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.