France has placed an order for two Saab GlobalEye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft, in a deal worth approximately SEK 12.3 billion.
The contract, signed with the French procurement agency DGA, includes ground equipment, training and support, with deliveries scheduled between 2029 and 2032. An option for two additional aircraft is also included.
The agreement brings France into the small but growing group of European operators selecting GlobalEye to replace or augment legacy surveillance and early warning fleets. The UK, which is retiring the E-3 Sentry and planning the introduction of the E-7 Wedgetail, has monitored the GlobalEye programme but has not selected it.
Saab explained the decision as a strategic choice that aligns French capability with a broader European base.
“Today’s order underscores the robust partnership between Saab and France. By selecting GlobalEye, France is investing in a highly modern and capable Airborne Early Warning & Control solution. This choice reinforces France’s commitment to sovereignty and strengthens Europe’s overall protection, with both Sweden and France operating GlobalEye,” said Micael Johansson, Saab’s President and CEO.
GlobalEye combines active and passive sensors mounted on a Bombardier Global 6000/6500 platform, designed to detect and classify aerial, surface and ground targets at extended ranges. The system feeds real-time situational awareness to joint forces, supporting air defence, maritime security and land operations.
Saab describes GlobalEye as a multi-domain system intended to support NATO and EU-aligned mission profiles, although France’s procurement is understood to be focused on national and European sovereignty rather than Alliance standardisation.
Good purchase, it will prepare future early warning readiness, even if it will not be the only asset in the sky to pick up intelligence. This will reinforce the European industrial base. Many other airforce are considering this plateform, made by Bombardier and Saab. I whish we also purchase a few CV90 from Sweeden to complete our heavy segment.
Yeap agree. The army should buy largely off the shelf with localised production and minimal customisation, we can use that buying power to secure sales where we expect to lead – naval and air systems and munitions.
I suppose it would be too simple for us to join the project?
Giving up on the E7s?
I would say there for the UK a very very good case to have both..
Assuming it does turn up. Six years so far, costs going up and three delays to date. SDR says maybe additional aircraft but…..
From what I gather the e7 is the far better system though more expensive. From a NATO perspective have both systems is a win
E7 is more expensive but has complete 360 coverage and around four times the range meaning 16 times the area it can cover
I do think this could answer a couple of questions for the UK around AEW&C.
Because of UK interests, being an island with a number of key defence hubs scattered on islands and a global navy we have a lot of need for AEW&C..both on long range strategic platforms and short range platforms to defend our own airspace..
When you add in:
1) a future where potentially we have very few friends in the south Atlantic but are one of the big south Atlantic and Antarctic players we may need AEW&C in the Falklands
2) added to that our Med airbases could do we AEW&C
3) if we want to US our carriers offensively in the high north as sea control platforms or in the Atlantic or western Indian Ocean.. we have the airbases to allow our carriers to essentially have strategic platform AEW&C covering them..
4) AEW&C for the home islands.
So if I was making an AEW&C wish list I would have
1) 3 wedgetails essentially providing a long range strategic AEW&C capability for the carriers.. there is no reason with tanker coverage why three wedgetails, due to the pure number and geographic spreed of our airbases not be able to provide top cover to a CBG in the high north, med, Indian Ocean, north and south Atlantic ( essentially anywhere we really want our carriers we can put a wedge-tail over it)… you can also use these to ensure air and sea control of the high north and Atlantic independent of any CBG if it’s in port.. essentially the wedgetails use their range and endurance as martime air control nodes.
2) Us a more numerous smaller platform such as global eye for air defence of the EEZ, with say 6 aircraft, you can shift these around depending on the threat to UK EEZs…. If the Falklands was ever at risk shift a couple etc.
