The new UK Government has refused to rule out the potential expansion of its planned E-7 Wedgetail fleet as part of the upcoming Strategic Defence Review.
This follows a written parliamentary question from Luke Akehurst, MP for North Durham.
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of a fleet of three E-7 Wedgetail aircraft in delivery of (a) sovereign AEW&C capability, (b) the UK’s NATO commitments and (c) both concurrently.”
Maria Eagle MP stated, “The upcoming Strategic Defence Review will consider the threats Britain faces, the capabilities needed to meet them, the state of UK Armed Forces and the resources available. It will ensure a ‘NATO-first’ policy is at the heart of Britain’s Defence plans.”
The E-7 Wedgetail fleet was initially planned to consist of five airframes. However, the previous Conservative government decided to purchase only three aircraft following the Integrated Review, despite the initial analysis indicating a need for five to ensure operational flexibility.
At a Defence Committee meeting last year, Air Chief Marshal Wigston defended the decision but also expressed a desire for an expanded fleet in the future. He stated, “My focus now is absolutely on delivering the three that we have signed up to and getting them into service as quickly as we can, so that they enhance the frontline and contribute to NATO.”
During the Defence Committee meeting, Air Chief Marshal Wigston also highlighted the importance of having a larger fleet, noting that “our original analysis identified that the number to give our political decision-makers choice, to bring resilience to the force and to add the value you talk about from this phenomenal platform, which really multiplies the force, was five airframes.”
An industry insider, who wished to remain anonymous, told me, “I believe the UK is actively considering expanding its future fleet of early warning aircraft. They have consistently avoided ruling out this possibility, which suggests to me that discussions are ongoing.”
As the Strategic Defence Review kicks off, the possibility of expanding the E-7 Wedgetail fleet will likely be carefully considered, but who knows?
Bout bloody time
Neither the question nor the answer suggested a decision either way. Just re-stating what we already knew which is that we are aiming to have sufficient kit to meet our NATO commitments.
Just an opinion/hope/aspiration. Nothing solid and vapid words from the MP.
Shame, because they are a force multiplier.
Yep. This and P8 in air domain need a few more.
Now what’s cut to pay for them seeming as they won’t put a timetable on extra funds?
The extra funds to buy more units border on the trivial given the effectiveness of the platform as enablers and multipliers.
Totally, and given the size of our defence budget.
I don’t know if the very hard line they are taking on the two child cap is a positive thing for more funding or a sign they are going to give nothing away…old labour would have moved to remove the cap and burnt any possible headroom they could find on it…if they are not spending it on this, maybe there will be some money for defence…not sure…
I was impressed with Starmer on that.
You know my fear of the far left in that party.
No messing.
This was our manifesto. You don’t agree, out.
Maybe they’ll put taxes up, or close the loopholes. I’m happy to pay more for public services and defence.
Maybe they’ll put up taxes? Taxes are going up, tax on pensions, CGT, council tax and inheritance will be going up.
I find it a bit amusing that they’re slating the Tories for running the country so badly so youd think they would be able to find some really good efficiency savings productivity improvements to fund things like defence. Alas I suspect they won’t be finding any.
Sorry your comment about taxes going up on pensions is totally incorrect, what is actually happening is more pensioners will be liable to pay tax. State pension has always been a taxable income if your total income goes about the threshold unfortunately due to the triple lock more pensioners will pay tax. I don’t see a problem with that although I’m not receiving my state pension I am retired and receive an occupational pension and I work part-time to keep active as a result I pay more tax now then before I retired and have no problem with that. If it helps the country with defense, NHS, and education.
I wasn’t talking about the thresholds which you pay tax that’s happening for everyone. But there’s a very good chance they will remove tax relief on private pensions in some form so some will pay more tax. It’s all part of the trick you reduce the relief so people tax bill increases. Anther trick is reducing the relief on the tax free lump sum again they can claim tax hasn’t risen but still some will pay more tax. OK I’m jumping the gun saying they will raise tax but come November I be very surprised if they didn’t. Why because they’re doing what many said they would start saying it’s much worse than they thought to justify more tax so it’s going asper script.
