The UK’s new E-7 Wedgetail aircraft fleet was expected to reach Initial Operating Capability with the Royal Air Force in 2023, it will now not reach Initial Operating Capability until 2024.
Wedgetail is an airborne early warning and control system. They are designed to track multiple targets at sea or in the air over a considerable area for long periods of time. The aircraft is replacing the E-3D Sentry ‘AWACS’ many people are familiar with.
2023?
The plan set out in the UK’s 2021 defence review was made clear in the ‘Defence Command Paper’. In addition to reducing the order from five to three it also set out when the aircraft was expected to enter service. The Defence Command Paper ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’, stated:
“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 builders of the aircraft Boeing say the same thing.
“The UK’s E-7 Wedgetail aircraft is expected to be in service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) in 2023. It will be a central asset in the RAF’s future Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) Force.”
2024?
2024 has been mentioned twice recently. Last month Alec Shelbrooke, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, said:
“On current planning, Initial Operating Capability for the E-7 Wedgetail is expected to be achieved in 2024 but this will not be confirmed until the Full Business Case is submitted towards the end of Financial Year 2022-23.”
Additionally, the RAF website reads:
“The target for Initial Operating Capability is 2024 for the Wedgetail AEW Mk1 Programme, marking a return to RAF Lossiemouth for 8 Squadron after an absence of 30 years.”
IOC (2024) and in service (2023) can mean two different things. In service means they are flying but crews may not have reached sufficient proficiency or spare parts may not be fully available to support Initial Operational rates of flying.
Note the following from the other thread, he is not expecting them to arrive until 2024. My highlight.
Air Commodore Hicks, Senior Responsible Owner for the Wedgetail Programme, was quoted as saying:
“I am thrilled to witness this major milestone for the RAF’s Wedgetail Programme with our key industry and DE&S partners. The start of the technical infrastructure build represents a significant step in preparing RAF Lossiemouth for the arrival of the aircraft in 2024, which is vital to support our Wedgetail aircraft and personnel.”
And? Why repeat what has already been stated? Any real comments and opinions on your wet dreams illegal invasion of Ukraine and the current tactical picture? And the ongoing “recruitment” process for more Nazi cannon fodder?
It had not been stated in this thread and my response was to Steve clarifying his answer in that ‘in service (2023)’ doesn’t seem to include flying at Lossimouth.
More grey water waste comments, as is recently the norm, ignoring the current tactical picture of the Russian peasant rapists squads! They find unarmed civvies, women and girls easy meat but struggle fighting men, as men. And you support them! Sad, expected, but still sad. Anyway now your answering any comments on the current recruitment process going on in Putins Nazi sad incompetent military?
Its a bit shocking that we have just gone through a war in Europe which could have overspilled into ww3, and yet we let our early warning aircraft capability drop. This would be essential if we needed to defend the UK, as ground radars would be easy picking for cruise missiles, especially as we have so few air defense assets.
Out of all of pur capability gaps, the losses of airborne AEW and ground surveillance Sentinel aircraft are two of the most criminal
It’s is hard to argue for a bigger budget for defence when the bozos in charge as so unalarmed they have no issue with gapping AEW.
I’d seriously doubt Russia’s ability to hit anything in the UK after its performance in the Ukraine short of a nuclear strike. E3 numbers dropped years ago, and was mainly used for out of area operations. AEW isn’t used for QRA launches for example, we never had E3s on patrol over the North Sea, and with today’s cloud based networks and link16 networks shared between fast jets, warships, even land based vehicles. The way we gather and share information has moved on massively. E7 will be a step change in capability, and will be used in a very different way from E3. Drones will likely be the long term future of AEW. A flight of Drones, networked together, could cover a vast area, operate much closer to the bad guys, and the crew’s will be sat relatively safe in a operations room at Lossiemouth. 👍
Whilst I agree with the current position in respect of Russia but hindsight is a wonderful thing. War between Ukraine and Russia had been brewing for years and decisions to cut essential capability for defending the UK itself and allowing for along gap, were just insane.
By the same logic not any need for increase in UK defence spending.
