Both of the Royal Air Force’s delivered Boeing E-7 Wedgetail aircraft were flying at the same time on Thursday afternoon, the first occasion on which the two have been airborne together.
WT001 came south from RAF Lossiemouth for the orbit areas in the South West using the callsign Boeing 31, while WT002 was out of MOD Boscombe Down as Boeing 38. Between them they represent two thirds of the entire future British airborne early warning fleet. The second aircraft was still being outfitted by STS Aviation at Birmingham Airport as recently as January, so its appearance out of Boscombe Down marks its arrival in the flight test programme alongside the first aircraft.
The Wedgetail is built on the Boeing 737 Next Generation airframe, the same basic aeroplane as the RAF’s Poseidon maritime patrol fleet, and carries the Northrop Grumman Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array radar in the distinctive dorsal fin above the fuselage.
The array has no moving parts, which is the main departure from the rotating radomes of earlier airborne early warning aircraft, and it allows the operator to concentrate the radar’s attention on a particular sector while continuing to scan elsewhere.
#RAF Royal Air Force
Boeing E-7A Wedgetail AEW.1 2x#43C97A WT001 – BOEING 31#43C97B WT002 – BOEING 38
Both RAF Wedgetail AEW.1’s are currently airborne this afternoon.
WT001 made its way down from Lossiemouth for the orbit areas in the South West, while WT002 has departed… pic.twitter.com/jaTrS1apv1
— Armchair Admiral 🇬🇧 (@ArmchairAdml) October 8, 2026
The most recent milestone before this one came on 21 May, when WT001 landed at RAF Lossiemouth for the first time, flown by a mixed Boeing UK and Royal Air Force crew. The station has spent a long time preparing for it.
Group Captain Sarah Brewin, the station commander at Lossiemouth, said at the time: “We have been working hard to get ready to operate these aircraft.”
Stu Voboril, Boeing’s vice president and programme manager for the E-7, said: “We look forward to continuing test and evaluation as the aircraft moves closer to entry into service.”
That test and evaluation phase is split between Boscombe Down and Lossiemouth, which explains Thursday’s pattern of one aircraft working out of each. Boeing UK hands the aircraft over to the Royal Air Force once the phase is complete, at which point 8 Squadron takes them on.
I was just watching them both on Flightrardar24.. thanks for reporting! We need those two spare radars put on airframes too. And a couple more! But it’s exciting to see this programme moving toward IOC.
I beleve the spare radars are going on the two American prototypes.
I hope they paid for them!
Has that actually been confirmed? I do agree there being 2 US conversions in the works looks suspicious. Having said that there have been comments on US defence social media about the US aircraft having updated radar so increasing costs. The UK aircraft have different radar to the RAAF and RoK aircraft don’t they? The RAAF aircraft are getting on a bit now.
I suspect that if we did transfer them, that’d be a sacking for any PM in the search for money.
Not really, just more of the endless cycle of steady decline.
Too much of a coincidence, two prototypes, two spare radars under a tarp in a Birmingham lockup…
I’ll wager both sold off at a nock down price too.
It would appear to be a no-brainer to put the Sky-Guardian capability onto UK MQ9bs to compliment the Wedgetails, which means it won’t happen.
Depends how easy it is to add /remove the capability. The 10 drones will be heavily used in future anti insurgency conflicts, I have no doubt of that. Removing a few from their main role to do awacs style role would likely cause issues,.as I can’t see more airframes being purchased.
I thought we had bought 16, so far and that more was very much on the wish list, along with STOL kits and radar for a maritime role? After Trump’s comments and behaviour, I’m finding it hard to see backing up the US in Middle-East COIN operations as a higher priority than improving air and sea surveillance against the Russians in the GIUK gap and around the UK.
We did.
Original requirement was for “up to 24.”
i believe the maritime role implementation is underway . MOD arithmetic 16=24 😁
Not quite. The RAF allegedly wanted 24 but the final order was for 16. As these 16 MQ-9B Protectors are replacing 10 Reapers, at keast the numbers are going in the right direction. As so often with UK defence kit, half a loaf is better than none…
3 more please MOD
No money. If it wasn’t in the DIP it won’t happen.
