The Ministry of Defence has again confirmed that the RAF’s Shadow Mk2 upgrade programme was cancelled because it was late, had failed to deliver the capability required by the Armed Forces and was facing what ministers described as unacceptable cost escalation.
The latest explanation came in a written parliamentary answer to Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, who asked why the cancellation appeared in the MOD’s 2025-26 annual report and accounts under losses.
Defence Minister Luke Pollard referred directly back to an answer he gave in November 2025, stating: “I can confirm that the Shadow Mk2 upgrade programme has been cancelled as it is late and has failed to deliver the capability that our Armed Forces need. It is also facing unacceptable cost escalation and delays.
“This decision will allow us to focus on investing in other defence priorities and the Shadow Mk1.
“We won’t shy away from making difficult decisions that arise in the best interests of our Armed Forces and the taxpayer.”
The response follows earlier reporting by the UK Defence Journal, which first revealed the cancellation in November 2025 after being alerted to the decision by an industry source.
At the time, the Ministry of Defence confirmed directly to the UK Defence Journal that the programme had been stopped. A spokesperson told us: “The Shadow Mk2 upgrade programme has been cancelled as it failed to deliver the capability that our Armed Forces need. It was also facing unacceptable cost escalations and delays.”
Sources told the UK Defence Journal at the time that the decision had been taken ahead of the Defence Investment Plan following what were described as acute programme challenges.
The Shadow Mk2 programme had been intended to upgrade the RAF’s Beechcraft-based Shadow surveillance aircraft with new mission systems, defensive technology and increased range. Following the cancellation, the MOD said investment would instead be directed towards other defence priorities and sustaining the existing Shadow Mk1 fleet.
The department told us in November: “This will allow us to focus on investing in other defence priorities and Shadow Mk1, which remains important for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work.”
It added: “We won’t shy away from making difficult decisions that arise in the best interests of our Armed Forces and the taxpayer.”
The Mk1 aircraft remain in operational service with 14 Squadron at RAF Waddington, providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability while the MOD considers longer-term airborne surveillance requirements. The cancellation also had an industrial dimension because work associated with the Shadow programme supported activity in Wales. In its response to the UK Defence Journal last year, the MOD stressed that it remained committed to the wider Welsh defence sector.
A spokesperson said: “Wales, and its innovative defence sector, plays an important role in the UK’s defence industrial landscape. We’re working closely with the Welsh Government on the Defence Growth Deals to ensure it delivers its full potential long into the future.”
Need to cancel more of the failing to deliver programs rather than wasting money.
It’s a hard one, as on one side for sure need to stop wasting money on things that don’t work, but on the flip side the capability that currently exists is being cut without a replacement plan.
Agreed and agreed.
Trouble is virtually all defence projects are late, more costly than proposed and suffer performance issues along the way that may, or may not be overcome but meanwhile affect those first two factors. So it’s about where you draw the line and when, and then what you do to ameliorate any effects of cancellation (if you aren’t/can’t ignore them). Then again foretell the proposed costs and timeframe of those decisions to move on and what the risks are moving forward in repeating these issues.
Let’s be honest they got that calculation totally wrong with Ajax and ironically Welsh jobs clearly became an extra political factor in the judgment. That misstep may have been a thought in the mind this time around.
If they did that and focusing purely on delivering proven capabilities at known a known cost, with a guaranteed delivery date, then it would be a case of 90% Commercial off the shelf procurement.
They won’t do that, the first priority of the defence budget is feeding as much as possible into the MIC machine for political advantage.
Procurement of equipment Actually wanted by the armed forces is ‘way down’ the priorities list.
The RAF have had to lobby ‘very hard’ to get a foot in the door with 12 F35A, they would very happily kill the Captor E programme first thing Monday morning and replace the 40 Thypoons ( radar allocation) with 40 additional F35A, for approximately the same cost.
I actually agree with what I think you’re saying here, more specifically money goes to things that aren’t actually military as a means for political win OR civillian buy-in (remember polls of young brits not wanting to fight if called on?) – it’s the only rational reason I can think of excepttt for this counter
Isn’t so much of our military capability now and historically reliant on industry (and the things that support thriving key industries like homes and infrastructure in these areas?)
For example the upgrades to our military ports. If we don’t invest correct me if wrong it directly impacts our hard power no?
I get what you mean though, it’s just a thought/question
Steve, do we really have multiple military ports? I thought it was just Marchwood, unless that got sold off!
Hi Steve, investing in the right UK programmes is absolutely correct, by that I mean infrastructure,
(there is a vast amount to be done there alone in this mostly overlooked area).