Of course we need to increase defence spending. But certain capabilitys we can live without for a period. That is why we work endlessly with our allies. We provide plenty to them, so they help us out in return And budgets only go so far. We should have a defence budget based on the threats, not the other way round. But, ultimately it all has to be paid for. The USAF is having the same availability problems with it’s own E3 fleet, and probably wishes it replaced it years ago. It’s based on the Boeing 707, which first flew in 1954.
As Jim said, if you seriously doubt Russia’s ability to hit anything in the UK, unless there is another potential enemy in range, why increase defence spending? If the view on Russian performance taken by some here is correct we should be doing the opposite, cutting it. You can’t have it both ways.
“If the view on Russian performance taken by some here is correct” and how would you judge their performance so far?
In one word, strange. They have seized a lot of territory but in a way no-one understands the logic of.
In 7 months it isn’t a lot of land, and, now they are losing it! Simple really my little troll. Remember when you said Russia could take Ukraine, without even deploying ground forces? I can cut and paste that for you if you want…ha hahaha oh dear oh dear!
Yes I do seriously doute Russian capability to strike the UK. The bigger picture is, that if we and our European allies had spent more on defence over the last 20 years, then it would be a fair bet to guess Russia wouldn’t have embarked on such murderous adventures. And it’s a lesson to the world that security at home starts abroad. And Russian isn’t the only threat in the world. The West’s response to the Ukraine conflict could well be making China think very carefully about exploits of its own. As well as its own relationship with Russia, as they have demonstrated to be nothing close to the military power they have made out to be.
Except their nukes…that”s the rub. 🤔
Yes, I mentioned a nuclear strike in my first post. I’m talking more about conventional weapons 👍
If Ukraine had spent more on its defence then yes, but Europe spending more would have no impact. NATO out spends Russia 20 to 1 and it made no difference in Ukraine.
More to it than that Jim. Defence cuts across Europe over the last 20/30 years have given an impression of weakness, along with weak politicians. The fact the West did little when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, or didn’t want to get involved even when Obamas red lines were crossed in Syria, and they recent avacuation of Kabul farce. All green lights for Putin to push ahead with his long term plans. Fortunately. The West is standing strong, and Ukraine is doing outstandingly well. But much of this could have been prevented if the West had shown a little more backbone over the last couple of decades. Politically, and with defence spending is just part of that.
Robertblay is correct: Russia is not the reference enemy here. The defence budget is being increased not just to deal with Russia, but with any potential enemies 5, 10, 20 years down the line. Because what Russia has done has significant long-term geopolitical ramifications beyond the current war; that is, Russia’s actions have put large-scale conventional war back on the table after a long period of relative peace.
Absolutely agree. 👍
On the contrary as a planner you aim for the worse case scenario, and when your enemy proves to be shite (like your Russian Nazis have) then it’s a win win situation. It’s something your rapist Army should have taken in its planning considerations for the “special military operation”! And, any opinions on the current recruitment process in Nazi land?
👍😁
👍
Agree totally Airborne. At Staff, we planned for worse case in every scenario. Failing to do that leaves one surprised, on the back foot and often unable to counter.
Spot on 👍
One of the biggest issues for the E3s is the spares for the TF33 engines. However, there are going to be quite a few spares coming into the system soon. As the B52s that also use the same engine, are having the TF33s replaced by new Rolls-Royce engines. That is not the end of it though! Some of the spares for the radar have to be manufactured from scratch, as the production line ended years ago. Restarting a production for a small batch of components comes at significant cost. It’s the trouble with trying to maintain an aircraft designed in the late 1950’s, using engines built in the 1970’s with avionics also dating from the 1980’s.
The E3 and its AN/APY-2 are seriously obsolescent. It is costing the USAF a shed load of money to keep them flying, which is why they are downsizing the fleet. To embark on a spare’s recovering scheme with the mothballed airframes.
As to threats, I would say we are much more in peril than we were 8 months ago. Due to how Russia’s forces have been defeated and routed in some parts. Desperate men will do desperate deeds to try and stay in control. We know Russia has the means to reach the UK conventionally and with the nuclear option. be that either from air, ship or sub-surface launched cruise missiles or using medium range ballistic missiles fired from Kaliningrad.