And anything thatvwas in the DIP, is either being pared back, or delayed.
They simply won’t finance it.
Trouble is, that Boeing has pushed up the price of an E-7 from $550m to $725m. At best the RAF might get one more, but even that needs a big increase in funding. Just as the economy is under great strain.
Due to the size and weight of the radar’s antenna array and its power requirements, I do wonder if a smaller aircraft than the B737 could be used, that could be optionally manned? I suspect it will have to be limited to a twin jet regional airliner in the B737 class. Though I would love to see a project to fit the radar within the Airlander hybrid airship.
I’d argue that would be the wrong call. Instead of smaller versions, more of the same scale but with the ability to coordinate drones as flying command centres would be far more useful. One of the questions continuously asked is how to exercise control of unmanned assets in contested areas; AWACS aircraft are already doing that for manned aircraft, logically as unmanned aircraft develop more autonomy an AWACS crew could deliver the command input they need.
I do believe the RAAF has already done this with their Wedgetails, where one was trialled with the Ghost Bat UCAV. If I remember correctly the Wedgetail has space for two additional consoles, which could be used to control UCAVs. Ultimately only 3 Wedgetails for the RAF is way to small to cover the UK’s EEZ and NATO’s GIUK requirements, let alone overseas deployments. Ideally you’d want to match the number of E3 Sentries we originally had, which was 7. But if we can get to 5 and supplement them with something cheaper and in greater numbers I’d live with that.
However, the minimum radar specification I would be happy with is Saab’s Erieye. But if we were going to fit it to a drone, then the drone will be huge, for example the MQ-9 at 11.9m, is way to small for such a radar. The newer RQ4B Global Hawk is probably nearer to the right size, but the above fuselage air intake would be a significant problem for mounting the radar. The European MALE is probably a step nearer, but even at 16m long is still too short, to mount the 9m long Erieye radar without interference issues. Especially when you consider the Globaleye which is based on the Bombardier Global Express 6500 aircraft is 30m long. Which by that point you might as well just get the Globaleye. I’m pretty certain, Globaleye would be capable of doing the UCAV control role.
E-7A requires:
2 pilots
10 mission console operators
Up to 9 other support personnel ( for Relief/Augmentation/ mission command, ELINT specialists ..etc)
So probably the 737 is the right size.
An Airbus 320 or the slightly smaller A220 might do.
I’ve been meaning to get down to Boscombe to see the transports, an E7 as well would be great.
Does anybody know how long the first example spent there? It might give an idea how long the current one remains.
I saw it on my drive across to Uni last month, by itself on the far corner of the airfield. Was a funny feeling, it’s hard to believe these forever projects actually exist sometimes.
Congrats on getting in 🙂
Thanks 🙂
Not quite as lofty heights academically as you but the course is very good fun so far. I spent the afternoon playing with my new Arduino and revising Solid Mechanics on Poly Bridge.
Congrats TJ 👏. Hope things take off for you! Bad pun intended. 🇦🇺
It arrived there on 6th August but unlike WR001 it doesn’t seem to have done any test flying whist there. WT001 is about to get back to Lossie as I write this – so some photos will be along soon I hope.
Thanks Wyn.
Accepting that additional planes won’t happen, I can’t help thinking some form of lighter /cheaper version should be brought to supplement these. Wouldn’t have the same range of coverage but would be good for a more point defense role, which is looking more and more important in saturation attack scenarios. Any over the horizon scanning is better than nothing to give more time to react.
If we were really thinking offensively about how we could win a war against Russia in which NATO collapsed we need to consider how these could be used offensively as part of a carrier battle group.
