The Ministry of Defence has stated the strategic importance of the E-7 Wedgetail early warning aircraft, while confirming that the programme remains under regular scrutiny to assess cost-effectiveness and ensure accountability.
Responding to questions from Conservative MP Mark Francois on 26 June, Defence Minister Maria Eagle said the UK remained in close contact with the United States on the future of the platform and its operational integration with allied forces.
“The Ministry of Defence have continual engagement with the US regarding the E-7 programme, specifically through the trilateral agreement and working groups established in 2022,” Eagle stated. “These focus on collaboration and interoperability as directed in a Joint Vision Statement signed in 2023.”
Eagle also underlined the operational rationale for the aircraft, which is due to replace the retired E-3D Sentry fleet in the RAF’s airborne early warning role.
“As highlighted in the recent Strategic Defence Review, the E-7 Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft provide significant advantages in warfighting, such as more persistent deep strike options,” she said. “Growth of the Royal Air Force Airborne Early Warning and Control capability was identified… as advantageous to the UK and NATO.”
On questions of financial oversight, the Minister confirmed that the programme is part of the Government Major Project Portfolio (GMPP), meaning it is monitored by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority.
“The Wedgetail programme is subject to regular reviews… who undertake regular assessment of the E-7 programme and report their findings at regular intervals through the GMPP,” she told MPs in response to Francois’s follow-up on cost-effectiveness.
The E-7 platform, based on the Boeing 737-700 and equipped with the Northrop Grumman MESA radar, has faced questions over cost, delivery delays and fleet size. The UK has committed to three aircraft, a reduction from the originally planned five.
We need Five. We have five radars.
No mention of them being very late and over budget then. Eagle is such a master of understatement.
Usual problem….fixed sensible budget is allocated….we decide to do a small number – five…..budgets are stretched……number cut…..costs per unit blow out…..
The cost in everything is the learning on #1 by the time you get to #4 it should be running on well oiled rails.
In this case not having #4/5 is likely saving very little.
The idiocy was that the frames were bought, quite cheaply, and then sold on /released.
With the aviation market as it is with Boeings issues with delivery anything decent that will fly us in higher demand than it was.
Five was always the real minimum to be able to do two things at once. Three just allows for one thing at a time – probably.
Three aircraft , totally ridículous. Where is the increase in military capabilities announced by Starmer, ? Just bla bla bla.
Agree, no where near enough to provide any kind of C2 functionality.
Its 3 more than Trumpland will have… 😏
Ask the Tories why they cancelled them first
I know 90% of contributors here aren’t exactly fans of the “Tango Man, Dorito Don, Commander-in-Tweet, Hair Furor, Taco Man, Don the Con.” but let’s be honest — we’ve all been calling for increased defence spending while enduring nothing but cuts.
So, I thought it was only right that, here in the UKDJ comments section, we set personal grudges aside and address the President directly.
I’ve written this on behalf of EVERY ONE OF US.
No need to thank me — it was my pleasure.
Mr. President, dear Donald,
We recognize that for far too long, our current and past governments have not given the security of this great nation the attention it deserves. We’ve grown accustomed to relying on the protective umbrella provided by your country, a commitment that has come at significant cost and effort on your part.
It must have been deeply frustrating at times to engage with indecisive leaders here in the UK, and even more so with certain officials across the continent who have often lacked seriousness when it comes to defence and responsibility.
Without going full Mark Rutte and getting on my knees — Mr. President, we sincerely appreciate your leadership and the pressure you’ve applied. You’ve helped push our leaders toward finally taking defence seriously (hopefully).
Thank you, Mr. President.
Sincerely,
UKDJ
Comments section
“NOT MY PRESIDENT”
A certain Mr Putin has had more influence than the orange shit gibbon.
Sanctions, efforts to reduce dependence on Russian energy, and diplomatic condemnation were all strong and decisive moves by Europe… Still, everyone say it with me: “Thank you, POTUS.”
Bury your head up your cr#p packer.
I’m guessing you’re not a fan of ‘daddy,’ huh?
Orange shit gibbon dear oh dear are you 11?
“just grab them by their pussy” is he 11?
“How dare you!” He was being a real feminist recognizing female pleasure!
“Just grab them by the pussy”
is a distorted summary of what ‘Daddy’ actually said. If you take the time to watch the full video, it becomes clear that context changes everything and the initial outrage tends to settle once the full conversation is understood.
“You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
Most embarrassing that the US president had to wake up NATO including the UK from its complacency. Show how bad things were. Let’s hope Mr Starmer’s rhetoric is backed up by actions. Eg five E-7s, retain Albion and Bulwark etc etc . . .
With the new NATO spending commitments, Europe’s defence industry is set to grow at a sustainable pace. In hindsight, the U.S. military-industrial complex will come to regret the pressure Trump applied — it’s ultimately become a catalyst for European rearmament and industrial independence. For Europe, it’s a long-overdue win. We’ve relied too heavily on the U.S. for decades, but now, faced with real threats, we’re finally taking our own defence seriously.
