The UK will rely on the multinational ‘NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force’ to fill the gap between E-3D Sentry retiring this year and E-7 Wedgetail coming online in 2023.
Further confirmation of this came today thanks to a written Parliamentary question.
Mark Francois, Member of Parliament for Rayleigh and Wickford, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate he has made of the date on which the (a) last E-3D sentry aircraft will be retired from operational service and (b) first E-7 Wedgetail will achieve initial operating capacity in Royal Air Force service.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded today:
“We will retire the E-3D Sentry from operational service later in 2021, as part of the transition to the more modern and more capable fleet of three E-7 Wedgetail aircraft, which are expected to enter service in December 2023. The United Kingdom remains part of the NATO AEW&C Force Headquarters.”
Wedgetail (pictured above) is an airborne early warning and control system, commonly known as AWACs or AEW&C. They are designed to track multiple targets at sea or in the air over a considerable area for long periods of time.
This aircraft is replacing the E-3D Sentry, pictured below.
The UK recently cut its order for five E-7 aircraft to three. The Defence Command Paper released earlier in the year, titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age‘, states:
“We will retire the E 3D Sentry in 2021, as part of the transition to the more modern and more capable fleet of three E 7A Wedgetail in 2023. The E 7A will transform our UK Airborne Early Warning and Control capability and the UK’s contribution to NATO. The nine P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft will help to secure our seas. The introduction into service of the 16 long range Protector remotely piloted systems will be the backbone of persistent, multi spectral surveillance, with the ability to strike and act decisively against our potential adversaries around the globe.”
You can read more about that here. You can also ead more about the status of the first E-7 for the Royal Air Force by clicking here or clicking the link below.
What is the NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force?
Under NATO Allied Air Command’s operational control, the Airborne Early Warning and Control Force operates a fleet of Boeing E-3A ‘Sentry’ Airborne Warning & Control System aircraft, better known as AWACS. These aircraft provide members with an immediately available air and maritime surveillance as well as airborne command and control and air battle management capability.
NATO say on their website that the Airborne Early Warning and Control Force is “the Alliance’s largest collaborative venture”.
“A venture that exemplifies NATO’s ability to facilitate multinational cooperation and to exploit the benefits of that the pooling of resources can bring.”
We need more than THREE!!!!!
Nah, BJ has been informed by a yes man at the MOD that if push comes to shove they can use a A400 you know like they did when they wanted a spy in the sky over the channel last year in which to watch out for the latest batch of school children crossing from France:
We need eight and cannot wait!
Britain has given up the desire to be able to defend itself.
Urgh, just keeps getting better! Another capability gap to be followed by just 3 aircraft which won’t be able to sustain more than 1 tasking at a time.
Hate to be one of the crews. They’ll be expected to do more than 8 hours on Station.
How is that different to how Nimrod was used or E7 & P8 will be used?
I mean commercial crews do 8 hrs +?
The Aussies have used their E7s operating over Iraq for up to 16 hours and more. The aircraft was in such demand and proved to better than expected, especially when compared to the E3s and even the E2s (Ds included).
However, unlike the Aussie A330s, ours don’t have the flying boom. So in some respects it’s a saving grace. I’m not sure if other NATO assets will be used to refuel either the E7s or the P8s.
What I was trying to get at, perhaps not so eloquently, is that with only 3 aircraft they and the crews are going to be constantly in use with little respite. I’m pretty certain that the cut to 3 aircraft was not a RAF decision.
Interesting points.
I’m never very sure why our tankers are not configured for both AAR options.
If you wanted to cut costs just to have native kit that would be the way forward.
Please provide us with the info that says the E-7s were more effective than the E-2Ds. Btw, not sure what an E-2Ds were doing that far away from a CVN group to start with.
No, sorry, I cannot give you specifics because that is classified information.
However, what I can tell you, which came from a crewman on one of the Aussie E7s that was patrolling along the Jordan to Iraq corridor, is that that they were detecting a lot of non-Syrian aircraft and tracking them whilst they were on patrol a lot further than is published. They also said that the E7 could identify the type of aircraft from its profile signature, something the E3 cannot do.