9 AEW&C aircraft, 3 long range strategic, 6 local seems a reasonable shake….
I’d argue something like MQ-9B AEW is a better solution for a high-low mix than GlobalEye, especially given the constraints we have. For a start, we already operate MQ-9B in the form of Protector, so the maintenance and training pipeline already exists. Secondly, it’s a significantly cheaper platform so we can buy more and get more coverage. Thirdly, it has a greater stationkeeping ability – 40hrs for a clean MQ-9B vs – so in places where assets are limited (e.g. BFSAI) we can still maintain 24/7 coverage when required. Finally, it’s capable of being operated from the QE class in the Mojave variant which improves on Crowsnest.
The issue with any drone based system is:
1) power
2) aperture
This limits the effective detection range of the platform.. by a massive amount.. if you had a wedgetail providing the AEW&C for the carrier it can be 200km from the carrier and still do the job, this makes it far far harder to detect and get a kill chain on the carrier.. a MQ-9B based system would essentially have to be parked over the carrier like a great big find me here sign.
For Uk coverage for instance you would need about 8 MQ-9Bs in the air at all time.. 2 wedgetails or global eyes would cover the whole UK..
Finally you have the C part of the equation, the large AEW&C platforms have your tactical crew on board so the can do the control.. essentially they can have to control element having direct line of sight communications with whatever is carrying the effectors ( aircraft or ships).. a drone has no control element it will need to send its information where ever the control staff are.. then they need to send the information to the platform with the effector..
So drones are good for filling gaps or as a capability where you have a very limited area to cover….but less good for say supporting sea and air control around a carrier or covering a whole country.
Great summation 👌🏾
I completely agree that an MQ-9 can’t replace E-7, but I’m arguing that overall E-7 plus MQ-9 is a better solution than E-7 plus GlobalEye. You need fewer people, get more airframes for your money, have significantly increased loiter times, and if you buy enough you have an atrritable option which allows riskier operations if the tactical situation would benefit from it.
Assuming that the E-7s are dedicated to homeland/high priority taskings, a dozen MQ-9B AEW would provide persistent coverage of BFSAI with 3 airframes, the SBAs with another 3, and then say 3 for the RN and the remaining 3 supplementing UK/European coverage where required. Even parked directly over the carrier MQ-9 AEW will be vastly more capable as organic AEW than Crowsnest, while freeing up Merlin airframes for tasking like ASW and potentially opening the door to future MQ-9 operations from the CSG. That alone will be a huge improvement in capability for the RN, both in ISR and strike in permissive environments.
I’ll admit I’m not sure how exactly the &C aspect works with the MQ-9, but I’d imagine it’s similar to ISR where the data is sent back home and processed there so the capability isn’t lost. This might be via satellite back to the UK, but could equally be LoS reachback to the CSG or if close enough the nearest CRC. Jamming/lost link would certainly be a consideration but if AEW&C is mission critical, the E-7 should be there anyway.
I think the thing is we actually need 9 AEW&C aircraft. I agree it would be great to also have a drone based aircraft as well. But in reality these should complement 9 AEW&C aircraft.. unfortunately it’s not likely that we will ever get more than 3 wedgetails.. so I will take 6 Globals to make the 9…
Because for me two AEW&C aircraft on Duty over the UK with drones out along the treat axis would be ideal. For the carrier and AEW&C + organic drones
The UK has done it’s usual. Ordered a dud. Then spaffed away billions. Now we are left with eventually 3 Wedgetails replacing an AWACS fleet that was 11 aircraft.
Definitely time to jump onto the SAAB Global Eye offering and order 9 of these aircraft.
The RAF bet heavily on a small initial order to be followed by a huge USAAF order that would bring unit price down on economies of scale then the RAF intended to follow-up with a batch 2 order for more Wedgetails. This has proven to have been a complete fiasco and is the RAFs version of Ajax..unless that was Nimrod…history repeating itself. Waste, incompetence and squandering previous UK tax payers money seems to be the order of the day.