Warships, Submarines, small arms and munitions of all types are areas that need continued investment.
There are unfortunately many areas were we piss the money away.
That might be so but would be a stupid and short sighted decision. The criticism of the F-35 is only growing both sides of the pond, it really is a horse designed by a committee in reality but presently there is no alternative for what it is good at even despite its serious limitations when compared to what other airframes are good as. As for costs they can be nebulous, distorted and difficult to determine as there are so many factors involved but the latest estimates from an American source suggests its operational costs are the highest of all western platforms and indeed so much higher than promised that some militaries simply can’t afford to operate them as planned and/or cutting orders to try to save money. Many, including Britain are struggling to get near even 50% operational level, and will cost a fortune in underlying costs to try to exceed that. Fact is in this programme political factors are covering up the true degree of the problematical state of this programme, especially the appalling lack of weapon flexibility but critics often well placed to do so, are revealing the flaws while the US Govt is doing its best, as this is Lockheed Martin’s vital major military fighter programme for the forseeable future, to keep it relevant and pressure foreign militaries in particular onboard by emphasising its strengths and using other pressures and threats while downplaying its weaknesses any way it can. Those weakness will I fear become likely more concerning as we hit the thirties, as its strengths become less effective.
In reality it is currently still best in class at what it is good at and as such you want it as the tip of your arrow, but to commit to it being the whole arrow is madness and even the US has decided such a commitment is such and unsustainable. So if the RAF truly want that then I’m afraid they are out of touch with reality and demanding latest status symbol toys when much of your requirement is for something rather more utilitarian. Bit like Spitfires getting all the glory because it was deemed superior and the future, when as we all know the less glamorous Hurricane did most of the effective and vital donkey work in 1940 without which we would likely have lost the BofB.
Morning Spy, I’m playing devil’s advocate to be honest, the problem we have is not properly sustaining or updating what we have.
Thypoons Captor E procument is an absolutely insane waste of money, a once World beating radar that was drip fed funding and slowed to the point that it required a counter obsolessence redesign that substantially increased development costs, then we only fit it to 40 airframes instead of the whole tranche 2 and 3 fleet, with ‘no’ foreign sales.
A programme that’s dragged on for so many years, radar technology has advanced way beyond Captor E now, especially the magic source used in the RTM’s, for it only to be fitted to a handful of airframes, net result, 70 million per airframe.
Fitting a new radar to an old airframe for the cost of a brand new F35A is just bloody stupid.
At one time it was touted as forming the basis of Tempests primary sensor, now technology has simply moved on and its old hat.
I would keep Thypoon as it is, its already overmatch for anything Russia has, we only have a handful of squadrons in the RAFs weakened state, so we certainly arn’t getting involved in a shooting war with China, even if the political will existed.
Instead of pissing billions away on Captor E, I would redirect that money into increasing the readiness, spares, weapon stock piles and personnel of the current Thypoon fleet and integrating Spear3.
That would be a far more effective use of the money.
Then really double down on GCAP development and the accompanying capable loyal wingman to procure a really capable world class fast jet force.
Well be that logic they need to scrap Ajax first thing Monday morning.
That one is long overdue – it’s never going to work properly.
Yep, must be something in the contract that neither the previous or current government want to admit or maybe it’s subject to NDA and so they can’t. It’s hard to understand why the program wasn’t scrapped years ago.
I suspect the later, as if it was a massive mistake then the next government would love to make it very public that the previous had screwed up.
If that’s the case then you have to question if the procurement was done in the national interest.
Agree in full . Having worked on both IMHO forward as opposed to close recce is far better done on wheels than tracks . Sure for close recce at Battle Group level tracks work well especially if your talking something small , fast , low profile and heavily armed. oh wait – we had just that in CVRT. 🇬🇧👎
They would only spend the same again on another exquisitely expensive dogs dinner that has zero chance of foreign sales, its what the MoD does best.
Luke, I thought Ajax had been sorted out? Anyway if you scrapped these brand new vehicles what would the army do for recce vehicles and associated variants?
Pretty sure thats not the case. They are just hanging on and tarting it up. For the reasons you touched on, if they sacked it off what would they do then?
Everyone knows its a dog of a vehicle.
Isn’t the Aussie’s boxer variant for recce?
At best they will work acceptably just within prescribed limits under carefully managed test conditions or while relatively new. As such they could have got away with it in a normal conflict free World. They have been caught out by the simple fact ‘unexpectedly’, though of course increasingly known in recent years, that is simply no longer the case. Sadly momentum of Project Cover Up, like a tanker isn’t easy to stop especially in political circles where delicate job decisions are concerned, so ‘let’s make the next lot take the decision’ later and keep the project going in the meantime while playing down the realities.