Not sure where you’re going with reference to the Hawkeyes. When the French carrier is in for maintenance their E2Cs (soon to be E2Ds) are used to supplement their E3Cs. Japan also has E2C/Ds that are not used on a carrier. Even though the E2Cs radar is not as powerful as the Sentry’s, it has a comparable range, as its using a lower frequency, i.e. UHF as opposed to the Sentry’s S band.
Correct mate, but once in service and cutting (flying) about lets hope the effectivness is recognised and a few more are ordered. 3 is low no matter how you spin it, certainly as they expect (want) the new Poseidons to take up some of the slack (which they will struggle to do as those numbers are tight also). Cheers buddy.
Hopefully they will at least have enough crews to get the most out of the planes we have. I believe a commercial jet is expected to spend 20 hours out of every 24 in the air , I suspect the raf will be more like a few hours per day on average, isn’t one way of making the planes do more training more Crews so they can be in the air more often. I suspect this won’t be the case but one can hope
Which means they wi be working into the ground. RAF needs 8. Then again they need at least 12 P-8s preferably 24.
To be fair if it means we can buy more f35 then do it. In 15 years awacs will be replaced with drones so no point buying full squadron. I can’t see us needing more than three as any seriously peer war we will have nato snd america. We have enough for a falklands type situation and can augment with poisiden
Three. With a two year gap in capability. Three aircraft. Pathetic. One step forward, two back. And yet £250m can be found for a floating gin palace. Priorities eh?
Before we fall over ourselves condemning this move, is it really that bad? The E-3As are old and outdated. If we really need cover can we not call on the NATO E3s?
As has been said time and again, the replacement E-7s seem to be stop gap tech so ordering 3 seems ok to me, especially as we have been operating the existing E3 fleet at that level for a while.
Not the end of the world in my humble opinion.
I’d tend to agree with that.
The E-3A’s that the UK has are very out of date and because we went down the blind alley of UK modified versions they cannot be upgraded in the same as the US versions.
The US is struggling with it’s E3s too https://www.airforcemag.com/pacaf-boss-calls-for-e-7s-to-replace-aging-e-3-awacs/
And correct me if i’m wrong here but the US E3’s have been upgraded and ours have not.
True. US and NATO E-3 are much more capable. Only thing that US planes lack are the better engines. Maybe the US can buy the engines off the Brit E-3s. lol
Don’t know much about the E-7’s but if what you’re saying is right then agreed, no point going OTT on them if they’re intended as a stopgap. Especially if we can rely on allies to cover the capability in the immediate term.
Rob, I remember reading a couple of years ago that the E3 was better than nothing but obsolescent. So I agree with the decision.
Not a good idea to always be depending on others. That’s how Germany does things regarding defense.
“That’s how Germany does things regarding defense.”
Remind me again, who is doing the CH2=>CH3 upgrade for you Brits?
Which country persisted, on its own, with the Boxer program after France and the UK jumped ship? Which country has 3 different tracked IFV/AFVs (Puma, Lynx, PMMC) on offer, with none of them shaking to pieces and a fourth one being developed (by KMW)?
Germany is building a bunch of new ships, and the only ones being built by foreign shipyards are the MKS180. And even there, actual construction is done in Germany by German subcontractors.
The only area where that shoe fits is the air domain – and even there, Germany has been doing stuff on its own.
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/lout-of-the-black/
Forgot to mention the following BW equipment:
Body armor? German.
Infrared sights? German.
Pistol: German (P8)
SMG: German (MP5, MP7)
Rifles? German (G3, G36, …).
Machine guns? 95% German (with a few American M2 and rotating guns mixed in).
Autocannons (20, 27, 30mm)? German.
Tank cannons? German (there’ll be a Leo II A8 at least with a L55A2, and the way things are going with the MGCS, I’ll bet you 1 EUR we’ll also see a Leo II A9 or a Leo III).
Howitzers? German.
Patriot and MLRS are Murican, I’ll admit. And Italian naval guns.
Deep breaths ! in ! out ! in ! out ! There feel better.
Thanks, but I already felt better after posting the above. Lol.
😀
All true. But, don’t aim that at us Brits. dan is American.
Oh. Had I known that, I would have concentrated my ranting on the Bradley replacement instead … 😉
Dan is a septic tank – that is very obvious. Trumpian too.