To be far if they had simply ordered 9 wedgetails they would have got them for a reasonable price to be honest. ..I think this one was more a matter of treasury refusing to fund an appropriate number for the programme.. they should have a firm price contracted for 9.
By nature AEW&C aircraft are niche even Global eye will so far only be a build of 10 confirmed.
If we ordered the correct number we would now be looking at having numbers of the Best AEW&C in the world and a massive force multiplier to our carrier in the high north, allowing complete air and sea control..
There was a firm priced contract for the five E7.
The only problem was the contractor couldn’t deliver on it.
Mod then had the usual problem of bail the contractor or the loss of the whole project as nobody else was interested in buying out the contractor.
Remember Boeing wasn’t interested in modding the 737s itself or Marshalls or or or.
Firm and fixed contracts are only any use when the co tractor has the collateral to backstop them. The problem usually is that the contractor has taken the contract on and then gets into worse and worse problems by trying to keeps costs in the line. In small runs you sometimes have to spend to get the outputs.
😂
The UK bought 7 E3s and because of the believed change of the Russian threat in the 90’s and the write off of one aircraft damaged in a ground incident, reduced the effective fleet to about 5. At the same time as the UK order France bought 3 E3 to more or less the same standard of the UK E3s and these have been subsequently upgraded to the latest US standard. Other than an early Radar upgrade the UK E3s were not upgraded from the original standard of the late 80’s at the time they were taken out of service in 2021.
We can’t refuel E7
Yep we need to be able to..that’s one of the stupids that need sorting.
That will change when RAF get their next order of F35A.
They will ensure they can fully use their best assets.
If we buy more F35A refuelling is a must.
I agree with James; E7 and Globaleye are too close together to form a proper high-low set of AWACS. There’s no reason why a purchase of 7 Globaleye would cost less than our current E7 programme given the spares and the tight infrastructure, but we could get 8 MQ9B AEW&C by the end of next year using our option on the end of the existing contract, with STOL kits coming later once they’ve been more developed.
Yes, they’re not ‘proper’ AEW like a Globaleye or even Hawkeye, but 30h endurance is an asset all of its own and being able to run at high intensity without wearing out crews in the same way is useful too. Depending on what the maintenance cycle and autonomy are like it might be possible to get 50% or even greater air time from a carrier air wing, helping a lot with the area coverage problem. And smaller airframes means we can have airborne sensors wherever we want them, the Falklands are only 220km East-West.
Ofc Airlander would solve all of the power and aperture problems and also bring ‘slightly’ improved endurance, but sadly I don’t see anyone in the forces committing to a radical alternative.
I’m not really talking about the high low mix…that is not the issue.. the issue is the Uk needs a minimum of 9 AEW&C aircraft.. ( high ) for what it really needs.. the drones cannot replace that, they are essentially a tactical asset, with a detection range of around 100km for a non stealthed aircraft and they have no control elements with a detection diameter of 200km for ..31,400square kilometres covered. AEW&C aircraft have a detection range of about 400-500km for none stealth fighters… so they cover a diameter of around 1000km or 785,398 square kilometers… the AEW aircraft are an order of magnitude above AEW drones.. the drones are essentially a new but different capability..that can complement AEW&C aircraft but not replace..it’s not really a high low mix AEW drones are an adjunct and need to be seen and procured as such..
The three AEW aircraft we have are not actually capable of providing AEW and control cover for the UK EEZ.. and a drone with a none stealth detection range of 100 km is not a replacement… so for me it 9 AEW and C aircraft.. with 3 long range high endurance wedgetails focused on supporting the carrier in the high north and then 6 AEW and C aircraft providing Cover for the UK EEZ.. yes we can us drones for things like..
1) sweeping mid Atlantic if we think Russia has some long range strategic aircraft we want to hunt down, of following said aircraft if we are not at war.
2) moving detection down the threat axis.. so pushing some drones a few hundred miles down axis.
3) providing tactical cover close to a battlefield.
