capability completely. Given boeings enormous production backlog on 737s having given up the build slot that we had for the extra 2 it’s going to be years before we can get them built.
Similarly no comments on network centric warfare or CEC, given we already have had problems when operating with the US with IFF ans friendly fire we really need to be matching their systems. Not to mention the obvious benefits for the UK forces moving up-to-date.
Did you deliberately submit your comment twice?
We get it, you’re not impressed with SDSR.
I sit on the much happier side. A maritime and air focussed military force. We don’t need a large army. The Europeans with 500 million people and a GDP X5 of Russia’s should be able to easily overmatch Russia. Our unique capabilities are needed in ASW, securing the North Atlantic and guarding the GIUK gap.
In essence we’ve got European NATOs North Western flank.
Nope just a combination of the website not obviously accepting the submission and a bit of editing.
I just feel that there are big holes in our defence that are only going to get bigger in the next 20-30 years and have not been addressed.
Given that Trump could pull the US out of NATO or simply the US may be using all it’s launchers in the pacific can we really not have any antibalistic missile defence? Similarly GRAD has been incredibly effective in Ukraine yet we have no EW or SEAD or indeed much SAM capability of our own.
Even at sea in the north atlantic are we really going to not join the US assets in networking all the aircraft (MPA,Helicopters) ships (escorts and carriers) together it would make a huge difference especially in the era of super/hypersonic seaskimming missiles….
Basically my issue is that after Brexit we’ve burnt (or at least severely singed) our bridges with alot of our European allies.
Similarly every plan we have is that the US will turn up and help us out, that might have been true during the cold war but the US is definitely moving in an isolationist direction again and remember that the US didn’t turn up in 1939 or 1914 similarly.
The other thing I forgot to mention was the lack of any mention of a fleet solid stores ship, building a carrier, escorts and then not being able to carry its stores and therefore being entirely dependent on other countries as to where and when it may operate is crazy in my opinion….
‘Similarly no comments on network centric warfare or CEC, given we already have had problems when operating with the US with IFF ans friendly fire we really need to be matching their systems. Not to mention the obvious benefits for the UK forces moving up-to-date.’
There is literally a whole section devoted to this topic. There is also a 2027 deadline for it to be implemented.
Please go read the document properly before making conclusions.
Replied again
The army is getting a lot of you read the whole package.. 76000+ and 1st division being developed so it’s actually a deployable division with headquarters, 3 brigades and CS CSS.. that’s a massive change from it essentially being a parking place for the air assault brigade and 2 holding brigades for light role infantry battalions… with drones at all levels.
RAf is looking to be a huge winner.. with GBAD, more strategic transport, more F35b the addition of F35A more AEW platforms and more drones
The navy with upgrades to the carrier airwing, more F35B, more SSNs and a ton of drone based ships.
Finally also the elements that actually win a peer war and not just a campaign or battle
1) huge upgrades and rethink about civil defence and critical national infrastructure
2) massive upgrade to industrial capability
3) development of a culture of defence across the county and more people linked to the armed forces.
4) far greater offensive and defensive political warfare capability
It was clear about wanting to move PJHQ to a location that was better protected against physical attack – but no mention of other centres of gravity
Where did it imply that? Northwood inner sanctum is one of the highest security spots in defence. And it has underground areas available, and protected comms.
“Given that PJHQ plays a vital role in UK military operations, it must be resilient to physical attack (including air
and missile strikes) and cyber-attack. The changing intent and capabilities
of the UK’s adversaries mean that its current location poses unnecessary risks
to the assured command of future UK military operations, including in defence of the UK itself”
sorry – page 125
Thanks.
I’d interpret that as because PJHQ moved into a surface building at Northwood, they might send it down “in the hole” again?
To save money and because a lot of the underground areas were not up to standard, they moved a number of years ago.
However, the UG remains, and somecthings like CTF345 are still in there, for obvious reasons.
Any casual look on GE can see the area within Northwood I refer to.
They’d better start spending money on returning abandoned UG estate to use. DCMC for example was not abandoned in this way.
I don’t want to be political but Labour left us with a £150 billion deficit in 2010. What followed became inevitable. Cuts and more cuts with that disaster of a review in 2010. This Labour government is yet to explain how the already over stretched defence budget will pay for any of it. Personally I think they are weeing into the wind. Hoping the economy won’t contract, relying on Trump is very dicey. So this announcement feels like so much spin. Not unlike the previous Labour government.
That will become clearer in the Autumn comprehensive spending review.
The SDSR was about direction and structure and it provides that.