Well said
Somehow, somewhere, taxes have to go up – if you spend more, you have to get more money in to pay for it.
Yes I was reassured as well, he basically is giving nothing to the left and is clearly not scared of them at all…basically it looks like what I specifically was hopping, for a social democratic/centrist whose going to remove the left from the Labour party and send them to the socialist workers party…
Im getting the impression that this Labour Party and Conservative Party are actually far more worried about defence than they ever really let on…priministers questions today was telling in which they basically had a “defence is fundamental” agreement set of questions…and a “when it comes to defence we will support whatever you have to do”…to me it was not a PMs questions for domestic politics, it was sending out a message to china and Russia that the UK is not going to play games.
I think when you link in what has been said about the defence review being focused on fighting a war in three years…etc I think our political classes have just woken up and smelt the coffee..I think there may well be some very interesting and possibly quite shocking ( in a good way) things to come out of the defence review..especially towards to army and airforce….I think the naval course is already set out and will not change much apart from the question of T32..which is in reality a 2030s issue anyway.
Always admire your positive head Jonathan!
Ironic of the Tories with this attitude to defence, when not in power, and when they were cutting endlessly.
I know the Tories instead of being embarrassed about their record on defence and economy are actively critical of Labour already when they’ve been in power less than 2 months and Labour have to sort out the cluster f##k of mess the Tories have left behind after 14+ years.
Labour has pledged more to improve pay and conditions across the armed forces, which, of course, is excellent in itself, but it heeds to be paid for. Without an increase in the budget means something needs to be cut elsewhere.
Agree. If tax loopholes were closed and the government targeted the grey gig/ cash in hand economy that could yield upto £70-80 billion a year extra for public funds without harming the UK economy one bit.
Meanwhile, and while the UK still has a commercial and strategic need to consume hydrocarbons for decades to come, the political strategy is to stop new UK exploration, force increased reliance on imports at full mkt cost, and remove the potential for HMG to earn billions in royalties (and other knock on tax benefits)from incremental UK production.
If UK didn’t have a strategic need for hydrocarbons I could understand the stance. But it does have that need…and as projects such as type 26, 31 and Tempest demonstrate, the need for, and consumption of, top end refined and exotic composite products will continue for decades.
Starmer has surprised. He has Stalinist side. The size of his majority means he can (and strikingly has) defied the far left Corbynista rump. He is planning to remain in power, not something I thought would happen. This is being to look and sound like and S.D.P. government. We shall see.
The cap is kept because 60% of electorate agree with it i a doubt anywhere near that number even know what a wedge tail is. 😀
sad but true.
Yes there is hope that money won’t be frittered away on welfare state and spent whete it is necessary for national interests
It’s a positive step to keep the cap. Shows fiscal discipline. If families want multiple children they need to be able to afford them. It isn’t the states responsibility to feed and house families with large numbers of children.
Child poverty can be better focussed via other efforts. Eg enforcing the principle that parents go out and get jobs. Supporting children at risk through schools eg pre and post school meals so breakfast and dinner clubs as well as in school holidays. That was the sensible choice Marcus Rashford pushed for and made some limited progress on.
Then strengthening assessment of home circumstances so any support needed is targeted rather than given to parents who might not necessarily spend any benefits in the right way. Eg not for buying cigarettes, drugs and alcohol or buying take aways or paying for a sky TV / netflix subscription.
Hi Mr,
I would also add the need to build more homes. A single mum was interviewed on the BBC recently. She worked and earned £40k. She lived in a single bedroom flat and the landlord put the rent up to £2300 per month I think she said. That is £27,600 per year. Given her tax bill I’m not sure how she could live on the pennies that are left. She was on income support on £40k per year..! Nuts.
Cost of homes needs to be brought down. It is sucking funds out of the economy. People who would like to start their own business can’t because they are unable to raise the money to invest…
Nimbyism is a major problem and brake on the economy, but the big builders and the banks need a serious kicking as well.