4) as attritional depth and cover if we loss AEW aircraft for whatever reason
5) some organic AEW cover for carriers if they are out of range of long range land based strategic cover ( pacific )
But we are in danger of saying drones can cover our piss poor weakness in strategic air numbers, just as we are saying it can cover for our lack of escorts.. it’s bollox and we know it is.
We can by all means double down on E7 and have 5-7 of them, but I think a second strategic AEW platform is a step too far. This French deal cost £500m per aircraft, we are paying £630m for each of our Wedgetails and given the capability difference I don’t think it’s worth the savings. I’m ignoring infrastructure costs as both Globaleye and MQ9B would also require essentially a whole new base, possibly a restoration of Leuchars to a full base to host either Globaleye and Pegasus or an MQ9B MPA/AEW fleet.
So my ideal situation would be 7 Wedgetail paid for with less than the cost of your 6 Globaleye and 3 Wedgetail. Then start talking about a budget for MQ9B as a Crowsnest replacement and possible overseas territories AEW.
PS the figure we have from GA-ASI is 100nm not 100km, which is ~185km giving ~108,000sqkm coverage at ~£100m per unit.
We need 9 ( that’s really the number to be honest) but I would love to take 9 E7s as that and ASW aircraft are huge for UK security.
Some thing we should of got, but no we got 5 oh sorry 3 E7s that are still not in service, As always the MOD make the best choices on kit year after year. Saving a few pence in short term to spend loads in the long term. It never gets better, same old F ups time after time.
Boeing jacked the the price up to milk their defence contracts when the Max 8 was grounded. We stuck to our original budget and thus could only get 3 at the increased price.
Why did we not just buy some thing else, 3 is joke be likely to only have 2 in service at one time what use is two, better than none but a joke thats not funny
How many Saab GlobalEyes are France going to operate.
At least 2 maybe 4, and their Hawkeye’s as well I suppose if they count.
Yep so France has ordered 2 with a follow on option of 2 so likely 4, they also have the 3 new hawkeyes they have ordered. So their plans at present are 7 AEW&C aircraft.. but the thing about france is it’s simply less exposed than the UK as it’s got the UK to the north and Poland/germany between it and Russia.
We need 9 AEW aircraft for our needs really ( drones are an additional adjunct not a replacement ).
The bookmakers must have now upped the chances of France’s FDI winning Sweden’s frigate competition after this deal.
That sounds a good bet . Will keep an eye out for that one . I guess its a bit unusual for Frnce to purchase Aircraft outside of France and Airbus
There’s not an airbus/French combination AWAC’s available is there? Not to mention they have history for AWAC’s with both the E2 and E3’s in service with the French Navy and Air Force.
Not really, plans to replace Bombardier by a Dassault jet was considered and ruled out, for there was no sense to say we want to work with Canada and do this to Bombardier. Besides, we have good relationship with Sweeden and we want to expand this collaboration. And their are other cooperation in sight. I have great hope we can do more work together, like the great stuff we do with UK on missile and nuclear activities.
Do you think that Sweden could even conceivably join in on the FCAS?
FCAS is dead in the water though
Is it actually dead dead or just that its France, Spain and Belgium left and has Germany formally left the group yet? I think France will still want something to succeed their Rafale, so would be well motivated to carry on with it.
Yes, for a good reason: 2 planes are needed, a single engine and a twin engine. Radar, missiles and various electronic warfare equipments can be shared. It leaves 1 cloud common including Tempest if possible which will be the heavy platform, NGF which will be the carrier based plateforme and the Saab which will be the light plateforme. That’s the way is see the market structuring. Within this market, a lot of resources can be shared.
Not to mention damaging the relationship between French North America and France if France was not to use Bombardier.
It’s interesting actually that France picked the global eye over replacing its E3s with four extra E2s. Pragmatically simply moving to an AEW&C fleet of 7 new Hawkeyes would have probably been the most efficient way forward as well as giving more flex around ensuring AEW&C aircraft are available for the CBG.
