The Ministry of Defence has announced that Britain will help build military aircraft for the United States for the first time in more than fifty years, under a new contract with Boeing.
The deal will create over 150 new jobs in Birmingham and sustain a further 190 across the UK. It will see two Boeing 737 passenger aircraft converted into prototype E-7A Wedgetail early-warning surveillance aircraft for the US Air Force. The MoD said the contract will generate more than £36 million for the UK economy.
Defence Secretary John Healey stated: “The relationship between the UK and US has never been stronger, and this new deal with Boeing creates and supports hundreds of jobs across the UK – making defence an engine for growth and strengthening our collective security.”
The UK has already ordered three Wedgetail aircraft for the Royal Air Force, scheduled to enter service in 2026. The E-7’s advanced radar and sensors are designed to detect hostile aircraft, missiles, or drones at ranges over 300 miles.
The programme currently supports 190 jobs in Britain, with 130 in Birmingham. Boeing’s expansion will add the new roles as work begins on the two US aircraft. More than 40 UK-based suppliers are already involved, including firms supporting new facilities at RAF Lossiemouth.
According to the MoD, the announcement follows the launch of the Defence Industrial Strategy, which earmarked £250 million for new growth deals and £182 million for skills programmes.
The E-7 Wedgetail fleet will serve both UK and US forces, with the MoD emphasising that shared systems will improve interoperability while strengthening the transatlantic defence partnership.
Now we need the MOD to restore the two airframes they cut, it’s a perfect opportunity to do so. Consider that the SDR recommend they do so as well they have no excuse at this point.
It’s been a typical MOD cock up regarding the programme, but the hard bit is now done, all they need to do is finish building them.
Imagine this deal puts paid to that. Presume this uses the 4th and 5th radar system we original purchased and paid for. Was hoping they could turn into a quick win to boost capacity.
Basically sold to the USAF under the guise of “building airplanes for the USAF”.
Agreed
Yup
Agreed. Typical MoD spin dressed up as a win.
Yes
Exactly 👍.
Has there been any details on that, I would assume the US have chosen us to build them not because we already have the radars, but because the only active production line is in the UK.
Not even the US could justify getting a whole production line up and going for just two airframes they might not want to follow up on. This is also why I hope the NATO order comes through because it’s almost guaranteed they are built in the UK.
Don’t think that is mutually exclusive it suits both Countries in its own way, so a bit of a mash up on both convenience and usefulness I reckon.
It likely uses the two radar sets (presumably) saving the UK money no doubt, helps on the jobs front and maintains capability and the production line longer, probably extending the time period in which to acquire more at a later date (or at least give extra time to decide and/or finance that option), retaining and even building expertise here to support the combined fleet improving cost efficiency.
For the US, where commitment to such aircraft is being questioned it allows two to enter service reasonably sooner and cheaper as a test option and back up for their present ageing airborne platform, allowing more time to determine whether a satellite based system only, is the right choice especially in the given timeframe to perfect it. Equally if they do buy into the system as previously planned, then again they can learn from the problems we and Boeing in particular have encountered as and when they do open a production line, or simply exploit the uk one perhaps, if only a small further number are eventually required. I suspect these two aircraft, beyond testing and evaluation purposes, will be operated in Europe anyway where they will be most effective, thus the cooperative aspect mentioned and if they no longer need them we get them on the cheap at some point no doubt. So we get one way or another the use of five for the cost of three+ in a likely future scenario even if two stay in US service, while both Countries benefit from decreased costs (theoretically anyway) and above all flexibility and back up solutions all round while the whole future of airborne platforms or what form they might take, can be determined.
That is a good analysis, the only issue I invisage with that is we would have to make a desision before the last US airframe is finished to aviod any downtime in production and a loss in industral capacity if no export order from NATO/Europe come through.
As long as we get the full 5 I am happy, but we all know what the Gov and MOD are like with these things, they’ll find a way of cocking it up one way or the other.
💯👍🏻
Seriously WTF!!