Because one of these guys could provide 18 hours of AEW &C cover to a carrier battle group in the Norwegian Sea…
Imagine a war in which the UK can sustain a carrier battle group with 2 squadrons of F35s ( with long range strike capability) 2 T45s 2 ASW frigates and a SSN.. supported by land based strategic aircraft ( AEW, ASW and tanker ).. the strategy aircraft could act with impunity as they combined with naval Aviation F35s would proved total air dominance.. the F35s with long range strike would proved total sea control ( no surface vessel can live and fight against a carrier battle group).. the air and surface ASW assets would then have utter freedom to hunt and the UKS SSNs would have no concern in regards to Russian air or surface ASW and could undertake their missions with impunity..
The fact is the UK has almost all the components to put together a complete sea control package of the Norwegian Sea and high north… but it won’t do so.
There is definite merit in examining that issue. Though I wouldn’t say NATO would collapse militarily, more likely NATO would be divided politically by Russian false flag, undermining, blackmail etc activities. Which could mean only a few nations within NATO’s answer the call.
Perhaps, just perhaps there are moves afoot in the UK to address the operational shortcomings in the GIUK and high north area. The first on the list is an airborne refuelling capability for Wedgetail. As currently our Voyagers do not have the refuelling boom like the other Airbus A330 MRTTs. However, the RAF and Defence Secretary did mention getting this capability. This would then enable the Wedgetail to extend its operational duration, which would also apply to the Poseidons. Though both will still have a finite duration limit, due to crew fatigue.
The elephant in the room though, is the lack of an effective anti-ship missile for the F35B. The obvious answer is Kongsberg’s JSM, as getting Stratus-LO/RS onto the aircraft will take forever. The JSM would give a very capable interim capability for both anti-ship, as well as stand-off land attack. The other option which is currently going through trials is the LRASM. The F35B will only be able two of either weapon and must be carried under the wing.
Due to the lack of progress with the F35’s Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin, getting Spear-3 on to the aircraft is still years away. So in the interim the MOD are going to purchase the SDB2 Stormbreaker. Which like Spear-3 can be carried as a four pack in each of the weapons bays. But unlike Spear-3, it is an unpowered glide bomb. So its range is determined by the release height and speed. It can be used against ships, but has a tiny 48kg warhead (which is probably bigger than Spear-3). But it will give the F35B some stand-off ability, as I wouldn’t fancy lobbing a Paveway at a Russian warship.
AGM-154C Is the present answer they could have it integrated in the carrier battle group asap.. 130km range terminal guidance against moving naval targets and a 500ib broach warhead.
But the other reason a carrier group will always kill a surface group is because that air dominance allows it to detect and track the surface group hundreds of Kms away.. while the surface group is stuck with the radar horizon.. so essentially it can use any effector to reach out and touch the surface group because it has a 10 to 1 or more advantage on kill chain. A couple of escorts could launch a 200km range strike while essentially being safe from retaliation. You could even just send out a couple of wildcats.. they could launch sea venoms from below the radar horizon..
But Even the small diameter bomb will mission kill a warship and once you have mission killed it, it’s dead.. you can just throw a paveway on it.
Essentially air power and air control gives you sea control.. it’s why everyone still wants carriers, once your away from your land based air power the carrier wins.
UK also procured 100 or so RTX GBU 53/B Stormbreaker, capable of being stored in F-35B internal bays and launched at ships. Not the greatest range though.
One of those 2 F-35 squadrons will be dedicated to Carrier Combat Aerial Patrol to protect the carrier group from aerial threats to include antiship missiles. They might be able to air defense to land-based ASW and AEW aircraft if the Typhoons couldn’t do the job.
And, given the lack of organic aerial refueling, the range of the F-35Bs are limited to how much fuel it carries. External tanks are an option, but that takes away from what weapons can be carried. Buddy refueling might also be an option, though that takes aircraft away from performing other tasks.
You probably need 4 squadrons. One for CAP, one to protect the supporting AEW/ASW aircraft, and 2 for strike.