Brits have a better awareness of the great German kit available even if the German government has just woken up to the fact that it is needed!
That is it. No one doubts German kit, well I don’t.
I think it is partially its lack of use. But people forget just how scarred the Germans are after WW2. Using military power overseas will not come as easily to them as it does for us.
dans American! Oh dear oops….
I think you mean how German manufacturing does it as far as the German armed forces go their in a 💩 state.
wasn’t so long ago a German defence ministry study concluded the following –
89 out of 138 Euro fighters out of service
half the 224 Leopard tanks servicable
only 5 of the navy’s 13 frigates seaworthy
And here it is the most amazing finding the navy UNABLE to field a single submarine! not to mention issues with the new frigates they are planning the list goes on and on……
aye the German armed forces ………🙈
newsflash amigo this is a world wide armed forces phenomenon of LL Cool J proportions
🏴🇬🇧
UN serviceable on the leopards
“not so long ago” is irrelevant. Budgets have been going up since 2014, and especially since 2019.
What’s more, things were never as bad as proclaimed by the media. Lots of the issues were a red herring if one looked closer.
Say low EF availability. the most recent headlines in that field were entirely due to peace time rules. What happened was that a part of the self defense system showed occasional malfunctions (say a 1:10.000 chance it might not work on a given flight and damage the aircraft a bit; something that would be absolutely ignored in a real war). So a new supplier was chosen, and the new parts needed to be certified for use in civilian airspace. That took a few months. During that time the aircraft officially where “not operational” in the books.
Guess what would have happened in a shooting war? The new parts would have been plugged in, civilian certification or not, and within a day they ‘d all had been fully operational again.
But it made for nice headlines, didnt it?
As for the subs
1) with a 6 sub fleet you usually have 2 on ops, 2 in training and 2 in repair/upgrade/refit.
2) Yes there was a 3 months window where none of them went out (which is nothing compared to what Canada or Australia have managed with theirs)
Here is what happened:
The admiralty basically took a gamble when deciding on the second batch of U212A. They had the money to either order 1 new U212A and lots of spares for the whole sub fleet, or 2 subs plus minimal spares. Went for 2 subs. Then a bit of bad luck happened, and 3 got damaged at basically the same time. Parts ran out – and the admiralty refused to take parts from one ship to patch up the others. Creating the headlines you remember. Result? The politicians urgently needed to pony up the cash for additional spare parts. Once that happened, spare parts were moved from one boat to the other. Within 3 months or so, 2 ships were out at sea again, within a few months more another was in the harbour, doing training while moored (and could have moved out in case of war) and the remaining 3 were getting repaired.
End result: today (since late 2019) the German navy has 6 working subs instead of just 5, with 2 more just having been ordered. So that gamble paid off, Id say.
The issues with the frigates have been rectified by the builder (and on the builder’s dime, one might add).
The investment package past last months puts up money to modernize most of the older ships (plus money for new ones).
The lack of availability of Leos is almost completely due to them being upgraded to A7 equivalent level. Note that 104 additional A7Vs are currently coming in, while the UK is cutting down its tank force.
I’m not a fan of how the timing there was done, but if Russia was threatening Lithuania in earnest, the majority of those “non operational” tanks could be gotten out of the clutches of RM and be made combat ready again rather quickly.
Mock all you want, but the German armed forces in 2021 are in a much better shape than internet rumors would like them to be.
Does anyone else get that Deja vu feeling reading that.
Kudos to your informative reply bro , and I don’t disagree with what you have pointed out.
im coming from a pre programmed disposition to defend the U.K. whenever cheeky wee scallywags try and run us down. However, that being said my point as clumsily made as it was is that issues involving equipment , state of readiness, availability are universal among every nations military not just the U.K.
I know the Germans don’t like it up em so not mocking at all just had to point out the wee teething issues German military recently had.😃👍🏻
🏴🇬🇧
No hard feelings. I just hate it when some news outlets produce complete rubbish and people swallow it hook, line and sinker.
What makes it doubly irritating to me is that there are still serious issues to be adressed (like a lack of heavy lift helis and shorad for the army, as well as a Tornado fleet that should have been replaced 10 years ago, except that the politicians didnt want to touch the topic due to its toxity …).