I suspect there are 2 drivers
1) the profound decline in EU US relations….and mistrust of the U.S. as a future ally.
2) under the table discussions of industrial offset for some nice juicy frigate orders…
But I suspect the main issue is the sudden and seemingly almost irredeemable US EU relationship.
The deal with Sweeden is important to France, because we really need new Awacs. If from this radar people want to build an Hawkeye plane, then it will be just fine.
The new Awacs will not be like the former one. It will not be the all mighty radar it use to be. New missiles make it unfit for that purpose. No single plateform can play this role anymore. The new Awacs will be a C2 plateform. Various sensors in drones, in Space or on the ground will complement the kill web. That’s why USA canceled and the E7 program. That’s why France did not buy E7. Radar, even airborn one, cannot match the range of S400 or air to air missiles. À ditributed kill web is the way to go. It has its own complexity, from sensor coordination to communications, but the question can’t be let aside. I am only to sure that reflexions are alike on both sides of the channel. The completion of this new kill web is the key to air supremacy, it is a difficult path that we will have to discuss about, if it is not allready the case.
Well the equipment plan was meant to come out before Christmas and then got delayed to before new years, guessing that isn’t happening. Maybe before Easter now.
Be interesting to know what if any changes they have in mind, after all this delaying.
Word has it that the Treasury are refusing to sign off on anything until Ajax is sorted. Can’t blame them.
There has been a lot of fake reporting in the media claiming all sorts of things about the treasury that then turns out to be incorrect. Feels like they don’t like having a female in charge, on top of their usual bias against labour
However, if they are right this time, it’s worrying as it means they still don’t know what is going on with Ajax. Having to cough up another 5b or so to replace it could have serious consequences across the services.
I think you have struck a chord there Steve. Reeves has a talent for bringing out the hidden worst in people. Have to wonder whether all those budget leaks weren’t a campaign to undermine her authority. Talented, successful, labour and a female disciplinarian is a guaranteed recipe for provoking jealousy. Wasn’t her grandfather in the Salvation Army 😂
Although saying that looking at the direct quotes in the bfbs article by the minister, it reads like they are looking to cut capability and blame the last government, so maybe delayed is a positive as it delays the cuts.
Not sure that is a good way to consider your defence requirements if the shooting war they (and indeed others) warn us of is being taken seriously. There are other priorities equally, or even more important that need to be addressed whatever happens to Ajax. Decide between those other priorities if one must but to invest in none because of Ajax is simply unforgivable.
Suppose the issue is that the need for something whether Ajax or its emergency replacement is still there, and either unplanned money has to be found to fix its issues once and for all, or unplanned money needs to be found to emergency replace it and probably get into a legal battle. Either way, if it’s into the Billions, either Treasury has to throw new money at it, or demand it comes from elsewhere in the MOD budget.
Not sure if this is viable or not bit why don’t they take the Ajax turrets off, make new chassis’s that work for them as its not thr whole fleet and recycle or convert old Ajax chassis ‘ to other variants of lesser weight?
Maybe bonkers? Binning the lot is a huge waste of metal. Somebody needs
to be held accountable for all this and hopefully some monies can be recouped from somewhere.
I do seriously wonder if, with an empty space in No 10, no one else in the government is able to take any decisions about defence (or anything) because, well, no one is in charge. Hence the paralysis we see in all the MOD non-announcements and ministerial statements.
Ajax might be a useful excuse, but the point is that the Army are giving them that excuse. The RAF and RN must be furious.
😂
The real problem this Government has is appeasing their backbenchers and nobody wants to stick their neck out and have it chopped off by backbenchers. Many of the promises on Defence were logical but could not be squeezed into the budget at the time of the SDR and so Starmer has to talk up his objectives on Defence largely for the benefit of the outside world (US President) and quietly push the actual implementation dates to sometime in the future (after the next election) when he hopes the economic miracle will be in full swing or it won’t be his problem. This has been compounded/aided by the endless studies and reviews which this government likes or needs to persuade the Treasury on the financial impact. Some would say that Defence is the first responsibility of Government but many in this Government have short memories and view it as something we buy after all the other demands of population have been addressed.