” This will allow us to focus on investing in other defence priorities and Shadow Mk1, which remains important for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work.”
It added: “We won’t shy away from making difficult decisions that arise in the best interests of our Armed Forces and the taxpayer.”
Google bullshit translation: ‘We cancelled it because it was low hanging fruit, the Mk1 will have to do and we’ve kicked the problem into the next Parliament’.
It was nothing to do with industry, its a proven and mature platform. The incompetence of MOD and procurement had everything to do with it.
Mark, surely it was Industry that designed the Mk2 and commenced development? If it is not working out then how can they be blame free?
Mk2 was ready to go when the MOD purchased additional airframes. The upgrades where ordered, unfortunately a lack of money to move forward put the programme on hold indefinitely.
Now a costly package to install an American system on protector is now being trialled at Waddington.
Not true I’m afraid. The 3 additional airframes where purchased in different FY as underspend in the RAF budget to ensure the 8 platforms would be available to convert. The Mk2 hadn’t even got to PDR stage by then. It was a money grabbing event by RSL UK that seriously backfired. The funds where available and cleared, it was RSL who once the contract was agreed did the usual UK industry thing of “ we need more money “. The design wasn’t even agreed to CDR till 2023 with RSL agreeing in service date of late 24 early 25. Hence November 25 the design wasn’t even so late and flight tests not scheduled and fleet upgrade not due till at least 2029 with an OOS date of 2030 ish. It wasn’t MoD procurement which seems to be the default answer for delays it was RSL
Not true I’m afraid. The 3 additional airframes where purchased in different FY as underspend in the RAF budget to ensure the 8 platforms would be available to convert. The Mk2 hadn’t even got to PDR stage by then. It was a money grabbing event by RSL UK that seriously backfired. The funds where available and cleared, it was RSL who once the contract was agreed did the usual UK industry thing of “ we need more money “. The design wasn’t even agreed to CDR till 2023 with RSL agreeing in service date of late 24 early 25. Hence November 25 the design wasn’t even so late and flight tests not scheduled and fleet upgrade not due till at least 2029 with an OOS date of 2030 ish. It wasn’t MoD procurement which seems to be the default answer for delays it was RSL
I Stand corrected Sir
I’ve been miss informed.
Now that sounds like a quote from any current or past Minister of choice. 🫣
Ajax?
The rumour is that pro Palestine Labour MPs did not like this aircraft as it had been flying over Gaza.
“We won’t shy away from making difficult decisions that arise in the best interests of our Armed Forces and the taxpayer.”
Translation: We won’t shy away from cancelling, scrapping, delaying or gapping equipment and capability for the armed forces, whilst simultaneously grandstanding on world stages about commitments, deployments, and projection. Despite growing threats, we will regularly cut budgets for the military according to the whims of the treasury.
There, fixed it.
I wonder if anyone on Reddit can “do the maths” to work out how many tens of billions we’ve blown on failed projects, delays, going over-budget, not getting required capabilities, etc over the last 20 years alone.
I’m sure Grok will be delighted to do that for you. 🧐
Yep, that’s about it…..
I’d put my house on contracts to industry to provide a service to replace Shadow 2. SNC, Leidos, Metrea, Draken et al, all lining up.
Arkwright I Thought that was another dreaded spam advertising post for a minute, that’s a relief.
😄
Genuine questions for you military buffs:
1. Are there any military projects which are on time, within budget and looking to deliver the required capabilities? Because all I ever see is the opposite.
2. Isn’t it time we maybe swallowed what little pride we have left and bought something off the shelf to fill capability gaps, and use the next few years to re-structure and properly prepare ourselves to start building our own stuff? Labour seem extremely anti-Brexit and pro-Europe, so why not simply buy European for a while to wean us off our American dependence and stick it to Trump?
While I take your point, we need more mass in all three armed forces right now.
Who we buy the off the shelf options from is irrelevant really, this government won’t finance defence and that’s it…
@No Poet. I think you are spot on, very rare for military projects, certainly major ones, to hit those parameters they are generally pushing barriers and encountering unknown problems they have to solve, so there has to be nuance. You either do that yourself for wider and later benefits, let others do it and buy proven results, or share the risks with others on joint ventures.
There needs to be a balance and certainly as we have lost or arguably naively threw away, important capabilities and with the World risks heightened as they are, clearly shorter term we need to (as you say) in vital cases buy in proven capabilities and quickly to create mass. We don’t have time to waste, but John rightly raises that vital point, do we have the stomach to invest in defence.