I believe the threat could become real, especially as without NATO backing, Ukraine would have been overrun by now. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t do something overtly thereby pulling NATO into the conflict. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see some more covert actions. Especially as there is a huge juicy target just over the Ukrainians western border in Poland, where the majority of NATO supplied arms and materiel is delivered.
I bet the RAF are kicking themselves for keeping the Sentinels in service. Consider how useful they would have been?
The demise of the Sentinels after only 20 years is another example of the short-sighted planning of UK Governments. Oh, how it would be handy today!
I would just note your tense is wrong, have just gone through should be, still going through which could overspill into WW3. The risks are not past, but present and active.
Fair but massively reduced. Russia is losing badly in Ukraine and so is in no position to attack anyone else. Ok it could go nuclear but that’s end of the world stuff and doesn’t really matter what conventional forces we have or don’t have, as everyone will be dead.
I think the problem is Russia does not have the same game book as NATO. It does have a policy of using tactical nuclear weapons in regards to defending Russian soil and Putin has just made around 20% of Ukraine Russian soil.
As for nuclear contagion NATO would likely respond with nuclear weapons if Russia uses them in Ukraine as Ukraine is not NATO. But what they likely will do is intervene using conventional forces to support and stabilise Ukraine.
We are also heading away from the campaign season in Eastern Europe, so muds going to suspend everything for a while, this gives both Russia and Ukraine the ability to put units back together, so we would not be sure what will happen come april/May next year.
From a Risk of contagion It’s probably got a lot more deadly since Putins actions over the last couple of weeks as well as Ukraine’s victories.
To me it’s more complicated than just Ukraine or NATO.
When it comes to nukes it’s not about NATO (NATO has no power to fire the nukes) it’s about the individual countries that have them. Its simple game theory from there. If Russia nukes say Poland, what does France/US/UK do. If they nuke Russia they guarantee the end to their countries, if they dont that certainty is removed, it’s then a gamble but there is chance that Russia won’t nuke them, but a chance is better than no chance. A sensible leader would take the second option, unless you can guarantee to take out all of Russia’s nukes.
Obviously if Russia sends nukes towards the nuclear powers than all bets are off, end of world.
Even if the nuclear armed powers didn’t intervene Russia would have to nuke every eastern, Baltic and Scandinavian state as I’m pretty sure they’d expect instant retaliation from them even if non nuclear. They can’t cope with Ukraine so would stand no chance against the rest, which means short of annihilating all of Europe nuking Poland would be completely pointless on every level.
Yep, at this stage Russia has lost any influence it once had. Polictically it’s clearly gone and miltiary it’s also history. As you point out you don’t just nuke someone, you have to have an objective for it and with no conventional miltiary threat as follow through, Russia will find their ability to threaten states into doing what they want to do will have pretty much gone.
More than that, MAD is not the equation it once was for them, yes they can end the world but in the short term military confrontation with a NATO that includes most of the former Soviet States they have many more nuclear targets than they can probably manage. So even when we all eventually die from nuclear winter we can take comfort knowing we wiped them out first I suppose. Happy days
such cold comfort 😱
Nuclear winter was always a fallacy, with so few weapons now and most set to air burst nuclear winter is nearly impossible.
I completely agree on that, I’ve aways ascertained that the NATO nuclear powers would have a difficult decision if Russia used nuclear weapons on a none nuclear power nation country. But the fact there are 3 NATO nuclear powers means Russia cannot bank on that as you could never predict that all three powers would not strike and if one does then effectively all will ( due to a fairly nasty level of contagion, Russia would never know which one did it and would simply have to strike back at all….).
But at the moment we are talking about Ukraine and a tactical nuclear weapon used there. As I said I don’t believe this would produce a Nuclear response from NATO, instead it would be a scaled military response of some description ( there was a report from the US that the administration have already told Putin something like this).
Possible responses could be:
1) NATO troops moving into Ukraine
2) An air interdiction of Russian forces in Ukraine
3) Some form of navel interdiction of all Russian navel assets.
