The Ministry of Defence has cancelled the second phase of Project Guardian, a Royal Air Force command and control system developed to protect British and NATO airspace, writing off £9.476 million in a constructive loss recorded in its annual report and accounts, according to a written answer.

Luke Pollard, Minister of State for Defence Readiness and Industry, was responding to Ben Obese-Jecty, the Conservative MP for Huntingdon, who had asked for further information on the loss disclosed in the Ministry of Defence annual report and accounts for 2025 to 2026.

Mr Pollard said: “Project GUARDIAN is a Royal Air Force advanced Command and Control system developed to protect UK and NATO airspace. A strategic decision was taken to cancel the second phase of this system, UKV2.”

Setting out the reasoning, he said: “A number of factors led to the cancellation, including evolving capability requirements, the increased technical complexity in delivering a compliant solution and a wider reprioritisation of capabilities across the portfolio.”

He said: “The constructive loss reflects historical project costs for activities that had been undertaken during the Demonstration and Manufacture phase of the programme.”

A constructive loss

Constructive loss is the term used in government accounting for money spent on something that has produced no usable output, as distinct from a cash loss where funds have gone missing or a fruitless payment where a service was paid for and not received. Departments are required to disclose them in their annual accounts, which is where this figure came to light and why the question was asked.

Guardian

Guardian is the computer system behind the Recognised Air Picture, the real-time depiction of every aircraft in the airspace Britain controls or patrols, with each contact identified as friendly or hostile. It links the radars and radios of the United Kingdom and NATO, allows communication between the ground and aircraft, and enables the Royal Air Force to despatch fighters to identify, intercept and escort aircraft flown aggressively or suspected of being a threat.

The programme replaced the previous UKASACS Command and Control System, with IBM awarded a £60 million contract in April 2018 to develop and install it, carrying a further £20 million of costed options which would have taken the total to £80 million. Announcing it at the time, then Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said the system would give the Royal Air Force the upper hand in the face of rapidly changing and intensifying global threats.

Initial operating capability was declared at the Control and Reporting Centre at RAF Boulmer in Northumberland, with the system also installed at 78 Squadron at Swanwick in Hampshire. Defence Equipment and Support has said the two centres operate around the clock, with 50 dual workstations at Boulmer and 29 at Swanwick, which when fully manned could be staffed by more than 100 battlespace management personnel.

The original 2018 announcement also covered the replacement of systems at Royal Air Force bases in the Falkland Islands, where 1435 Flight holds quick reaction alert over the islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

Craig Langford
Craig Langford
Trained as a mechanical engineer, Craig took an unconventional route into journalism, bringing with him a rare technical precision and analytical depth that continues to set his reporting apart.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

23 COMMENTS

    • sounds like it was removal of gold plate more than anything. The UK has radar coming out of its ears able to track everything from bombers to satellites to ballistic missiles.

      what we lack is something to do anything about most of them.

      • The military radars are large, static AD radars, some very old, and I bet not capable against modern targets. Aircraft maybe, but not cruise missiles. Civilian ATC radars won’t help either.

        Modernisation of the radar fleet must be high on the list for the UK AD money from the SDR. Some really good mobile systems now.

        Unless it’s already changed, the biggest issue ASACS had it’s that its systems had to be able to provide ATC services. That must drive cost as the regulations are stringent. Maybe this indicates that’s changed and they can get a more standard Air system at a much reduced cost.

      • The money on the upgrade was already spent on the development work which, to deliver the required upgrade benefit, pointed to likely spiralling costs in the same way as the HS2 rail programme suffered. Look on this as cost avoidance rather than cost cutting, because the cost of achieving a positive result for the £10M investment would have been disproportionate and unaffordable. Not all technology demonstrators make it to market.

      • The fact is why was £10 mill spent in the first place knowing full well parameters were shifting.
        Someone has to get a grip.

      • The article didn’t seem to be clear about why this has been cancelled, so difficult to judge. Unnecessary, gold plating, didn’t work, present set up works better than expected or perfectly adequate, too costly, just not clear.
        The following hardly enlightens us.
        “A number of factors led to the cancellation, including evolving capability requirements, the increased technical complexity in delivering a compliant solution and a wider reprioritisation of capabilities across the portfolio.”

  3. “evolving capability requirements”
    “the increased technical complexity in delivering a compliant solution”

    At some point someone will twig that compliance to the spec isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. They admit that the requirement was changing so why not get something better than nothing rather than exactly what they think they want until they changed their minds again? I keep being reminded of Watson-Watt’s dictum: give them third best, because second best comes too late and the best never arrives at all.

  4. Interesting how they now include the LATCC ( old West Drayton ) capability at Swanwick.
    3 CRC ( Buchan, Boulmer, Nearishead ) plus a Standby at Ash, plus the NADOC at Naphill, plus the standby at Bentley Priory were reduced to just Boulmer and another at Scampton in a surface building, which didn’t last long.
    So just Boulmer now. Assume Swanwick can also carry out a CRC role if needed as well as it’s ATC role.
    Not ideal for resilience, there needs to be more redundancy, which I hope there is, but undisclosed.

    • Sure that it was previously announced Swanwick was having the system installed to act as the back up site to Boulmer. Makes sense unless you throw an opponent into the mix. I would imagine Swanwick would be a key target anyway….

      Not sure you can secure any fixed site now. It sounds like Guardian moved the data flows to IP so why not have multiple small sites or even better bans with a few terminals in the back.

      • Interesting, I’d missed that. Nice vulnerable surface building so hope there’s a back up.
        Bans assume you mean vans, then 90 SU should be able to sort that, or Boulmers own Signal /Support Sqn.

    • Swanwick has a separate OPS Room for Air Defence if you read between the lines.
      RAF West Drayton had the ADDC plus LATCC Civil and Military. Both sites could view each others radars , although the AD ones had the range restricted in the LATCC Civil Ops Room.
      It was thought that some of the Controllers may have been Russian/ Communist Sympathisers. So they limited the viewing out to about 120NM.

  5. The RAF alone has been the biggest waster of money since the war. It’s attempts at air defense and detection networks fail more often than they succeed.

    Its 100 year experiment mandate should have never been renewed.

    We need a single marine corps type structure with single unified structure and command.

    • Where did the RAF ADGE, UKADR, ASCS, fail?
      What examples can you think of?
      I thought it only the Carriers you hated, you have the RAF on the list as well. 😏

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here