E7 delays and cost strain show UK procurement ongoing issues

The procurement of advanced military platforms represents a cornerstone of national defence strategy, yet it often exposes systemic frailties within acquisition processes. In the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has long struggled to deliver capabilities on time, within budget, and to the required specifications.

The Boeing E-7 Wedgetail programme illustrates these problems. Intended as the Royal Air Force’s (RAF) next-generation airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) platform, the E-7 was meant to replace the ageing E-3D Sentry fleet.

This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines. 

What began as a promising acquisition in 2019 has instead turned into a sequence of delays, cost escalation, and capability dilution.

This essay examines the E-7 Wedgetail programme using material from official reports, parliamentary inquiries, and specialist analyses. It outlines the original requirements and the envisaged role of the aircraft. It then explores flaws within the procurement process, including cost underestimation, weak risk management, and optimism bias. The discussion includes the reduction from five to three aircraft despite the prior purchase of five AESA radar sets. The analysis also addresses the impact of delayed decision making, which influenced the United States Air Force (USAF) and NATO partners to reconsider or cancel their own E-7 plans as cheaper alternatives emerged. Despite mounting warnings from the National Audit Office (NAO) and parliamentary committees, the RAF and MoD continue to project confidence.

Further examination reveals missed milestones, unresolved technical problems such as questions over radar power-on testing, and certification complications once the aircraft arrived in the UK. The decision by Marshalls of Cambridge to withdraw from the engineering work due to cost and complexity underscores structural weaknesses in the programme. The E-7 now stands as another example of MoD procurement failure, marked by unclear initial design, inconsistent leadership, and weak management oversight.

Original requirements and the E7’s intended role

The origins of the E-7 programme lie in the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), which called for the modernisation of the RAF’s AEW&C fleet. The E-3D Sentry, derived from the 707 and operational since the 1990s, had become increasingly outdated, expensive to maintain, and vulnerable to modern threats. The platform’s analogue systems and rotating radome imposed clear limitations. The SDSR required a successor capable of persistent and wide-area surveillance for joint operations, NATO commitments, and broader power projection.

The MoD’s Initial Operating Capability business case defined three priorities: improved situational awareness, interoperability, and long term adaptability. The E-7 was selected as a militarised Boeing 737NG equipped with a fixed MESA radar that provides 360 degree coverage through electronic beam steering. The radar can track thousands of targets, conduct simultaneous air and maritime surveillance, and handle electronic warfare environments more effectively than the E-3D.

Within the RAF’s operational concept, the E-7 was intended to act as a command and control platform that integrates data from satellites, drones, and ground sensors. The requirement for five aircraft was tied to maintaining continuous 24/7 coverage with a predictable maintenance and rotation schedule. Sovereign control and upgradability were central to the concept. The procurement assumptions, however, relied on a stable process that never materialised.

Flaws in the procurement process

The acquisition reflects a series of structural weaknesses familiar across MoD programmes. The House of Commons Defence Committee’s 2023 report criticised the decision to avoid open competition and move directly to a single-source negotiation with Boeing. Officials justified this as necessary due to urgency and the platform’s apparent maturity, yet the justification proved thin when measured against later delays.

The Full Business Case remained unsigned for years, and negotiations over in-service support dragged on without resolution. Supply chain risks were underestimated, even though Boeing’s commercial difficulties with the 737 were visible before the contract was finalised. The decision to buy five radars without securing stable airframe numbers locked the MoD into unnecessary expenditure.

Turnover among Senior Responsible Owners caused further instability. Warnings about affordability did not reach ministers early enough, contributing to the 2021 decision to reduce the fleet. Although the cut provided marginal short-term savings, it increased operational risk and raised questions about the integrity of earlier planning.

Cost misunderstandings, weak risk management, and optimism bias

The NAO has repeatedly highlighted a lack of affordability within MoD financial planning. For the E-7, early projections placed whole life costs at 2.5 billion pounds for five aircraft. After the fleet was reduced to three, projected cost fell only slightly because much of the expenditure was already committed. Cost modelling did not adequately account for inflation in 737 production or exchange rate volatility.

Risk management failures contributed to the programme’s deteriorating schedule. Certification issues were downplayed, even though alignment between FAA, CAA, and MAA standards is notoriously complex. The first aircraft arrived in the UK without FAA sign off, triggering an extensive recertification process. Modification work proved significantly more demanding than predicted, and labour hour estimates at STS Aviation rose sharply.

The Public Accounts Committee has repeatedly described an ingrained optimism within MoD projections. The E-7 followed this pattern. The Integrated Project Team underestimated the scale of required modifications and the fragility of supply chains. The result is a diminished fleet that required full infrastructure investment yet cannot achieve the planning assumptions of the original requirement.

International effects of delays and uncertainty

Long delays in UK decision making had consequences beyond national borders. While Australia’s fleet reached full capability years earlier, the UK spent years resolving contractual and engineering issues. The USAF’s 2025 decision to cancel its large E-7 order reflected concerns over cost, survivability, and relevance in contested environments. NATO abandoned its multinational E-7 plan soon after.

The collapse of these international commitments erased hoped-for economies of scale. UK unit costs rose, and the RAF now risks operating a niche variant with limited alignment to allied fleets.

Persistent optimism despite clear risks

Despite the NAO’s warnings and the IPA’s Red rating, MoD ministers and RAF leadership continued to issue confident public statements. Parliamentary debates in 2025 featured repeated claims that the E-7 remained central to interoperability initiatives and future air command roles. These claims contrast sharply with evidence of slipping milestones and unresolved technical issues.

The NAO’s Equipment Plan noted an ongoing capability gap left by the retirement of the E-3D. Stopgap measures, including NATO leasing arrangements, add financial pressure while providing only partial coverage. The discrepancy between political statements and audit findings reflects broader cultural problems within MoD programme reporting.

Development trajectory and continuing delays

The 2019 contract outlined a structured timeline from airframe delivery to full radar integration and trials. Instead, the first aircraft reached the UK without completed certification, prompting detailed inspections by UK regulators. The radar remains unpowered in flight due to unresolved power generation issues, raising concerns about whether the IOC target will slip further.

Milestones originally set for 2023 and 2024 fell away, and by mid-2025 no formal flight evaluations had taken place. These problems reflect both inadequate resourcing of Integrated Project Teams and competing priorities within Boeing’s production schedule.

Engineering challenges and the Marshalls withdrawal

The programme’s industrial complications worsened when Marshalls of Cambridge withdrew from modification work after concluding that the task was commercially untenable. Integrating secure communications and defensive systems required vast engineering effort. Boeing’s fixed price terms did not allow Marshalls to absorb risk. The shift to STS Aviation introduced new tooling costs, fragmented supply chains, and lengthened timelines.

Workforce retention issues and certification backlogs continue to affect progress. Uncertainty around programme direction has also undermined skill development within the UK aerospace sector.

Conclusion

The E-7 Wedgetail has become a case study in systemic procurement weaknesses. Its design was ambitious, yet the supporting processes lacked realism in planning, leadership stability, and financial control. The move to single-source contracting without adequate risk analysis created vulnerabilities from the outset. The later reduction in fleet size damaged the programme’s logic and provided little meaningful savings.

Cost overruns, schedule slippage, and diminished capability now define the UK’s investment. When the aircraft eventually enters service, it will mitigate an operational gap but will do so at a higher cost and with reduced resilience. Structural reform of MoD procurement remains essential if similar outcomes are to be avoided in future programmes.