If it wasn’t for RAAF investing $3.4 billion Australian taxpayers dollars in the development of the Wedgetail (it’s named after an Australian Eagle after all), accepting all the technical and development risk, resisting calls to cancel the program when it encountered significant delays in integrating the first of type MESA airborne radar, setting up a production line in Australia and working out all of the production kinks inherent in a uniquely innovative platform, bringing them into operational service and testing them in combat over Iraq and Syria and consequently committing a further around $2 billion to spiral upgrades and long term development of the platform neither the UK or the U.S. would have a program to fight over the scraps.
But you’re welcome.
Mate. I agree but Australia is not unique in developing equipment that then benefits allies.
The UK has done that at its cost with the type 26 frigate, meteor air yo air missiles, land Ceptor, sea Ceptor. To name just a few in recent times.
That is not entirely a valid comparison.
In the case of the Wedgetail the Australian government almost entirely funded the program and bore the financial risks. Boeing contributed zero funding and Northrop Grumman a small fraction, yet both retain the IP (Boeing for the airframe and flight systems, NG for the MESA radar) and both benefit financially for future sales. Australia gets zip.
The UK government gets payments for each T26 derivative ship built for other navies – through either a ‘Design Services Fee’ or an IP license fee embedded in the export contract.
Similarly, despite MBDA work-share arrangements with other nations, the UK receives some financial return on each missile sold. They are commercial arrangements rather than altruistic.
Australia needs to be less commercially naive and better at commercializing its investments. That’s why it was alarming when a Ghost Bat was shipped to the U.S. for ‘testing’. Currently it has been set up to be ITAR free and we need to keep it that way.
A missed opportunity methinks
The US radars and planes will be different from ours so no this will not prevent the UK from ordering two more E7’s.
Do we know for sure if these are using the UKs 4&5 radars? If same will the UK then buy these planes back off the US? Other comments here are suggesting a US fit out.
I fear that you are right. Based on sources such as the recent Major Project Report, it seems that cutting the UK’s E-7A order from 5 to 3 planes will cost more than if the MOD had just proceeded with the original fixed priced contract. Crazy. The vaguely only similar incident I can remember is the NAO reporting c.20 years ago that cutting the Astute class submarine from 8 to 7 boats had actually increased the cost of the programme because the already stretched-out delivery schedule had become even more inefficient.
Completely true, the same supply chain and workforce has to do exactly the same job but for fewer boats over more years. Only benefit is the Treasury annual accounts look better due to the lower staged payments being over a longer period !
TBH it really infuriates me when folks on here who have never worked in the Defence Industry blame the workforce or supplier for the slow pace of delivering MOD projects. The usual culprit is the Treasury Bean counters and the staged payments, U.K. industry can compete with the best when properly funded. You just need to look at the statements by BAe regarding T26 delivery times, 5 extra orders enables them to fund a speed up which cuts the drumbeat from 18months to 12months.
And before anyone points out that Mogami and FREMMS Frigates are delivered quicker a T26 is a way more complex beastie than either.
I doubt even the MOD has much of a say in this. It smells of central government cost cutting at its finest.
Here we are in the most unstable times in 30 years and we are still trying to cut the cost of have a military.
I think we’ve just found out where our 2 spare radar kits for Wedgetails are going. To the USA. We won’t be increasing our fleet back upto 5 any time soon.
That’s the chances of using the 4th and 5th radars to increase the RAF fleet scuppered then!
These will be the two prototype E-7A’s ordered by the US, different equipment to the UK E-7’s.
In the last funding round they were stated to the same spec so there was no significant project risk…..
Before Pork Barrel II came along….
The radar is US made anyway…
I thought the Trump Admin killed off the procurement of Wedgetails for the USAF and were going with Hawkeye’s?
Congress restored the funding for E7 last month.
Yes they did for SLS too but that’s never the end of the story, much wrangling to go on I suspect, which probably makes this particular solution convenient for both parties while that plays out.
Interesting what you say about the radars and planes being different, can you elaborate a little. If so I wonder how that bodes for eliminating the problems and delays during our versions.
Trump said today at the press conference UK going raise defence spending to 5%. .Sorry President Trump no way is this Starmer government got any intention of doing that . May of been wise to Get that one in writing . 🤔
It’s defence and resilience spending as outlined by NATO that has a 5% target.
The US spends no where near 5% on defence
To be fair to the US, when your spending close to a Trillion USD on defence already, what’s the point in going further at that point…
When you get so little bang for the buck as the Us does you need to spend $1 trillion.