“Thanks Daddy”
This is an optimistic view. For Europe to rise, we need the feeling of a common destiny that is currently lacking. Is UK soldier ready to defend Warsaw? Is there a spécialisation of Procurement per country… We shall invest more political will in these areas.
I get your point, but I’m really talking about industry. They’re not concerned with whether we’re all aligned around a common goal, they just want orders so they can make a profit.
There’s clearly no urgency from HMG to actually place those orders (as usual). But if we are moving to 3.5%, at some point they’ll have to spend.
Buying stuff don’t buys you a culture.
Would Europe have expelled Saddam from Koweit?
Would Europe do anything to the ISIS?
Would Europe make anything to Iran nukes?
Would Europe defend itself from Soviet Union?
etc etc…
And what UE would do regarding the International Court? it was created to shaft the Americans… If UE goes to war would make more war crimes than the Americans, usual in a side that as no recent history of doing “dirty work” and in a culture tends to go from 8 to 80 regarding violence
UK will be spending 4.1% of GDP on Defence in less than two years, yet not an extra penny will be spent over the stopgap £5.5bn already announced by the PM that will be transferred from Foreign Aid. How will this remarkable trick be performed?
Simple. Under Donald Trump’s magnificent leadership NATO changed the rules of what can be called Defence related spending. Already far more lax than the pre-2010 UK definition, the NATO definition of defence spending has been used by successive British Chancellors to fiddle the figures by claiming that money going to Ukraine, pensions, security, operations, etc, are core defense spending, when none of them adds to UK military capability.
Now another 1.5% of resilience-realted spend can be called Defence spending, so spending on everything from Border Force to the emergency services can be lumped into the 1.5%. In order words, yet more things we were already spending the money on can be added to the headline Defence number. The target of 3.5% fitting the previous lax definition was kicked into the long grass by none other than the British Prime Minister. Agreeing to hit it by 2035 is Sir Keir’s definition of somebody else’s problem.
So NATO at the Hague agreed to fiddle the figures to make it look like there was an increase in defence spending, allowing us and probably many other countries to do nothing. Thank you President Trump and Sir Keir Starmer. I feel so much safer now.
This is called paying the daddy tax.
5% on a 10 year ramp up with a review in 4 is bollxxxs. 5% is unnecessary and it will simply lead to another round of running defence down when economic reality kicks in. 3% over long term would be more valuable and sustainable.
It’s less than we spent in my childhood so why unnecessary? The US has spent nearly the same for years and we used to before we decided benefits were more important
Because Russia is a poor shadow of itself and the USA itself plans to cut defense spending to 2.6% of GDP by 2035. 3.5% on real defense is still a doubling from where the UK was a couple of years back. NATO at say 3% without the USA would wipe the floor with Russia conventionally. 5% is about sustaining the US defense industry while the US itself cuts back….art of the deal
We shouldn’t rearm to face the enemy today but for tomorrow. Assuming Russia isn’t capable has led to us disarming and being totally unprepared for threats now and in the future.
The US is the only country that’s kept defence capabilities anywhere near what they should be.
We have 15 years of damage to repair which will cost millions
When war starts it’s too late to rearm.
3.5% in 10 years is still hugely lower than China which is where the next threat may come.
If you want peace prepare for war
Si vis pacem, para bellum
In your, and my, childhood a smaller NATO faced the soviet block…not Russia and Belarus
3% across Europe can handle Russia tomorrow. The rest is economic pain that will lead to reversal. Good procurement will deliver value. Look at what clout Australia gets for it 2% of GDP with 40% the population / economy of the UK. US applied pressure to them. Australian response…. Its for Australia to determine its defense posture and capability.
Its actually 5% for SECURITY of which the Military may get 3.5% and that sum will be calculated bringing in everything the Gov spends of such so we are close to that now. Remember they included the Mil pensions to help make it up to 2%. Its all smoke screen and some of course will make loads of dosh out of it in the end. If the monies are spent in the UK then the cost is actually much less as the Gove gets all that lovely tax back 🙂
NATO always allowed every member to include military pensions as part of defence spending.
But you’re right, the 5% is smoke and mirrors to make Taco Man look good to his idiot supporters. It’s still going to be 3.5% as previously agreed, they just widened the definition of what can be included to reach the Mango Mussolini’s 5% target. He knows it’s a con, it doesn’t matter, it’s all about the optics.
indeed…
Standard Eagle Speak.
Nothing new to add, repeating same old.
A few hundred million saved cutting to 3.
And with the much vaunted 2.5, then 2.6, by spin techniques shoving the SIA into the figures, where is the cash for the other 2?
This is a spinathlon.
Unfortunately being carried out at 5th form level.
I wonder if the dog will have eaten the homework?