Rant over
Cheers CR
Landlords have to cover their increasing costs, largely driven by BoE base rates and can only do that once a year with a Housing Act Section 13 notice. HM Treasury MPC meets every three weeks and recently made 14 consecutive increases in order to hit the 2% target inflation.
So the cost of housing is very much controlled by government and has up to 1 year lag built in by law. So the risk of insolvency is high for landlords.
Then add in the risks from the Rental Reform Bill to see why landlords are leaving the business which reduces supply while demand is strong. Basic economics means that supply demand imbalance puts up the value of a scarce asset.
Governments of all colours did this over many decades. They don’t care about tenants and landlords rather want to sound good and convince the gullible to vote for them.
The worst actors in this are the activists, snug in their well paid London jobs, while housing nobody, but lobbying the gullible politicians to stop property letting being a viable business with duplicate regulation and costs that ultimately have to be paid by tenants. It will get much worse shortly.
ive said for years benefits paid on a card that can only be spent like a contactless card. You want drugs, drink and fags then get a job.
might they fund this from the “pathway to 2.5% of gdp defence spend?” We may be pleasantly surprised -who knows until SDR 2025.
Yes mate, any increases I think will be incremental.
fingers crossed!
I keep wobbling my head to see if I am dreaming. A government who ACTUALLY might take defence seriously!!
Experience tells us not to dare to hope in matters such as these
Very true.
There is a lot that needs to be procured. The immediate task ahead of the defence review is to confirm that
1) the defence budget will remain at i its current level until the defence review is completed.
2) rapid replenishment off all the ammunition and equipment gifted to Ukraine
3) the army draw down is stopped.
4) all weapons development especially AUKUS and TEMPEST remain full funded.
“ rapid replenishment off all the ammunition and equipment gifted to Ukraine”
And building inventory back ready for a hot war.
One step further actually – generate the ammunition stocks for a protracted war and conduct sufficient live, combined arms collective training that prepares the force for major combat operations.
Just as importantly, perhaps more so, invest in in the industrial capacity to manufacture munitions at a rate to sustain large scale combat ops otherwise you lose.
Stockpiles can only take you so far, perhaps through the initial surge as you try to blunt an initial Russian offensive.
Cheers CR
I think that the realisation around the evidence for war from 2027 is finally turning a Lot of senior political heads around the western world…everyone is waking up to the fact if China says it’s going to have Taiwan come what may and that it will be ready for any and every action from 2027..then china may just mean what it says.
We’re just 2 years 4 months from 2027. If our political class actually believes we’ll be at war by then 1) Defence budget must rise now 2) the review can’t take 5-6 months must concluded much sooner.
Therefore I suspect some of these comments are setting a scene for “tough decisions” the only other logical conclusion is they’re incompetent as the tomeline require action now, I’m no fan of Starmer but I doubt that’s the case.
Agree we need to be match fit and fully prepared by the late 2020s so somewhere between 2027-2030 the new axis of evil of China/Russia/Iran and North Korea will make their move. China will try for Taiwan, possibly the Phillipines and some parts of Japanese homelands. They will push out to try to capture the first and second island chains as a buffer zone between themselves and the Pacific and once consolidated will then move on to try to establish a new Xi empire. Russia will have concluded the Ukraine war with a costly brutal victory but it’s army will be exhausted and need a few years and Chinese equipment to repair and replace losses incurred.
A Trump presidency enforcing a supposed peace settlement onto Ukraine and withdrawing from NATO would accelerate the timeframe too war only emboldening the axis to strike earlier. Baltic states will fall and a new iron curtain will descend on eastern Europe. The bulwark of a massively armed Poland should prevent any move into mainland Europe. Russia would be made to make any attempt against Poland with the army structure and forces they will have in place by the late 2027-2029 timeframe.
Study history – the Soviets took the Dukla gap into Slovakia, a flanking move. Today, Hungary presents as an open door and your everyday Bulgarian and Serb is very predisposed towards Russia.