But that’s the point you don’t need carrier based air to air refuelling if your in range of your land based strategic air.. you park at Airbus A330-200 and a wedgetail with your carrier and anything that comes against it is screwed.. the wedgetail will see anything 600kms away, the A330-200 means your CAP stays up as long as it needs to and your getting almost an hours warning before anything gets to you .. and a pair of f35s backed by a wedge tail is going to murder any roving squadron of 4th generation maritime strike aircraft.
It’s going to be a while until the Voyagers have the ability to refuel the F-35Bs and E-7s. So, good luck in the meantime.
And, if your carrier groups require support from land-based aircraft, good luck operating in the Pacific.
Sorry to be pedantic, but Voyagers can refuel F35B (and F35C, for that matter), as they are hose and drogue equipped – USN and its associate service use hose and drogue not boom refuelling.
But you are right about E7, as well as P8, C17, Rivet Joint, and F35A if we eventually buy them: all incompatible with Voyager at present and will be a long time before any mods are made for Voyager to fuel them.
And your main point is spot on: if the carrier is reliant on land based assets for daily, mission critical tasks like AEW, ASW and refuelling, the go-anywhere carrier is a of a sudden restricted to staying within a workable range of an available land base.
It’s all very well if E7 or P8 have 12 or 18 hr endurance, but you don’t want to be a 6 hr transit flight away, waiting in the dark for them to come on station, and in some places, as you say, like the South Atlantic, there aren’t any suitable bases, and in the Pacific those fixed bases will be priority targets for our adversaries who will know only too well the strategic importance of those sites.
Carriers need organic AEW, ASW and refuelling to operate to their full potential. AEW is the priority as ASW will always be a collab with dedicated surface escorts with helicopters, and submarines, along with advances in uncrewed aircraft, vessels and submersibles. A2A refuelling is somewhat mitigated by the comparatively large fuel reserves of F35B (but at the same time hampered by it’s bringback weight – is the rolling landing method cleared yet?), but nothing else can cover AEW except the soon to be out of service Crowsnest. It’s a hard nut to crack though, given the designs restrictions of operating from a STOVL carrier…
Umm they already refuel the F35B.. it’s the f35A they cannot refuel.
Anyone know if these E7 and P8s would carry any ASRAAMs for a bit of extra self defence?
Defence has got as much extra money as can be afforded for now, £10 bn, the services just need to live within their expanded budgets. That is easier said than done , as the clammy hand of Defence Nuclear is now grabbing £1 out of every £2 in the procurement budget -.£8bn this year, rising to £16bn in subsequent years. Add in the very large sums needed for GCAP development and there is not a lot spare to spread around.
Then add in the fact that most of the military inventory and infrastructure have been.run down,, gapped or neglected in recent decades – and particularly so in the last 14 years – and we have a right perfect storm on our hands. When you say ‘they won’t finance it’, meaning HMG, the hard reality is that the state simply cannot afford any more public expenditure, we have already maxed out our credit card.
For all those on here who keep saying HMG should cut this, that or the other, if it were so easy to do, why did the previous governments of the last.14 years do so? The simple answer is that the great general public are not ready to be told that we as a nation are living well beyond our means and our standard of living is going to have to fall to match reality.
On defence, we have to hope that there will be a steady rise to 3.5% of GDP over the next decade and accept that it will take years to get our equipment inventory back on an even keel.
No it’s really easy to do. The difficulty isn’t the task it’s the quality of the politician.
There is enormous nonsense spending out there. Look in the NGO space, in higher education, in legal aid for the grifting class or Net Zero.
The majority of the public wouldnt even notice us not not funding trivial non core services. Only the curated, useless sons and daughters of our political class might have a nasty introduction to reality as their subsidised lifestyles dry up.
Perhaps we should get a couple of the Swedish Global Eye AEW. This would give us 5 AEW planes, commonality with other European users and a different radar capability to complement E7. It would also lessen the UK dependence on the US and Boeing. We need 5 AEW platforms to make sure we can run two at once. Of course it was a mistake not to get 5 E7s as originaly ordered.