Agreed it’s not, there should have been a contingency fund setup when the last government first realise there was an issue and that it wasn’t going to be easy to fix. But we are where we are at, governments don’t do planning past the next election. The issue is they also did a scotch earth policy when it was clear the could not win the election and the whole economy is in a mess because of it.
Even considering all that, I do think this current government is facing the topic badly, Ajax is a known problem, but it’s not the only problem and kinda need to deal with other issues urgently.
Agreed. Wider Defence shouldn’t suffer due to the incompetence of Army officers, ministers, and all involved in deciding to buy Ajax.
Gap the thing, God, the Army and HMG have happily gapped other areas of the Army.
It’s just a convenient excuse for me.
The only issue is that Ajax is such a massive program and apparently so key to the way the British army intends to fight. It’s like the navy suddenly having to scrap the carriers. Wider defence spending will have to be used to bail out or replace Ajax.
The delay in the DIP is annoying but I would rather wait a few months and move forward with a better understanding. Wallace’s decision to continue with AJAX after the problems became clear with nothing more than better ear protection, new chairs and the thoughts and prayers of a US defence contractor with a terrible track record was criminal.
This destroyed the entire veneer that he was a good Defence Secretary. He left the department in a complete mess.
Veneer is the operative word. It does look as if, as every defect in Ajax development and manufacture has emerged it has been concealed by pasting something over it! As each layer is removed another problem appears. Complete shambles. It is easy to sympathise with the view that the whole program should be scrapped. But realistically we can’t afford the cost or to wait for a replacement. If it is the case ( serendipity?) that about 1/3 of vehicles are beyond hope, then we should scrap them for spares and put the rest into service with mitigation measures e.g. the lauded Soucy tracks. The rejected 1/3 would be replaced by newly manufactured vehicles which hopefully have accurately machined hulls and improved damping. Just my two pennyworth.
If it the turret is actually okay and its just the chassis’, can they re-manufacture the chassis then? Still cost but should be less overall. Fix and reattach the turrets for Ajax v2.
I agree, in reality it’s a flaming armoured cav recce vehicle.. it’s hardly the linchpin of Uk defence.. personally I never understood why the hell they blew almost 6 billion on a recce vehicle and made it a 40 ton monster with the best 40mm cannon on the market.. the British army recce is meant to be recce by stealth anyway.l not recce by slogging it out in direct fire with MBTs.
Wasn’t Ajax born out of a Recce + Strike concept; hence the 40 ton 40mm?
Well recce strike was based on long range fires doing the strike, the recce element doctrine was still recce by stealth and not recce by combat.
Mmmm. Difficult then to see how we ended up with Ajax being so large. That said most of the alternatives people suggest are variants of 40 ton IFVs. CV90 for example.
Or taken Capability Holidays
France put in an order for two aircraft and has options on two further aircraft analogous to its fleet of four awacs. France and Saab say that GlobalEye allows France to maintain “full sovereign control” over its surveillance data.
While this commitment aligns France with Sweden, which already operates GlobalEye, it’s a setback for the E-7 Wedgetail, previously considered the frontrunner for NATO’s wider awacs replacement program.
As soon as the US ditched the E -7, several European nations; The Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Norway and Luxembourg withdrew, citing the loss of the US as the main player / buyer would push up unit costs and it gave them an European strategic autonomy, although, congress did later ditched the Pentagon’s plans to to ditch the E-7’s the damaged across the pond was done.
I see the UK buying around five or six Saab GlobalEye aircraft for local security and reinstating two more E-7 airframes as they are locked into that program having invested heavily in the E-7.