Motor through Slovakia and Hungary, meet at the confluence of the Danube and Morava and decide Austria or Czech Republic next. Game, set, match.
There’s a lot of positive news coming out of the new government. I want to get my hopes up but have learnt not to by now. I note that no additional funding requirements or reforms to procurement policy have been made yet
Any additional funding (if there is any) will come in the Autumn budget.
I doubt it. Labour is waiting for the outcome of SDR.
There’s a defence review on.
They won’t confirm or reject anything until the review is complete.
Unless, it’s politically convenient to do so, like they did with Trident and AUKUS. 😆
Trident and AUKUS are international treaties. And Trident is a P5 issue.
So, unless you want to seriously annoy your allies you have to go through with them.
Word on the street was that Tempest and T26 deal were due to be firmed up in early autumn but Rishi jumped the gun on the election.
Isn’t there an international treaty also now in place regards GCAP?
Theres agreements but they aren’t activated until the formal joint proceed decision in 2025.
Good point. Since the Emperor of Japan was recently welcomed to London, it would be a courageous÷ decision to renege on the long term partnership announced. 🇯🇵🇬🇧
÷ Sir Humphry speak for suicidal.
T26 deal, meaning?
Norway buying a class of off the shelf T26s to be built in Glasgow
Room to be made by using the cash injection to speed up builds.
Effectively only rumours but we are the most favoured option for their requirements
Air Chief Marshal Wigston defended the decision, that says it all. 5 is better than 3 which would be hard to have more than 2 working at any one time.
You either have sufficient to carry out the operation required or you have non at all. 3 airframes is a complete waste of money.
RAF seems to make it work with 3 RC135W Rivet Joint though presumably USAF Rivet Joint and Global Hawk do most of NATO heavy lifting now that Sentry is gone…
Entirely different platforms as I’m sure you are aware. Inorder to have an effective fleet it was agreed 5 being the minimum but the Treasury knows better.
Hmm, well I suspect we agree that HM Treasury is vanishingly unlikely to know better other than the bean counting.
Didn’t the Tories cancel the extra aircraft, despite being contractually obliged to buy and take delivery of the radar? That was my understanding. Said radars ending up in storage somewhere.
Yep. To add insult to injury.
Yes the 5 Radars have been purchased which is the costly part, the airframes were cheap and now should they be added back in will cost most a lot more to get them to the front line. Bunch of idiots run the MOD and UK. So much wasted over the years and then give us guns with no bullets to fire from them.
If they are authorised then that is a Plus but still less airframes than we had with the E3’s. Numbers count as much as tech in all matters as if you loose one you loose a lot. Ask Putin as he has lost so much kit already he has to go asking nutters to fill the void as even Russia can’t supply the needs of War. Which is the same in the West.
Yes, after Boeing ramped up the integration costs. Should have picked the Airbus A320 airframe.
As predicted the USAF requirements for E3 equivalent comms and other special National systems for their E7 exceeded Boeing expectations who thought it was more like the UK E7 standard.Boeing have now reached a deal with the USAF for 26 E7s which together with the 1st tranche of NATO purchases means there will be major investment in a proper production line.
I think we can see how the finances landscape will develop. Next week Reeves will tell parliament the bad news; the shortfall. Next step is depts like defence, notwithstanding the incomplete defence review, get their ducks in a row as regards urgent, strategic low hanging fruit and communicate their cost to Ms Reeves. In the autumn budget I am guessing she will raise tax revenues substantially, focussing on removing allowances and unearned income. 5 E-7s should be a no-brainer.
An outbreak of common sense? What on earth is happening in MOD?
They just realised that massive expansion of wind farms, which also interfer with land based radar can’t be protected. The only option is to elevate the radar a love wind farm voilà need more E7s.
