Boeing was described as a troubled partner by the Ministry of Defence during evidence on delays to the UK Wedgetail airborne early warning programme due to a mix of technical assumptions and industrial factors behind disruption.
The comment came during a Defence Committee session as Derek Twigg MP pressed for examples of underperforming major projects. National Armaments Director Rupert Pearce cited Wedgetail, explaining that the programme had been expected to rely on an in-service platform, stating “we thought we were going to get an aircraft that was largely proven out of Australia.” However, timing differences between the Australian and UK variants meant this assumption did not hold in practice, leading to “a much higher level of obsolescence and new certification of new components,” which has contributed to delays.
Alongside those technical issues, Pearce said “we’ve also found that Boeing has been a troubled partner,” while adding that the company is “working very hard” and “trying very hard” to resolve problems. He linked the disruption to “well publicised” difficulties within Boeing’s wider aircraft programmes.
Those issues have fed into delivery timelines through tighter oversight and regulatory processes. Pearce said this has led to “a much higher level of scrutiny of the certification process inside Boeing… and that’s led to delays,” describing the impact as procedural and schedule-driven rather than a breakdown in the programme itself.
The Wedgetail example was raised within a broader assessment of the defence major projects portfolio, which Pearce described as “pretty troubled,” with a growing share of programmes experiencing delays. He indicated that schedule slippage, often linked to technical complexity and industrial factors, remains the dominant issue across the portfolio.
In the case of Wedgetail, the evidence suggests delays stem from both the limits of relying on a “proven” platform and challenges within Boeing, with the programme continuing but on an extended timeline.
“we thought we were going to get an aircraft that was largely proven”
That sentence sums it up right there, you issued a multi billion pound contract to a company with a known track record of failure, without a fixed price and you don’t know what would have to be certified.
Yes, atleast recently with the new air force one conversions and Boeing KC-46 Pegasus.
Unfortunately the Wedgetail was based on a Boeing, so stuck with Boeing 🫣
As it is, commercial operators are facing even longer delays due to the need for Boeing to start putting safety ahead of profit and readjust its processes accordingly.
We’re lucky Wedgetail isn’t based on the 777X 😂
Right, so the MOD takes no responsibility?
Keeping E-3D Sentry fleet going would have mitigated this.
Replacing equipment on a “one for one” basis would also help.
There was a 10 year gap between the last delivered E7 (Turkey in 2015) & the start of the UK endeavour. The first Australian delivery was in 2009. & last in 2012. Basically there are few people with any conversion experience available, not even at Boeing (the last 3 Turkish E7’s were converted in Turkey, not US). It’s why the USAF prototype planes will be converted in UK.
That’s one reason, the other is we have two radar arrays sitting under tarps in Del Boys Lock up, the government is keen to get rid of.
I suspect our three E7’s will also be withdrawn and scrapped in 10/15 years, as it will cost too much to upgrade a bespoke fleet of three.
I don’t undestand why the MOD was so far behind the reality of what they were buying. I and probably many others pointed out the problems of taking a 10 year old complex design and bringing it up to date especially using sub-contractors not familiar with anything so complex and a certification authority which would want to understand every aspect of the design, each proposed change or update, and their potential impact on airworthiness. This was coumpounded by the decision to take the E3s out of service almost immediately which then placed enormous strain on an under estimated E7 project. Anyone who has run complex programme knows that you have to be realistic on timings even if its not what the buyer want to hear. Putting undue pressure on inexperienced sub contractors will ultimately adversely impact the programme. Fundementally, there is nothing wrong with the E7 solution which when delivered will be a highly capable system especially if a sensible number (6) are procured. The MOD/RAF have to hope that the US Airforce E7 programme survives beyond the 2 authorised ‘prototypes’ currently being built and the USAF will reap the benefir of the work undertaked on the RAF E7 to bring the radar and its mission system up to date.