A new deal to build, modify and convert two “prototype” E-7A Wedgetails for the US Air Force in Birmingham, UK, the only active and proven E-7 conversion line in the world is based, where heavy restructural engineering will be applied and the MESA radar and mission systems installed.
“The Royal Air Force’s own fleet of E-7 Wedgetail aircraft are currently being fitted out at the modification facility in Birmingham ahead of delivery of the first aircraft in 2026.” (UK Gov).
While we probably won’t get a couple of cheap 737NG airframes through this deal, it will keep the STS Aviation Services line open for when the MOD eventually stumps up for the two missing airframes, which are going to cost an “EXTRA” £380 million +/- each compared to 2019 prices, due to Sunak (Chancellor) and Wallace (Secretary of State for Defence) cutting the five planned aircraft to three in 2021 to save 12% of the total cost, even though they already owned FIVE MESA radars.
Labour look set to restore the deal back to five airframes, judging by the 2025 SDR.
While Hegseth has tried to kill Wedgetail, Congress has blocked cancellation of the project. Latest bill just passed into law assigns a further $750 million to the Wedgetail programme for 2026 and prohibits the USAF from taking any action to wind-down the programme.
Yes some sensible people do actually still realise that china is an enemy of the US and they need a long range high endurance AEW&C aircraft for the pacific.. even if they are going to abandon Europe…
Well there’s no knowing the motivation for all members of Congress, but hopefully they were listening to the former heads of the USAF who condemned the cancellation.
Question is whether the rest of the US military can survive the Trump administration’s meddling…
Yes they did all get together and put a good argument forward.. I always find the US system so interesting, they have serious checks and balances against the executive and in theory their legislative houses have far greater freedom to stop the executive doing stupid things than our own houses.
The US Congress has restored the funding of the E7 development programme in the latest approved Defence budget. So, the project lives on and the UK will benefit with 2 additional conversions for Boeing/STS to carry out in the UK. We have to hope that Boeing STS and NG will put maximum effort into this aspect of the US programme and deliver them back to the US for fit-out on time and on budget otherwise the Trump Pentagon will have their knives out again. The first US prototype airframe is apparently complete. Perhaps this will put more pressure on the UK MOD and Boeing to fix whatever problems they have encountered and certify the first RAF E7 for delivery to the RAF very soon. A successful program might also cause NATO to reconsider its position on the E7.
Fingers crossed.
With tNATO and potentially the US scrapping the E7 it’s more important than ever that the UK doubles down on the platform. We should get at least 5 and potentially 7. This will probably be the most important asset we can bring to NATO.
Satellites may provide an enhanced air warning picture one day but they can’t provide line of sight communications. The SAAB radar is too small and the aircraft can’t facilitate enough operators to command a battle space.
We should also get air tanker to fit booms to atleast 3 Voyagers.
How important is the ability of AEW&C a/c to track stealth aircraft.
Pentagon and industry officials concede that low-frequency radars and resonance operating in the VHF and UHF bands can detect and even track stealth/low-observable aircraft, that’s just physics, but conventional wisdom has always held that such systems cannot generate a “weapons-quality” track or in other words, are unable to guide a missile onto a target. Strong hints that with new computer power USN and Lockheed have solved the problem.
E-2D Hawkeye uses the Lockheed APY-9 UHF-band radar, E-7 Wedgetail uses the NG MESA shorter L-band radar, the USAF before they cancelled E-7 were planning on fitting new radar, radar band was not revealed, the Saab GlobalEye fits the even shorter S-band ErieyeER radar.
Northrop Grumman’s E-2D Advanced Hawkeye: The U.S. Navy’s Eyes and Ears Just Got Long Legs – The National Interest
Except the latest defence funding bill forbids the USAF from cancelling Wedgetail and allocates and additional $750 million to it in 2026. Fortunately Congress is standing up to some of Hegseth’s tantrums.