More E-7, P-8, replace Tranche 1 Typhoon with Tranche 3/4, commit to full F-35B buy (138). Scrap Tempest, we need capable airframes now, not endless promises of something amazing in fifteen years time in single figure quantities. Stop feather-bedding BAE shareholders with the defence budget. Add in three more Type-31s and commit to a minimum of eight AAW replacements for the T-45s. Organise our Air & Sea capabilities for the Atlantic and Northern Europe where we can bring something extra to the table for NATO.
Scrap the Global Britain cr*p and tell the Admirals to put their Dress Whites in storage.
Face facts, the Russian border is now another 600 miles further East than it was before 1989. We are not going to be fighting mass tank battles on the Vistula.
We need wheeled, high mobility brigades with medium weight direct-fire vehicles not acres of 70 ton MBTs.
Not a bad wishlist. Although I do hope any additional money is prioritised by the MOD to improve pay & living conditions for service personnel & families, also to help service veterans.
Global Britain is unachievable with current manning & equipment levels. So would agree with a refocus to European affairs.
Starmer quoted as agreeing with Gen Roly Walker that the UK must prepare to fight a war within 3 years. Radakin has been reported as saying we need to double the ‘lethality’ of the army in 3 years. Taking these comments at face value governs what changes are feasible in the 3 year time frame. The focus will be on accelerating existing programs; more E-7 yes, retain Typhoon Tranche 1 rather than replace; call up reserves, more first person drones, ammunition stocks, NLAWs, Javelin, Martlets, Brimstone on everything, as many Boxers, Ajax, frigates, F-35 etc as we can build and get into service, finish the T45 engine and Ceptor work.
Yep no time to waste.👍
Quite. Healey met with his counterpart in Germany today.
“Our new defence declaration between the UK and Germany will kickstart a deep, new defence relationship, built on our nations’ shared values.”
A good start would be for Germany to supplement the current glacial UK Boxer build with German built vehicles. Maybe we can get into double figures!
Well Boxer is coming Paul but Boxer SPG ,think that was more of a Sunak deal to make is party look good.For me we should of bought more Archer artillery platforms has the Army have now received 14 ,which in no way makes up for the number of AS90s given to the Ukraine.Boxer SPG just doesn’t look right some how to me 🤔
i think HIMARs would be a good investment.
My understanding is the our MLRS inventory is being substantially upgraded and will be capable of firing PrSM. It’s all a bit too late and too slow.
May as well get our M270 fleet up to standard rather than buy another variant.
If he agrees why the delay on 2.5%. Bottom line if he seriously thought we’d be at war in 2-3 years the defence review would be much faster and the budget would be increased immediately. Logically I’d say he really doesn’t think we’ll be at war in 3 years, the only other Logical conclusion if he actually does think we’d be at war he’s acting incompetently by not providing the funds act direction sooner.
Lesser of 2 election strategy evils. Govt is treating defence spending commitments like all others e.g. 2 child benefit cap. To win the election Labour had to make financial competence sacred otherwise the Tories would have kept at it like a dog with a bone. Now they have to keep their word. I see the reveal sequence as budget in autumn, new US president in November, defence review report Feb 25. The extra money isn’t going to be released as one big lump anyway. It will be drip fed, program by program.
Absolutely 👍
BAE have confirmed it’s technically possible to upgrade the Tranche 1 Typhoons to Tranche 3 standard. Of course it will cost, but presumably someone in the RAF/MOD would rather scrap these airframes, only 20 in service, 10 in storage, not sure what happened to the other Tranche 1 jets? Given the chronic shortage of aircraft in the RAF, it does seem a waste?
Technically possible, yes, practically possible, holly hell no. I’m not too keen myself on upgrading or replacing Tranche1 Typhoons at this stage. I’d rather, fund the full Mk2 AESA sets (+ the other goodies) for the remaining fleet. Then close the books on Tiffy and work F-35 and Tempest. I feel like McNamara did with the F-14s, still capable yes, but ageing design, move on.
On 23/01/2023 BAE Systems advised the Defence select Committee that it was feasible to upgrade the Tranche 1 Typhoons to Tranche 3 standard. So no question about it, it can be done. These airframes have a lot of life left in them, and as there is no funding to buy additional Typhoons , the question has to be asked if we can afford the upgrade?