But when the media spends its time fake scandals, who will put the spotlight on the real problems? Bah, humbug.
Does seem very short sighted. If we rely so much on allies for too many capabilities, we undermine our own value as an ally. This perverse obsession with the bare minimum(or less) is likely to cost us dearly.
The NATO E3s are admittedly more upgraded than our E3Ds. The US and NATO did a joint upgrade program, which upgraded a number of radios, but more importantly the AN/APY-2’s back end (signal processing). France will be upgrading theirs to the same standard.
However, NATO have said that this will the last upgrade for their E3, as they will be looking at replacement system (they have mentioned the E7 a lot).
The problem with the Sentry is that the airframe dates back to the 50’s and some spares are getting really rare. They are quite a few companies in the States that remanufacture parts from scratch, but they are not cheap. The main issue though is the radar. Yes, for its age it is still a very powerful radar. But it has a lot of inherent problems. One of these is spotting slow moving or very low RCS targets against ground clutter. Yes, the radar is PESA which isn’t as flexible or agile as an AESA radar, but is still better than a pulse-doppler radar. Unfortunately, being PESA means its much easier to jam, as it has a much narrower operating frequency range. No matter how good the signal filtering processing is, if the received signal is off such poor quality there is very little that can be done. This is also true for the Searchwater 2000 used in the Crowsnest. Part of the problem is the antenna design (E2 series is the same), it cannot generate a very narrow tight beam, it’s more flattened and fan like. Therefore, when it illuminates a target the energy is spread out more, so less will be reflected back towards the antenna. The tighter and narrower the beam more energy can be contained in a smaller area. Thus making it harder for radar absorbent materials to contain it and stop it being reflected back.
The MESA radar used in the E7 is a game changer when comes to Airborne Early Warning (AEW), the reason for this is its simultaneous multibeam capability. Unlike the Sentry’s rotating radar there are no rotating dead zones, so a target of interest can be pretty much continuously illuminated. But crucial the MESA radar’s array is arranged in a large rectangular panel, one on either side (plus two smaller ones on either end of the antennas top hat). This means the transmitted beam can be made much tighter and narrower for its operating wavelength, thus throwing more energy at the target, which means there is a much greater chance that the signal will be reflected. The MESA radar also uses multiple waveform techniques pretty much simultaneously which can be tailored to the area the beam is looking. For example using a frequency modulated interrupted carrier wave for long distance searching, whilst also using a pulse doppler waveform for looking at the ground.
There clearly is a reason why the RAF are only getting 3 E7s, instead of the original 5 or was it 7? Cost wise they are cheaper to purchase and operate than a Rivet Joint. Performance wise there is no other platform currently available or being developed that is comparable. Fixed wing medium to high altitude long endurance unmanned aircraft could be the likely reason, like the MQ-4C Triton that Australia are getting. But nothing has been reported let alone rumoured. We would need a shed load of these UAVs to replace just one E7. As something like a Triton will not be able to carry a radar with comparable range to the E7’s MESA.
At present the MoD are looking at holding the risk and perhaps gapping the requirement. After all where is the threat? Other Countries within NATO are covering the border with Russia using either their ground based radar or NATO E3s. If a the s**t did hit the fan between NATO and Russia. A cruise missile carrying sub would have to get through the Baltic or around Norway before it became a threat. I can see why they are holding back on the E7, but I’m not happy with it. As we have nothing to act as force multiplier or cruise missile detection if something did kick off!
No problem..
https://images.app.goo.gl/6KSE4gDxCvcFGP997
Makes little difference to the UKADR/ ASCS.
As for Wedgetail, the 5 would have been nice.
But more Rivet Joint would be nice too, and 51 has operated 3 in that role, and Nimrod previously, for years.
Assume UAV will eventually supplement, both for the RAF and the deployed carrier groups.
Capability gap? We’ve had worse.
And once again the voice of knowledgable reason speaks out, well said mate totaly agree.
Not my sphere, but am assuming that FOC will be several years after IOC? Not sure what we miss in between either, if anything!
Not mine, either. We have 4 E3 now, I don’t think they do much as it is.