So I’m not saying Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon would have NATO responding with nuclear weapons ( that’s a very very low likelihood event). But you can place a bet they will response militarily to support and stabilise Ukraine if Russia did use a tactical nuclear weapon to bust open a front or stop an attack.
As for it not being NATO, it would be the US doing this but under the cover of a NATO mission, with the Potential likelihood of backing by the UN asking NATO to undertake the mission. ( China would have a fit if russia used a nuclear weapon, as would the rest of the world so the UN would have a big sudden change of focus).
The UK is not really in a position to respond in kind with tactical nukes. We got rid of our WE177s years ago. If we tried to use Trident, Russia would be obliged to respond in kind. Which is an avenue we definitely don’t want to go down.
The other publicised nuclear powers want no part of this conflict, so India, Israel, Pakistan and China won’t take part.
Both France and the USA have aircraft delivered nukes, ranging from dialable tactical weapons up to strategic. Germany has nukes on loan from the US, so those would be out of the equation. France has made its position perfectly clear. It has substantial investments in Russia, so is doing the bare minimum to appease other Western Nations. The only country with the real ability to respond to a Russian tactical nuke is the US.
I’m sure if it looks like Russia moving up the threat level, the US will also do so. We may see overt images of F35As being practised loaded with dummy instant sunshine, to get the message across.
I don’t think the west would respond to a tactical nuc on a none NATO power with a tactical nuc, it has some many other options as the conventional power balance between NATO and Russia is massively different ( NATO effect an complete navel and air interdiction of Russia if it so wished).
The use of tactical nuclear weapons on a NATO nation officially would result in a strategic response, but I’m not sure the NATO nuclear powers would ever go there unless they were directly threatened ( it’s one of those areas of strategic ambiguity).
NATO has the capacity to terminate all of Mad Vlad’s conventional forces, w/ extreme prejudice. No realistic doubt about that. But, then? If the Muppet has not been deposed or disposed of, would he hesitate to order a bucket emptying strategic strike, especially targeting Western nuclear powers? Believe that is the existential question and threat.
Yes that’s the really big question as I think with Putin ( like Hitler before and other mad dictator types) he links his personal survival and power with that of his nation and if he’s going down he may just decide russia and by extension everyone else is as well. This is the big problem with managing a nuclear power run by a dictator.
I think NATO is going to have to play this very clever (they have so far). If he does use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine ( and I think he has sown the ground so he can, from a home audience point of view). What will the west do about it. It’s got to do something, but if it does to much as you way the mad bastard may just go with his strategic forces and we are all buggered.
Really scary times to be honest.
Jonathans, unfortunately, it is in the Russian military book as it was in the Soviet to use nuclear weapons. They apply a ‘concept of demostic security’ that was first written by Khrushchev. It dictates when nuclear weapons can be used, from our perspective, that’s if Putin believes the state is to fall. As for battlefield tactical nuclear weapons, it has also been long known the strategy of use to gain objectives is still taught at General level, although, their use is exclusively on authority of their President.
Russia has nothing to fear from NATO, but you will never get them to believe you. Vladimir the Great in 988, was the first ‘Russian’ leader to adopt paranoia as a psyche. Almost every Russian from that date has had it stamped into their DNA.
Worth noting that Ukraine likely has nuclear weapons of its own now. They are crude dirty bombs using spent fuel but could be highly effective if dropped on the right areas inside Russia. Putin would be suicidal to use a tactical weapon inside Ukraine and it would have very little effect as tactical nuclear weapons are not that effective. In the 60’s before smart munitions they had a role and if you use enough of them then they can have some effect but a conventional strike with smart munitions now a days is probably going to be more effective. Even dropping them on a city won’t cause the kind of devastation people think. Modern cities are spacious and built from concrete and steel. A single tactical weapon will do very little.
Cheers Jim, I hope Putin has a bit of sense, but I think the idiots backing himself into such a corner he may just get desperate and use one, after all his conventional forces are being beaten and shown to be shite by a country with around a 10th of the resources of Russia ( he’s also running out of precision fires) . It’s not like he will be able to retreat and retire gracefully, if he losses and is seen as weak someone’s going to make sure he has a heart attack.
personally I’m hoping he gets a surprise retirement party as soon as possible.