I’m starting to worry about how the MOD and HMG will actually use the increased defense budget. Just two weeks ago, the Strategic Defence Review team downplayed the option of acquiring F-35As to deliver U.S. free-fall nuclear bombs.
“Yes, we considered it. The fact that it’s not there indicates that we weren’t terribly enthusiastic about it,”
Weeks later…
Yes that is a very good point, essentially clearly the RAF wanted it so thy got it anyway, because it was a good sell to trump and gives some headlines that sound like we are doing something but not really doing much… don’t get me wrong I actually think get 12 As for the OCU because it’s cheaper and more operationally efficient is actually not a bad idea, especially if they can be delivered early.. free up some F35bs from the OCU and allow squadron 3 to stand up a bit earlier.
Maria Eagle said “we are hopeful that the aircraft will start delivering before the end of the decade.”
I wonder would there be any advantage to waiting for Block 4. I also wonder if there’s been any money put aside for upgrades to the first 47 planes?
Yeah, it makes sense now with them moving to the OCU. I’m surprised the RAF didn’t think of this sooner — they’d probably have A’s by now. It actually makes a lot of sense though.
That committed we still get only three! Eagle is clueless about anything military and defence related, just spouts off from a briefing sheet some lackey types up!
That is an issue with all government. There are few, if any, who actually know their brief.
I’d be willing to bet dozens of posters here, maybe a lot more, know a lot more about what she waffles on about than she does.
At least Wallace actually had experience, and was involved in other areas of state security before he was DS.
True. That said the expertise is supposed to come from the military & the civil servants. The ministers are simply there to question and ensure that actions are consistent with the wishes of the electorate. The ministers should graple with and understand their brief in a way that Joe Bloggs could not and should not have to.
Just get on with it!
Unfortunately the apparent good sense in basing a military aircraft on a proven civilian design with the attendant volume discounts doesn’t take account of the incompetence of Boeing with the 737 Max. That remains in difficulty with the impact on replacement of 737-700 in commercial operation so price and availability for E7 Wedgetail build.
Clearly additional SDR funding should have been able to get five built, and the US decision not to continue despite space systems not being available means that just three RAF E7 would be very busy indeed.
and this is after the news that at the request of NATO and Poland, a Royal Australian Air Force E-7A Wedgetail aircraft will deploy to Europe in August to help protect a vital international gateway for humanitarian and military assistance into Ukraine.
I believe (could be wrong), the first stint of a RAAF E7 in support of Ukraine might have been an Australian/Ukrainian idea (or at least not a NATO idea)? This is a NATO request to Australia (not a NATO member & can in no way be regarded as just next door), for a repeat. Was Hegseth in attendance? Was Healey in attendance? Is even 5 enough? Three definitely isn’t.
I agree that we need to get the E-7 into service and use the other two sets of radar that we have somewhere to give five E-7s. The question is it that enough? Well depends on what we do next.
I wonder if an idea could be to buy or build something like the Polish Aerostat placed in a picket line Bergen- Shetlands-Faroes-Iceland. I know they would not have the range of the E-7 radar suite but should be able to form a radar barrier 300km further North than the picket line for low and medium level incoming hostiles. The Aerostat can or seems to be able to operate in the same wind speed envelope as a Merlin Helicopter.
This would free up the E-7s for other tasking.
What I do not understand is what is the cause for the hold up. It is not as if this is a new technology, or has not been built before. The E-7 is in operation with three countries so why the delay?
In the case of the UK, they are used airframes & the company doing the conversion has never done such a conversion before. This project had delay written all over it from day one.
I missed the order of the extra two aircraft in the recent Strateigc Defence Review….
Just rethoric bla bla bla about increase in defence spending, they will increase nothing in defence capabilities, what we have at tbe moment is the withdrawl of 2 vital assets such as tbe 2 LPD,s and a ridículous possible order of 12 F35 A,s
I’d rather have the capabilities the Albions have than tac nuke capability. We’re drastically reducing the abilities of the RM.
A system already in service with the Aussies and proven to be NATO compatible is running late and over budget.
How can MoD bollox things up EVERY TIME?
I suspect it’s something like building warships (takes 4 years minimum for an all new E7 – 2 years to build a new aircraft & 2 years to convert). Ideally it would have been better to pay Australia to do it. But basically the first one is the worse one. The second one is learning the lessons of build 1. Build 3 is correcting the lessons you thought you learnt from build 1. After build 3, it’s just fine tuning. After build 5 you are running at basically max & any fiddling is likely to be negative. Australia has 6 (2 more than anyone else).
Sir Humphrey perhaps?
Just 3, or even 5 if we got a couple more, could quickly be eliminated by another sabatage attck as Palestinian Action has demonstrated. A couple of Spetnaz/FSB agents or terrorists with MANPADS or just armed drones near the take off/landing flightpath too.
I can no longer discern sarcasm from fact thanks to this pussy grabbing thread …