I’m curious what the RAF plan for the huge Sentry hanger at the northern end of Waddington? I assume the Protector fleet could use it and fit in with room to spare.
Well out of my comfort zone now mate! Just read the blurb on RAF Washington, it appears that the Protector flt are getting £93 mil spent on a new hanger and facilities. Sentry hanger not mentioned, so no idea! Will make a good indoor sports facility if nothing else-he said tongue in cheek!!!
Interesting. I only asked as it, like Thomson building, is a self contained secure area from the rest of the station.
If the AWACS role is moving I’m curious to know what operational use they find for it beyond the sports hall!!
Were getting another 13 Protectors, so perhaps one hanger isn’t enough, maybe they require the two to house them all? I didn’t say where the new hanger was being built on the base. Bit of a waste if we are just spending on new facilities for the sake of it, were not exactly flush with cash!
I did share a link after you mentioned what you found, but blocked by Mods currently. The map of the proposals showed the new build area on the eastern side of the runway, an area little used beyond the old SSA’s and dispersals. The stations admin and ops areas proper are on the west side and the Sentry facility at the northern end.
So lots of area to build on.
Agree mate, we should not waste cash but I’d think the fleet will be in the same new build area and not spit between the new purpose built facility and the Sentry Hanger.
Then again, I’m forgetting the reds are moving there, maybe that is where they will go.
Good point about the Reds move, I’m sure such a hanger would suit their basing requirements v nicely.
Right now they are providing overwatch for the QE battlegroup.
And this is the point! We are using them right now, to watch over a key asset. Under no circumstances should we take E3D out of service without a viable replacement in.place. As for a drone taking on the role, its not that simple………
Agreed!
Without doubt an incredibly foolish decision. The UK will effectively lose its Airborne Warning and Command facility at a point in time when the world is a very unstable and unpredictable place. Even in the days of the Shackleton at least we had a capability. I’m surprised those entrused with the Air defence of this country are willing to accept this loss.
Hi Daniele,
I agree. I am wondering what is going on behind the scenes with the UAV developments. AEW appears to be high on the list of capability requirements for UAVs and there are a couple of programmes on-going in the UK with relevant experience. Crowsnest and the UK variant of Captor-E. These two systems whilst utilising very different technologies give the UK experience in small AEW radars and AESA radar which will need to be brought together to give the UK an effective AEW UAV system.
This also raises an interesting trade off for the system designers. A large capable radar and fewer numbers vs a smaller less capable radar with more units. Both approaches could / would be networked possibly to Wedgetail or a ground station.
ISTAR is an obvious candidate for UAV’s and the comments above suggest that the RAF sees it’s Protector fleet as combat ISTAR assets and clearly the RN is heading in that direction.
If nothing else comes out of the UK Future Combat Air System / Tempest hopefully some good quatlity UAV’s emerge, although obviously I have my fingures crossed for the full system 🙂
Cheers CR
Even with lots of UAVs that operate a shorter range X-band radar will be a compromise too far. The reason is the stand-off detection range and the safety it can deliver. It is generally accepted today that a modern fighter’s radar will have a detection range against a 1m3 target around 150miles. Compared to an aircraft that can carry a lower frequency radar such as the E7’s MESA L-band radar that has a “published” detection range of around 400 miles.
Missiles such as the AMRAAM and AA-10 Alamo are said to be able to hit targets nearly 100 miles away. Which means the launch aircraft only has to close to near 100 miles of the drone, to put it in danger. Whereas with a longer range radar, they will be detected a long time before they are in a position to launch a missile.
X-band radars are easy to package in an airframe and produce very good target resolution. The trade off is that they have a much shorter effective range due to atmospheric attenuation (free space losses). This means that to significantly increase the detection range you also have to significantly increase the power output. Longer wave (lower frequency) radars are not as affected by the free space losses. Therefore, for the same output power of the X-band radar their detection range is further. But the trade off is lower target resolution.