The Spanish are upgrading their T1’s to a more useful fit, perhaps not full T3 but a step up that will keep the T1’s viable.
Its’ all about having the right mix of assets. UK has some great things way above others but often fails due to the lack of hard hitting assets to deal with what they know about. Seem it all to often on real operations. Frustration.
H Glyn “practically possible, holly hell no” – can you elaborate?
I believe the Italians and Spanish are upgrading their T1s?
There were 55 Tranche 1s built, but a larger number were two seaters than in later tranches and these all got recycled as spares about 6-7 years back as the RAF decided simulators could be used before taking to single seaters. Also a few attrition losses.
has the RAF had attrition Typhoon losses?
not from combat, but losses from accidents etc.
ah ok- that makes sense, cheers Craig
There has only been one RAF Typhoon lost to an accident from memory – a Wheels up Landing attempt in the USA.
Ahh, so scrap the 2 seaters and top.up the spares supply at no extra cost. I’m assuming the 30 aircraft remaining are single seaters?
Yeap, 26 scrapped by end of next year I think. Four are reprieved until 2028 I think, presumably the flight in the Falklands.
When you consider how chronically short of combat jets we are, it’s pure insanity to scrap jets that can still serve an effective purpose! Perhaps this defence review will put a halt to it
A good wish list but bearing in mind it takes 5 and 2 years respectively to build a frigate and aircraft having 2 OPV’s and 2 RFA’s east of suez and less then 2 months sailing from home is not a concern I share.
They are doing a great job at minimal cost in working with allies and supporting them in countering the influence and threat of China.
But given your logic shouldn’t the RAF also come home because we currently have a number of Typhoons and support aircraft in Australia? They are on exercise with the French Air Force.
Can you also tell the Italians to bring there carrier home and then Germany who have a Frigate out in the Far East.
Five is the decent mínimum.
Fingers crossed this happens.
Hopefully the fact that 5 sets of kit were actually bought and paid for, will keep the extra costs of moving to 5 planes down. This should please the bean counters
The biggest issue however is that the army needs to decide what it actually wants to be, what it truthfully needs, and then sort out it’s disastrous procurement failures
Clearly we don’t have enough Wedgetails (or enough of anything really), but the simple fact that the government has not ‘ruled out’ expanding the fleet is meaningless- it would be difficult to find anything specific that they would rule out until the review has concluded.
Indeed I think the point is that the only things firmed up are CASD and SSNs..everything else is under review..to assume anything is not wise…but there is nothing wrong with speculation.
The headline overstates what is basically a holding answer, unless you know more about what’s going to be in the review than you’re letting on. It builds up people’s expectations and risks them wrongly blaming the government for not keeping a commitment it didn’t make.
They’re not ruling it out while they’re conducting a review – they’re not even making an explicit commitment to GCAP for the same reason (even though it seems really unlikely they’ll cancel it given how damaging it would be).
Haven’t we already got the radars as we couldn’t cancle the other 2. Mught as well get the airframes as well, even if we just get cheaper secondhand ones and use them as training and reserve planes.
It would have been smart procurement to buy in 2020 when airlines were strapped for cash and so more willing to exit the lease and hand them over. Now, not so much…
“refused to rule out potential expansion” Umh? So that means that they may but may not cancel or expand… Got it. 😏
The last government were so bloody hopeless on Defence. Even saying it out loud “We’re going to operate only 3x AEW” tells you your doing something stupid.
It’s unfortunate the project went over budget but the correct answer was for the Treasury to suck it and write a new cheque not not deliver an expensive project which cant deliver its principle purpose. How no one in the last government had the interest or energy to confront the treasury is bizarre. The treasury are a stakeholder not a god. When they require you to do something stupid you tell them to get bent.
