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.

George Allison
George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison
X

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

48 COMMENTS

  1. “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.

    • 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 😂

    • Well it was proven under the Aussies direction, though I’m not quite sure how Boeing can fuck up with conversion of older aircraft. Unless those airframes were not in the condition they thought, making the savings on a preowned airframe now racking up huge rebuild costs.

      I am concerned that we’ll be an outlier in using this plane, despite the plan for much of NATO and the USAF to share the same platform. Makes me ask if we double down and build the total of 5 aircraft or we go back to Industry and ask for Saab’s Global Eye to pick up the Capability.

  2. 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.

    • I’m not sure the E3 fleet extension would have done much. Look how bad things are for the USAF at the moment with E3.

      • Exactly right. Guessing the RCAF will opt for Globaleye over the E7 given local content and the current US-Canada non-relationship.

      • I reckon if we’d have done a Reengining program like the French, we could have mitigated the risk of capability being lost. And as we replaced one with the other, NATO could take up the offer of newly reengined E-3s to bolster their own troubled jets.

  3. 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.

      • If you get 15 years out of E7 you’re doing well, it’s always been an interim capability. Sattelites and drones will do the job one day it’s just a question of when.

        • Im not so sure Jim, space based systems have their limitations and unless you building a bloody big drone, you just cant beat a big, powerful airborne radar for certain mission sets.

      • Turkey only has 4, as does S.Korea, Australia has 6. There is an international users group (that now includes UK), that work together on upgrades & upgrade direction. So long as UK stays on the group track, it won’t be bespoke. Upgrades don’t have to be done in UK if it’s a problem, Turkey & Australia can do the work.

        • The trouble is, Australia, South Korea and Turkey will be looking to apply upgrades to a broadly UK spec, as ours are new.

          So the UK has effectively proved and paid for the updating required by the user group I would guess…

          We are totally out of sync , regarding synergy with the user group reupdating.

          It would be 10/15 years before the group needs updates again, thats probably when we retire the three E7’s due to encroaching obsolescence 🤣🤣

    • Not to mention Boeing has had some rather major well publicised issues (737-Max, 787, etc) since 2015. It’s no surprise everything from Boeing is delayed.

  4. 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.

      • The problem they have is that the RAF needed the E7 and the initial schedule had to be ‘optimistic’ around 2 years to ‘ in service’ to justfy taking a Capability Gap. There was no more money so scrapping the E3 was necessary to save some significant support costs. It all comes down to the veiw at the time that Defence was not a priority. Hence to ‘optimistic’ programme and reduced numbers of aircraft (3 is better than none). The Treasury dosn’t match Capability against the threat, it just thinks Military spend is not important against voters demands for massive spending on social programmes. Nobody spells out the reality of cutting Defence and politicians don’t want to understand the problem. Then reality hits home and suddenly there is a mad panic to buy stuff not realising that unless you buy off the shelf Defence procurement takes years. As a Nation we kid ourselves we are a 1st Tier Nation in Defence but when it comes to actual war fighting over a protracted period we are probably not even a 2nd Tier Nation when Mass, re supply and manpower losses are taken into account.

    • It’s not like they didn’t suffer a similar scenario that should have raised red flags, ie when the revised Typhoon radar was finally given the go ahead, it had been sitting on shelves so long many of the components were obsolete or no longer made, so a complete re design and parts upgrade was required with all the re qualification that required and surprise, surprise has been a big part of the long gestation period to get it finally into production.

    • Any idea about the other two? Timescale? I presume the “extra pair” mentioned in the SDR are gone as it says that we could work with NATO allies. I can’t see anyone else joining us in one of our regular disasters.

      • Putting an aircraft at Lossie is good to work up crews and maintenance but will it be declared Operationally Capable IOC? or FOC? My guess is IOC with updates later to FOC standard after upgrades proven on ac 2&3 become available.

        • I’d go with that. Bring on the crews for the three perhaps and shake down the aircraft. I just hope the two (?) other airframes are not far behind so FOC can be achieved in asensible timeframe.