The primary requirement for an AEW platform is its ability to detect a threat as far away as possible. Thus giving you time to work out and coordinate a response. The answer I would suggest is for a suitably sized unmanned aircraft that can incorporate an external large rectangular AESA array radar operating in the L, S or C band. To power such a radar it will need plenty of electricity, which means it will likely need to be twin engined. If we considered using the Erieye S-band radar, it is some 9m long. Therefore the aircraft that uses it will have to be much longer. The Saab 340, which I believe is the smallest aircraft to use it, is some 21m long. The MQ-4C Triton is only 14.5m long by comparison, even the European MALE RPAS is only 16m long. I wonder if Bombardier are selling any cheap Learjets, that could be converted into an unmanned aircraft?
“Capability gap? We’ve had worse.”
Yeah. But the whole spin behind the changes caused by the integrated review was that the UK would reduce its armored footprint on the continent by scrapping warrior and reducing the Challenger fleet, but make that up to NATO by concentrating on what it is traditionally good at. Which would include controlling the sea and airspace over the Northern Atlantic.
How the heck do you do that job in a shooting war with Russia with a measely 3 AWACS aircraft ???
Scrap all the 7 E3Ds , replace with just 3 E7s in a couple of years and make use of NATO assets meantime. If it were acquire 5 x E7 it wouldn’t sound as bad, but with Sentinnel binned, now E3, capability wise we seem to be in the usual hurry to delete before effective replacement has flown…….
It’s been a very very long time since we operated 7 E3’s. In fact we have never operated 7.6 with 1 in maintenance. We dropped to 4 from 2015, and 3 since 2019.
3? Right, thought was still 4. There you go.
The MoD have sold one to the USA. It’s going to be used as trainer aircraft.
Right, missed that.
I wonder what will happen with the RAF personnel that are here in Oz for E-7A Wedgetail training?
They might as well stay here and enjoy the sun!
As a silly question, which is the better plane regards radar coverage?
Here we go again. Good job in the real world that wars are fought with pounds, dollars roubles and yuan (or) renminbi.
Retired?? Aren’t these AEW planes providing overwatch for the QE CV group right now? The Chicoms and Russians must be laughing right now at all the British military cuts. Ugh
What, 4 ( 3 ) outdated E3s replaced by 3 state of the art Wedgetails as a stop gap until unmanned systems take more of the load?
I think we are laughing at the Russian carrier more, frankly.
There were 7 originally. I presume we’re at 6 now.
We have 3. I thought 4.
Yes, 7. Only 6 were used I believe l. 7th was spares.
To be fair Dan they are probably laughing at your President at the moment and wondering how long he will still be sitting in the chair “woking” himself and the States to the world. The choice of politicians, for us all at the moment isnt who is best, but who is best of a very bad bunch.
I agree with you on this issue!
Common sense is in short supply no matter what the party. Just look at America.
I once had to write a maintenance policy update for the RAF E-3D to change a light bulb. You wouldn’t believe the paperwork involved. Serious problem keeping the E-3D operational given its age. But I don’t agree with retiring such a key capability without its replacement being available. That’s a serious failure in my opinion. Maybe we voters should dissolve the current HMG and accidentally overlook the election of a new one. Perhaps there might be a chance to look at that before the next Q4 end. Then cancel that meeting and re-schedule for the following year. Lol.
I believe that one of these are to be sold to the US Navy as a trainer for their fleet of ‘Doomsday aircraft’. E-6’s that are launched in the even of nuclear attack I think.
Isn’t the USN replacing their 707 based E-6s with a C-130J version?
3 E7, 3 Rivet Joint, 9 Poseidon etc etc. We seem to be buying tiny numbers of bespoke specialised aircraft. Each of which will need it’s own training and maintenance programs. Surely the unit whole life cost will be astronomical compared to a single type of less specialised aircraft able to adequately perform all 3 roles.
I think in the case of RC135 especially a Iess specialised aircraft results in a lower capability. The Rivet Joints, like the Nimrod R1 before them, are gold plated for a reason.
Their capability is great.
Would it be possible to refit the E3D as RC135, at the moment we lease them from the Americans I believe. I would assume our present airframes are younger with maybe less hours ?
No idea, but doubt It given the costs involved and years it took to convert just 3.
We don’t lease them. We leased the 1st 4 C17s before they were purchased outright. Never read of our Rivets being leased.
Ours are ex USAF tankers from their reseve stocks with the lowest hours I believe.