Although this is a headline I like, I’m still sticking it in the same box as “ they may cancel GCAP” in the end everything apart from “we will have CASD and build a joint SSN with Australia” is just speculation…it’s all fun speculation and a time like this it’s fun to think about the possibilities..but we have no idea..some things may seem more likely..but who knows. After all the point of a review is to review, not prejudge..and no one can say they know what will come out of it…but 5 wedge tails would make sense..as that’s what the original review says was needed and that’s how many sets of sensors HMG purchased.
As I understand we have to pay for the original 5 agreed as a contractual obligation so no extra cost is involved in the purchase
Radars, yes, aircraft no.
Correct, saved only a couple hundred in the end but will be much more if they push it through. May be better to wait till the production run starts in the USA and ship the radars over and gain the benefit of mass production of NEW airframes too.
Dont we already have extra radar sets for the E7
Keeping half the tranche 1s until they’re replaced by new builds, 5 E7s, plus 3-5 more P8s and 6 more A400Ms to replace the C130Js.Also think we should be getting Aster30 for land-based air and missile defence and build up our reserves.
liking those proposed numbers – that does seem realistic.
Six airframes total seems appropriate for the UK.
the word ‘may’ is carrying a lot of weight in that headline!! 😯
It’s going to be the stock answer for a while, wait for the review. Can’t blame a new government for waiting for details before making decisions but we won’t find out to next year if they are serious about defence or just all talk. Once the defence review is done we can judge them.
Hopefully this will happen…as a minimum…
I seem to recall reading that the although 2 Wedgetails aircraft had been cut the MOD was still obliged to pay for their radars.
We are not going to get any commitments about any capabilitys or equipment until the review is complete. So these articles are pure speculation.
Not sure why my comments are disappearing? But, my take on this is five, or even six, airframes would be best for the UK. Six would allow for more coverage in two “locations” while allowing two to be in maintenance and two in turnaround/preflight status.
If the UK is intending to buy more of this system and it’s aircraft sharing sister the P8 (that is Boeing 737NG), I would suggest that the systems (equipment) on each of these B737NG platforms be moved to the Japanese P1 aircraft and integrated into that superior and more modern airframe. The result of this change of airframe platform would be
Just a thought on future viability and cost sustainability of UK military procurement in these and other manned sensor acquisition programs. Capping the B737NG purchase to the current order of 3 E7 and 4 P8 (7 total airframes in all), i think will be a good decision ultimately for HM Treasury and the MoD.
The E7 is quite expensive. Would it not make more sense to invest in the SAAB Globaleye that is about two thirds of the cost. We could keep the wedgetails that we’ve ordered and supplement them with the cheaper aircraft.
I believe the French just ordered some to replace their E3s.
we’d end up running a mixed fleet with 2 sets of servicing and support requirements. We’ve already paid for 5 radar sets for the E7. It’d be far more logical to extend the run of 3 to re-add the remaining 2 units. Given we saved £0 by cancelling them in the 1st place, it was an insane decision.
Should never have been cut back to the ludicrously low number of 3. The Tories defence policy was saved money first, actual defence of the realm and ensuring we can meet our defence commitments to NATO and our allies weren’t even considered.
Labour have a mountain to climb but they will surely improve the situation.
All the pessimistic nagh sayers on here need to remember just how god awful the Tories were and what Labour have inherited.
So yes E7 order will have to go upto 5 possibly 7 or more.
The Tempest programme will need to be accelerated or the UK will have to order a tranche of 36-48 new Euro fighters.
The navy needs more type 26 and type 31+32 frigates.
Aukus needs to be accelerated so ready to begin construction the very second there is shipyard capacity with Dreadnought programme winding down to completion. RN needs to return to a fleet of 12-15 SSNs as our primary weapon system that we have significant qualitative superiority over China and Russia.
All is possible just takes an uptick in defence budget, correct project management and a laser focus to prepare for a war we all know is coming.
Just use the radar systems that is somewhere in storage. Surely two beefed up 737NGs cannot be that expensive. I am not 100% sure but I think we can do the install of equipment here in the UK. At the very least we could use RAF technicians to help with the install, to have five of these would be good six even better.