  6. Every thing we order runs over, is delayed and ends up costing more because try save money by cutting corners and it always adds to price. Its a never ending cycle with the MOD save money short tem to spend vastly more long term and long delays in to service. And as with Wagtail a cut in numbers to a bare minimum that is likely too few to do the job.
    Now the USA is not going for Wagtail cost have likely gone up and back up and support will cost more, may buy from SAAB next time they seem to deliver on time while our 3 AWACs are still being modified with no firm in service date yet.
    During which time frame SAAB as took orders, built the aircraft and they now in service while ours is in bits in hanger.

    • The USAF Wedgetail programme has been funded to complete two protypes so it is not dead and is supported by a large number of very senior USAF former officers which forced the programme back to life in the latest DOD Budget.

  7. While the SAAB system is a good system, it doesn’t have the power & processing ability of the E7. There are 10 workstations on an E7 & room for more down the back if required. The E7 is designed for long duration missions over large areas. UAE operates 5 SAAB systems in what is a rather constrained area, yet still asked Australia to send an E7. While everyone can argue about radars & other sensors, one thing E7 can do better than anyone else is Control.

    • What he said.

      It’s not just an airborne radar/sensor, it’s an airborne battle control centre. A skilled E7 crew is a true force multiplier which is why, as useful as a SAAB Global Eye or E2 is, they don’t have the crew numbers or the processing power of the E7 to control the battle space in the same way an E7 can.

      • DJ had it correct the E7 is a true Comand and Control aircraft and a full replacement of the very successful E3 which still forms the basis of much USAF policy and is still used in numbers in the latest Iran conflict. The SAAB and E2 are effectively AEW aircraft feeding information back to a command structure on the carrier or on the ground.

      • Yep that, very different capabilities.. but we could probably do with some global eyes now we only have the 3 wedgetails..

    • A good system is better than what we have which is ot nothing with nk fixed in service date, an SAAB AWACs would of been handy over Cyprus. And buy just 3 not yet working E7 is a sign about lack of money rather than a simple change of mind.

  8. This is a pretty one-sided view from Rupert Pearce and I think he needs to recognise that it is not just Boeing, or any other Defence supplier, but the MOD as well who need to take a good, hard look at themselves.

    The National Audit Office own review makes clear that the MoD routinely fails to structure and manage contracts in a way that recognises the technical complexity and long‑lead nature of defence programmes. Short‑term financial planning, late requirement changes and an over‑reliance on single‑source or high‑risk contracting push schedule and scope risk onto suppliers rather than sharing it. Combined with weak in‑house programme management capability and frequent use of costly contractors to fill capability gaps, this produces protracted negotiations, repeated rework and drawn‑out approvals that drive cost increases and delays well beyond original forecasts.

    For suppliers these failings translate into real commercial pain: volatile “feast‑and‑famine” demand prevents investment in workforce and tooling, forces subcontractor churn, and raises the cost of risk (higher bid premiums, retained contingency and liquidity pressures). Where contracts are ambiguous or the MoD changes requirements in flight (or simply does not know how to write a usable requirement), suppliers absorb unexpected work and warranty exposure, resulting in lost margin, capacity shortfalls and, ultimately, erosion of sector capability as firms decline to invest in a market that routinely delivers late payments, scope creep and programme instability.

    • Above is probably the best comment ever made on this forum. If anyone wants to understand why UK procurement is so dire, above nails it.

      I agree Pearce has (shamefully tbh) tried to throw Boeing under the bus for a chronically mismanaged capability from the very first moment this was mooted as an idea to replace the near catastrophically badly managed E-3 fleet.

      Fundamentally the MoD is a nightmare customer but is able to persist as one since “there is no other customer” in this market. That it can “get away”* with being so complacent and arrogant in its incompetence is why it never changes.

      *It doesnt really get away with it as every programme ends up with a fraction of the desired output or cancelled, and the conseqeuences are thus felt in lack/loss of capability. But nobody is ever held to account and it can’t “go bust” and so it blunders on.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here