France has placed an order for two Saab GlobalEye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft, in a deal worth approximately SEK 12.3 billion.
The contract, signed with the French procurement agency DGA, includes ground equipment, training and support, with deliveries scheduled between 2029 and 2032. An option for two additional aircraft is also included.
The agreement brings France into the small but growing group of European operators selecting GlobalEye to replace or augment legacy surveillance and early warning fleets. The UK, which is retiring the E-3 Sentry and planning the introduction of the E-7 Wedgetail, has monitored the GlobalEye programme but has not selected it.
Saab explained the decision as a strategic choice that aligns French capability with a broader European base.
“Today’s order underscores the robust partnership between Saab and France. By selecting GlobalEye, France is investing in a highly modern and capable Airborne Early Warning & Control solution. This choice reinforces France’s commitment to sovereignty and strengthens Europe’s overall protection, with both Sweden and France operating GlobalEye,” said Micael Johansson, Saab’s President and CEO.
GlobalEye combines active and passive sensors mounted on a Bombardier Global 6000/6500 platform, designed to detect and classify aerial, surface and ground targets at extended ranges. The system feeds real-time situational awareness to joint forces, supporting air defence, maritime security and land operations.
Saab describes GlobalEye as a multi-domain system intended to support NATO and EU-aligned mission profiles, although France’s procurement is understood to be focused on national and European sovereignty rather than Alliance standardisation.
Good purchase, it will prepare future early warning readiness, even if it will not be the only asset in the sky to pick up intelligence. This will reinforce the European industrial base. Many other airforce are considering this plateform, made by Bombardier and Saab. I whish we also purchase a few CV90 from Sweeden to complete our heavy segment.
I suppose it would be too simple for us to join the project?
Giving up on the E7s?
I would say there for the UK a very very good case to have both..
Assuming it does turn up. Six years so far, costs going up and three delays to date. SDR says maybe additional aircraft but…..
From what I gather the e7 is the far better system though more expensive. From a NATO perspective have both systems is a win
I do think this could answer a couple of questions for the UK around AEW&C.
Because of UK interests, being an island with a number of key defence hubs scattered on islands and a global navy we have a lot of need for AEW&C..both on long range strategic platforms and short range platforms to defend our own airspace..
When you add in:
1) a future where potentially we have very few friends in the south Atlantic but are one of the big south Atlantic and Antarctic players we may need AEW&C in the Falklands
2) added to that our Med airbases could do we AEW&C
3) if we want to US our carriers offensively in the high north as sea control platforms or in the Atlantic or western Indian Ocean.. we have the airbases to allow our carriers to essentially have strategic platform AEW&C covering them..
4) AEW&C for the home islands.
So if I was making an AEW&C wish list I would have
1) 3 wedgetails essentially providing a long range strategic AEW&C capability for the carriers.. there is no reason with tanker coverage why three wedgetails, due to the pure number and geographic spreed of our airbases not be able to provide top cover to a CBG in the high north, med, Indian Ocean, north and south Atlantic ( essentially anywhere we really want our carriers we can put a wedge-tail over it)… you can also use these to ensure air and sea control of the high north and Atlantic independent of any CBG if it’s in port.. essentially the wedgetails use their range and endurance as martime air control nodes.
2) Us a more numerous smaller platform such as global eye for air defence of the EEZ, with say 6 aircraft, you can shift these around depending on the threat to UK EEZs…. If the Falklands was ever at risk shift a couple etc.
9 AEW&C aircraft, 3 long range strategic, 6 local seems a reasonable shake….
I’d argue something like MQ-9B AEW is a better solution for a high-low mix than GlobalEye, especially given the constraints we have. For a start, we already operate MQ-9B in the form of Protector, so the maintenance and training pipeline already exists. Secondly, it’s a significantly cheaper platform so we can buy more and get more coverage. Thirdly, it has a greater stationkeeping ability – 40hrs for a clean MQ-9B vs – so in places where assets are limited (e.g. BFSAI) we can still maintain 24/7 coverage when required. Finally, it’s capable of being operated from the QE class in the Mojave variant which improves on Crowsnest.
The issue with any drone based system is:
1) power
2) aperture
This limits the effective detection range of the platform.. by a massive amount.. if you had a wedgetail providing the AEW&C for the carrier it can be 200km from the carrier and still do the job, this makes it far far harder to detect and get a kill chain on the carrier.. a MQ-9B based system would essentially have to be parked over the carrier like a great big find me here sign.
For Uk coverage for instance you would need about 8 MQ-9Bs in the air at all time.. 2 wedgetails or global eyes would cover the whole UK..
Finally you have the C part of the equation, the large AEW&C platforms have your tactical crew on board so the can do the control.. essentially they can have to control element having direct line of sight communications with whatever is carrying the effectors ( aircraft or ships).. a drone has no control element it will need to send its information where ever the control staff are.. then they need to send the information to the platform with the effector..
So drones are good for filling gaps or as a capability where you have a very limited area to cover….but less good for say supporting sea and air control around a carrier or covering a whole country.
Great summation 👌🏾
We can’t refuel E7
Yep we need to be able to..that’s one of the stupids that need sorting.
Some thing we should of got, but no we got 5 oh sorry 3 E7s that are still not in service, As always the MOD make the best choices on kit year after year. Saving a few pence in short term to spend loads in the long term. It never gets better, same old F ups time after time.
Boeing jacked the the price up to milk their defence contracts when the Max 8 was grounded. We stuck to our original budget and thus could only get 3 at the increased price.
Why did we not just buy some thing else, 3 is joke be likely to only have 2 in service at one time what use is two, better than none but a joke thats not funny
The bookmakers must have now upped the chances of France’s FDI winning Sweden’s frigate competition after this deal.
That sounds a good bet . Will keep an eye out for that one . I guess its a bit unusual for Frnce to purchase Aircraft outside of France and Airbus
There’s not an airbus/French combination AWAC’s available is there? Not to mention they have history for AWAC’s with both the E2 and E3’s in service with the French Navy and Air Force.
Not really, plans to replace Bombardier by a Dassault jet was considered and ruled out, for there was no sense to say we want to work with Canada and do this to Bombardier. Besides, we have good relationship with Sweeden and we want to expand this collaboration. And their are other cooperation in sight. I have great hope we can do more work together, like the great stuff we do with UK on missile and nuclear activities.
Well the equipment plan was meant to come out before Christmas and then got delayed to before new years, guessing that isn’t happening. Maybe before Easter now.
Be interesting to know what if any changes they have in mind, after all this delaying.
Word has it that the Treasury are refusing to sign off on anything until Ajax is sorted. Can’t blame them.
There has been a lot of fake reporting in the media claiming all sorts of things about the treasury that then turns out to be incorrect. Feels like they don’t like having a female in charge, on top of their usual bias against labour
However, if they are right this time, it’s worrying as it means they still don’t know what is going on with Ajax. Having to cough up another 5b or so to replace it could have serious consequences across the services.
Although saying that looking at the direct quotes in the bfbs article by the minister, it reads like they are looking to cut capability and blame the last government, so maybe delayed is a positive as it delays the cuts.