OK, the E3s are out of hours or will be and Nato has upgraded there’s so we are not exposed in our current theatres. same with the Sentinal, time they completed there checks and service and upgrades. Wedgetail will be here.. UK MOD Allways on the edge and run the fleets hard. one of the E3s has been sold back to the USAF early for a training aircraft, more value than scrap.
Has NATO told the RN that they will provide AEW&C support to RN CV groups?
Sad comment, little bit immature and does not contribute to the debate.
Why do we always retire aircraft before their replacement has entered service? They did it with the BAe Nimrod, BAe Harrier and now the E-3D Sentry. The only saving grace is the Airbus A400M Atlas which is in service and will replace the Lockheed C-130J Hercules.
They should have bought the Yak-141/41 Freestyle and teamed up with the YF-23 to replace the Eurofighter Typhoon.
“The only saving grace is the Airbus A400M Atlas which is in service and will replace the Lockheed C-130J Hercules”
A A400M is pretty big and expensive. Does one realy want to risk losing one on a mission in the African bush that only requires to move a squad or platoon sized force?
Which is one main reason Germany and France decided that having a few Super Hercs around is quite useful for tiny airfileds and special forces ops (refueling helos is also easier with a SH; yes, a A400M can do it in a üinch, but the size differential matters).
I am hard pressed to understand why the British MoD doesnt keep at least half a dozen of them around. If you want to save on cost, offer to operate them as part of the G-F squadron that is currently stood up in France. That would add quite some flexibility and resilience to that joint squadron and improve NATO special forces interoperability. Esp since the UK could bring lots of experience with that aircraft, as well as a nice stock of spare parts, so it would be in a position to get a really good deal there. Maybe even throw in a couple of used SHs for France and Germany, each, in return for them paying the fixed costs of the installation.
Don’t forget the very capable Sentinel.
“Taking the wrong people ”
You think there’s a “right” people then?
And the Sun said, they had the exclusive.
Great work again George keeping us updated.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15710900/raf-axe-eye-sky-early/
I am starting to think the Tories have some sick fetish for leaving capability gaps in our armed forces. Seriously, wasn’t scrapping Nimrod without replacement embarrassing enough? What exactly is wrong with keep these aircraft an extra year and a half?
I am agree we should keep these aircraft flying until replacemen, even if this means to put up taxes to pay for them.
Don’t worry thanks to everyones best friend Covid they’re going up anyway.
Can they be augmented by a UAV or two? Act as part AEW&C, part mothership with the drones a few hundred miles out as pickets?
Not sure there is a UAV capable of AEW&C operations right now. The US is studying using satellites for this mission but that is many years away.
Another disgraceful capability holiday!
What monitors the Russian aircraft approaching from the north, is it the UK’s E3s, ground radar or something/someone else?
The UK has sufficient radar coverage for high flying aircraft and missiles with ground based UK and US radars. It’s the low flying cruise missiles, UAVs, ect that need an airborne radar to detect them and give adequate warning. That is why the QE CV group is being supported by E-3s.
The RAF ASCS force. Although rebranded recently as the BMF “Battle Management Force”
NADOC Bunker at High Wycombe.
CRCs at Boulmer / Scampton.
RRH at Benbecula / Buchan / Saxa Vord / Brizlee Wood / Staxton Wold * /
Trimmingham / Portreath.
CAA radar sites feed into the RAP as do all NATO ground based radar assets.
And I believe at sea naval radar on ships too.
I’m not aware of our Sentry ever aloft on a daily basis contributing to the RAP.
Thought they were more expeditionary in nature providing battle management.
3 seems sensible. Surely We can’t use them against a bear peer enemy, they’d just get picked out of the sky by a stand off weapon? How many do we need to watch warlords trample the developing world? The future is drones, para-satellites and space based systems working in a networked mesh. With E7 or whatever thousands of miles away and acting as a data marshalling point.
Just read that the USN is buying one of the E3 air frames as a pilot training aircraft to ease the load on the E 6 Mercury (Tacamo) Aircraft for
15 mil Dollars apparently…never raced or rally’d!
Add to that the Herc the US NAVY bought as a Fat Albert replacement for 30 Mil, sell the remaining Tonkas to KSA and your on your way to another Wedgetail!