The glaring hole is GBAD as it’s not been mentioned.
I would however expect a ton of people on benefits to get very upset in the Autumn as cuts to social security, welfare and benefits are coming and massively overdue.
It was there is a billion pounds to integrated air defences for the home.
Ukraine’s just hit Severomorsk. It’s Russia’s largest base for their nuclear submarines.
Details aren’t clear but explosions are seen within the base perimeter.
Hopefully the explosions were nice and big. Media comparisons to “a real-life Warhammer 40,000 battle” would be nice.
Puncturing more nuclear weapon empty threats from the terrorist state and its deluded dictator…
Chairman xi has not authorised nuclear weapons so kaputin only has empty threats.
Global mercantile dominance is the CCP strategy, and no one dictator is allowed to threaten that.
Unlimited friendship means RF buy all the conventional weapons they want and pay with oil and gas that CCP knows RF can’t sell elsewhere. Until secondary Sanctions bite.
Slava Ukrainia 🇺🇦
Slava Heroyam 🇺🇦
#vpdfo #FDJT #FDJV
PM Keir Starmer certainly has laid down quite a few markers lately.
will never happen
Slightly OT, the EU clears venture for fighter jet co-operation between UK, Italy and Japan. The European Commission has approved a deal between Britain’s BAE Systems, Italy’s Leonardo and the Japan Aircraft Industrial Enhancement Co to govern the production of a next-generation fighter jet.
The joint venture, which Brussels cleared on Monday, comes as key US allies such as Italy, the UK and Japan rethink their historical reliance on US defence equipment in light of Donald Trump’s presidency and his pullback from long-standing US security guarantees for Europe.
The project will seek to create an alternative to the US’s next-generation fighter jet programme. The existing F-35 fighter and its predecessors are a mainstay for Nato air forces, but this has prompted concern in some capitals about their over-reliance on Washington.
Brussels concluded that the deal did not raise competition concerns in the bloc. So what does this mean for FCAS ???
“When funds allow” “possibly with NATO” the whole SDR is nothing more than an unfunded wish list with a built in get out clause.
One of those hated phrases again. “When funding allows”!! If they are ‘vital’ as the report says, why not just buy the bloody things. It’s not a funding decision. It’s a political choice.
To expand the E-7 fleet should not be to difficult. If I remember correctly we should have two radar/electronic suites kicking around somewhere as we bought five and used three.
I did note that there is little about UK-GBAD.
As for everything else that has been written or said I will belive it when I see the contracts signed.
It does attach £1 billion in funding for IAMD, and highlights that, as many people seem to have forgotten, the principle air defence system of the UK are manned fighters operated by the RAF.
That said, £1 billion would get you exactly two SAMP/T systems. So I wouldn’t hold out for a large GBAD purchase.
This was very much in the if funds allow category of the report aka not happening.
The changes to improving the supply chain are decent and will actually make a big improvement to war fighting capability but the current funding doesn’t appear to allow for much in the way of up lift in capability.
“When funding is available”…..The SDR ‘Can’..kicking..long grass. 🥾🥫
Nope because NATO are just about to go to 3.5% +1.5% and starmer has purposely committed to nato…come the 26th of June he can announce that he had to go to 3% by 2030 because of the new NATO requirements and then hit with the pain of what is cut or what tax is increased.. because 3% means one or other and he’s not so stupid as to get hammers by everyone..because defence does not win votes at present.
The SDR was planned by HM Treasury at 2.75% GDP by 2030, in order to align with a budget, and in no way to the deferred maintenance or emerging threats.
.
We bailed out the bankers in 2008, now it’s their turn to invest in UK Defence since their business depends on peace and stability. As their risk is greatly reduced the cost should be low. It’s Investment not working costs, traditionally punished for Labour governments.
UK Defence Bonds now!
Should have bought more airframes when they were cheap, ie during covid.
At least uk bought the 5 sets of kit
Another no-brainer decision, which makes you wonder about those who cut airframe numbers after the radars had already been bought…
I interpret this as us just chipping in with some funding towards E-7s with NATO-OTAN on the fuselage. What we do with the 2 spare RADARs remains to be seen.
There is 1billion for increase the integrated air defences of the UK.. this is an easy win on that..
I hope they’re going to.be very creative in protecting these from cruise missiles, loitering munitions, FPVs etc.
Completely missed from all this is the sense of pride having a capable well funded proud military brings to the majority in the UK, by cut cut cut they undermined this feeling, so i say good for Starmer / labour for actually bringing this back.