Indeed, it’s not unreasonable to see the Free world fighting Russia, China, Iran & North Korea far sooner than we’d like. We’ve been under the thumb of cutting ideologues fer too long for our safety.
Why did we retire the E 3D Sentry before the replacement was ready? why does the MOD think capability gaps are acceptable?
To save money during a period of unprecedented peace… oh hang on a minute.
This happens all the time – carriers, jump jets, MPAs to name just 3 further examples.
Its more likely to be politicians and HM Treasury who think its a good idea (to save money) rather than MoD.
Anyone know the state of the last E3’s to be retired as in maintenance costs due, issues arising etc?
Might just be very simple that the new platform is vastly different and the crews need substantial training which takes alot of time and they needed freeing up from flying on the E3’s.
Chile has bought three so they are at least still operational .
The MOD retired/gapped Sea Harrier before QE, POW and F35 was in existence. Looking back with hindsight, was there a existential threat to the UK as a country or need during those years for the CVS and Sea Harrier to remain in service?
The answer is no.
That’s the way the bean counters look at it.
Cold hard logic.
We did without it, managed the resultant capability gap and associated risk, the UK still exists we where proven correct in our decision.
Hmm, the gap between the retiring of our E3Ds and the entry into service of the E7, is being covered by NATO E3s. These are going through a modernisation program to bring them to the same standard as the upgraded French ones. But, the front end and majority of the back end of the radar is staying the same. Which means it will not only have issues tracking small and low flying objects but also cruise missiles, especially those that fly over choppy seas. The Wedgetail’s MESA radar is a couple of generations ahead of the AN/APY-2 PESA radar. It has substantially better threat discrimination in very high clutter environments, i.e. looking down at choppy seas to detect and track stealthy targets.
Please do not confuse the abilities of AEW with those of ground-based radar. By the time ground-based radar has detected a low flying cruise missile. Unless there is a Typhoon in the immediate area. It will take too long to vector the Typhoon to the interception. This is why it is critical to have AEW. It is the only realistic means of detecting low flying cruise missiles far enough away, where there is sufficient time to vector an intercept.
Other countries in Europe with AEW:
Sweden 2 Saab 340 AEW&C + 2 on order
Italy 2 Gulfstream AISREW w/Elta radars plus a number from another 8 also for C4ISTAR
France 4 E-3F AWACS and 3 E-2D Hawkeye for the Navy
Also Turkey with 4 E7,and the NATO E3 fleet at Geilenkirchen.
Unacceptable, as is the number of airframes. Total shambles for such a key asset. And with all this palaver going on about cables and pipelines, I would like to know why the number of P-8s isnt being increased.
We use vessels to look after cables.
True, with just 3 airframes, likely that 1 will be mostly AOG for some reason, so rely on 2 for Global Britain. Its just insane
IOC being delayed by a year shouldn’t be the end of the world.
Assuming the RAF Wedgetail configuration is the same (or mostly the same), as the RAAF Wedgetail, the journey from service entry, to IOC and then FOC should be reasonably straight forward.
Here in Oz the timeline was reasonably long and drawn out, which was not surprising considering the program was a ‘work in progress’ and still under development in the early years.
After a numbers of years of delay, the first two E-7A were delivered to the RAAF in November 2009 and the sixth aircraft in June 2012, IOC was reached in November 2012.
The first operational sortie was in April 2014 during the search over the Indian Ocean for the missing MH370 flight.
October 2014 saw the first operations over Iraq, and FOC was reached in May 2015.
A long journey in the beginning for the RAAF, but again, the early years saw delays whilst the system was still being developed, tested and matured.
Cheers,
On a positive side the US air force is pushing to buy them, giving future upgrades a massive boost through economies of scale.
The first E-7A prototype for the USAF is not due to enter service until 2027, so still a fair way off.
Meanwhile here in Oz, the RAAF fleet has been the subject of ‘rolling’ upgrades for a fair number of years now.
A new round of capability upgrades is due to start soon, this new project has a budget allocation of up to A$3.5b.