I do wonder if we have missed a trick with the E-7. What I am thinking about is peace time operations and war time operations. In war the E-7 would have fighter escort, however, fighters have short legs so would need a tanker to top them up. If we had a larger aircraft to install the radar equipment into we could have also installed some refueling capability into them to top up the escort. So as an example with an Airbus A330 as used for the MRTT with the E-7 radar systems and 20,000 ltrs of extra fuel could give a flight of 4 Typhoons a full tank top up each.
Yes I know that the A330 is much more expensive then a 737. With time on station without air to air refueling the Airbus can stay on station 2-3 times longer than a 737. Which means the 737 would need a tanker to keep it in the air for the same period as an A330. This tanker also costs money, one to buy it, second to operate it and third risk factor in times of war. You can see the diffrence in the two aircraft just by the way they operate in the private sector, the A330 is a long haul/international whilst the 737 is a short haul domestic aircraft.
I have taken note of several comments about the SAAB GlobalEye. Whilst I like this aircraft and could see a use for it in the RAF it for me is a nice to have not a must have. Nations such as Sweden, Norway, Poland and Germany could use GlobalEye and I would suggest it is ideal for their needs. As for Aus, UK and US the first issue is range to get on station. GlobalEye for the RAF only makes sense if they were to be based in forward locations such as Northern Norway, Cyprus, Falklands, Oman, Brunei and the Caribbean.
What would be a good idea and a cost effective idea is if the E-7s would be paired up with SkyGuardian and the P-8s with SeaGuardian, two MQ-9Bs with each aircraft, possibly controlled from the E-7s and P-8s.
How could Wigston have actively defended the decision to cut from 5 to 3 when he knew it was the wrong decision? If he disapproved he should have either protested or kept quiet.
Interested to learn Ms Eagle has given much thought to our nation’s defences. Money spent on defence will have to be found against a backdrop of less being available to support illegal migrants and ‘communities’. Who thinks defence has a chance in this Parliament?
I seem to recall reading that the although 2 Wedgetails aircraft had been cut the MOD was still obliged to pay for their radars. Can anybody confirm if this is correct?
Correct
Its now a racing certinty that Lobour will increase taxes of some sort given the directed mantra coming from all the new ministers that things are much worse than they belived. They will want to appease the Civil Servce unions and NHS workers with a 5.5% pay rise and I wouldn’t be suprised if they have privately done a deal with the BMA for bigger pay rises but both parties are waiting for the right time to annouce it. So it dosn’t look like there is any new headroom for increases in defence in the short term . I cannot see Starmer doing anything significant until the Robertson Enquiry has reported around second half of next year. His remit seems to be to identify changes to focus on real priorites and underpin support to NATO all from the current budget. Given the growing commitment to Ukraine and the possibility of a Trump pull out of US support its difficult to see any major increase to UK forces untill the economy has really taken off. In order to fill some of the holes Roberston identifies something big is likely to have fall by the wayside (delay/rescope/cancel) to pay for it. We can all speculate what this ‘big’ item might be but that will be Robertsons remit to put forward options.
CAS’s comments to the HCDC about Wedgetail numbers were unbelievable on the lines of, I can meet my commitments with 3. Mark Francois repeatedly went back with what if an aircraft is unavailable due to maintenance etc and in despair, he tried to lead CAS into agreeing with that even 5 is a bare minimum and if more money were to be made available that he would buy more Wedgetails. CAS would not change his line.
Wider criticism of MoD and the previous government on Wedgetail numbers is unfair as I have been told that no acquisition funding was ever put into the 10 year plan to buy Wedgetail and the money was entirely hypothetical by scrapping the E3s early and afterwards was it discovered that the back of a fag pack costings for 5 could not be afforded and even 3 is a stretch given what funding is actually available. Happy to be corrected if the previous is not entirely correct, but it might explain CAS’s reluctance to press for more aircraft when the basis and funding of the first 3 is a bit rocky.