2027 isn’t that far off. The US will no doubt be specifying upgrades for the platform ahead of that date, which hopefully we can benefit from. The Australian investments will also help. That is the advantage of an international design, not one nation shouldering the upgrade costs.
Not that having an upgrade rolled out is the same thing as actually buying it, but it’s a start.
Steve, I still think 2027 (five years from now) is still a fair way off for the first prototype.
My understanding is that funding for the first USAF prototype will happen next year, 2023, for delivery in 2027.
Funding for the second prototype is due in 2024 (assume delivery in 2028?), and a final production decision is due for 2025.
If the production go ahead happens in 2025, I’d reasonably assume the first USAF production standard aircraft would probably be delivered from around 2029.
The bigger question is how similar (or different) will the USAF configuration be compared to RAAF, RAF, South Korean and Turkish Wedgetails?
5 years is a long time but it takes time for the US upgrades to get agreed and paid for. The ones entering service then will be upgraded on what are in service with the other fleets for sure and no doubt that capability has already been designed and agreed or will be shortly as it needs to get into the platform before launch, just a question if the US will share the tech.
Could probably presume that an E-7 operators’ consortium will be established, if not under consideration already. All parties (w/ possible exception of Turkey) defining future requirements and contributing in proportional manner to fund future software and hardware updates. Almost an inevitable develipment; nothing succeeds like a successful weapon program. Congratulations due to Oz.
Three is not a capability, it’s a concept demonstration.
Pathetic.
Three isn’t enough, one on maintenance, one on training, one on deployment. Therefore none available for normal ops. One of the other two might go u/s as well.
Need at least 5,even 6!
It will be very embarrassing, if that happens.
But a likely scenario in the future.
Well I’ll be damned, that comes as a shock. Nobody familiar with uk defence is saying…
I suppose the airborne early warning is shared enterprise across NATO regardless which country has an AEW plane up at the time.
At least the Brits are buying a new AEW aircraft. The Germans have never had one and they probably never will.
Dan , I’ve wondered about that ,the german guilt thing but these assets and say refueling, air lift would be a useful contribution whilst not being overtly aggressive,
commensurate with the size of their economy.
No awake for 2 more years should had kept e3sentry till wedgetail was opparatinol try to cut spends but cost a lot more in the future if we ever fell out with nato and the us we would be in big trouble as we can’t even produce our own weapons it not great britain now it’s joke britain
Why would we fall out with NATO? We are in NATO, the 2nd largest defence budget in NATO, a permanent member of the UN Security Council ect. And one of the largest defence industries in the world.
Looking at your comment history says an awful lot about you Den….I cannot be bothered correcting you.
I do hope we have the capability to re fuel these aircraft in the air.
In light of this year’s events and the unstoppable eventuality China will start/provoke a war with the United States, we still need those extra two. Total folly to think we won’t.
What a surprise, I suspected at the outset that the E7 conversions would not be simple especially when a new contractor (STS) has to build up a workforce to implement work packages developed by a major prime (Boeing) which may reflect the detail at the time of the last conversions (approximately 10 years ago) and updated to today’s standard. This would be further complicated by obsolesce and the need to find and qualify replacement components and the need to complete systems and flight testing to satisfy RAF MMA standards which are very thorough and can be demanding. Conversion delays often eat up the schedule putting pressure on to the flight testing and compliance stage until the dam breaks and the end date has to be shifted right. So the GAP in Capability is extended, meanwhile two ex RAF E3Ds are now in Chille with trained crews and 3 other airframes are awaiting teardown in the UK possibly for spares which I am sure the French are interested in. It’s great when a plan come together! Perversely the UK will be helping the USAF with their purchase of E7s as the update and proving of conversion work packages should enable the USAF programme to proceed more smoothly.
“Slips”. How does a multi-million pound project “Slip?” OC cannot slip. Perhaps leaves on the runway…
It’s of great concern that with the conflict in Ukraine and the possibility of WW3, the MOD let this slip back to 2024?
The original order was for 5 aircraft but that has already been cut to 3. So again we rely on others to do our work and the contracts just extend with no real explanation of why?
The MOD need to get their house in order then it comes to contracts as most if not all never come in on time or within budget…