Well in light of what China are doing that is a very pertinent question. In light of that and considering how many programmes are struggling to find funding the answer from many may be ‘quite a lot’ perhaps. How that’s solved however in finding more cash is perhaps the more fundamental question, the answer to which short term is to get Europe to buy more weapons (US they hope) and moving assets and new assets to the Pacific theatre to at least delay the inevitable.
The US navy is in desperate need of investment. The US is subject to the same issues that the UK is, It struggles to build new equipement and also struggles to maintain the current kit.
The most glaring issue is the SSN fleet and the Columbia SSBN build. It makes our issues with the A boats and Dreadnaught look pretty minor, and in a conflict with China over control of the first Island Chain, US SSNs will be the deciding factor IMO. The CVN overmatch is negated by the missile capability on the Chinese mainland.
Look on the bright side, BAe US is rapidly picking up more maintenance / support work in preference to other US Navy Defence contractors they are expanding. Which is great for BAe shareholders. 🤷🏼♂️
When China is outbuilding you in naval vessels at a really significant rate… the balance of power between the PLAN and US navy in the western pacific is at a tipping point… if you have a nation that wants to take a chunk out of you suddenly starts massively out producing you then you need to sit up and make a change up.
The PLAN still don’t have a solution to the SSN problem, they aren’t even at Russian quality yet when it comes to submarines and seem to not care. Every surface ship they built is just a target at this point.
Hi Chris a few points on that
One of the things that people forget is that by the 1980s both sides of the cold war were courting china and essentially selling them sensitive ASW technology..so china got western sonars and AIP systems, it got the russian submarine quiteing tec base. Everyone was selling stuff to china.. then in the 2000s essentially the west gave over to china all the manufacturing techniques it needed as we wanted china to build all our stuff. China focused this all first on diesel electric boats then AIP boats and they essentially now produce AIP boats as good as anyone’s.
So the various bits that the USN are concerned about are: ( you can essentially gather most of this from the excellent series off papers from the US naval war college and china martime institute reports…the CMSI reports, there are around 50 of these in-depth technical and academic papers that provide a great starter library for understanding the PLAN and its threat balance to the USN).
the western pacific:
1) particularly the china seas are not very good SSN country. In those tight shallow seas close to china the SSN advantage over electric boats disappears significantly
2) and china has more electric boats than the U.S. has SSNs and Chinese electric boats are considered good and quite.
3) Chinese ASW platforms are to put it bluntly like flies on shit, there are a lot of them. 25+ large modern fixed wing ASW, 50ish ASW rotors, 50+ electric boats, 40 destroyers with towed arrays and variable depth sonar, 40 ASW frigates with towed array and variable depth sonar, 50 ASW corvettes with variable depth sonar and towed array sonar. Then you have about another 50 ships with just hull mounted sonars.
4) prepared the field.. like the North Atlantic in the 1990s china has prepared the battlespace in the western pacific a recent article suggested “ The Near Seas are right on China’s doorstep, giving the PLAN a significant advantage. In recent years, they explain, it has become increasingly difficult for U.S. manned platforms to conduct reconnaissance close to the Chinese coast. Indeed, the “survival space” for U.S mobile and fixed unmanned systems within the First Island Chain has been shrinking. Additionally, the authors describe a “stalemate” between China and the U.S. in the ability to “seal off” the three main straits between Taiwan and the Philippines (Bashi Channel, Balintang Channel, and Babuyan Channel). Within the First Island Chain, China has the advantage in terms of force disposition and the “battlefield situation,” and “to a certain degree, it possesses the initiative.”
Essentially that all means US SSNs will be facing 75+ airborne ASW threats, 50 quite electric boats, 130 ships with towed arrays and variable depth sonars, in an environment that is no longer conducive to a U.S. SSN surviving.
Future SSN force dispositions USN
1) the USN LA crisis. Essentially the USN is suffering a crisis of SSNs due to all the LAs coming up to decommissioning time. In the next few years the USN will drop to 47 SSNs. The Virgina class build rare has been dire at 1 a year which means that at present the USN are not getting above 50 SSNs for the foreseeable future.
2) US SSN maintenance backlog, at present due to a lack of operational drydocks and skilled workers the USN is running at about 30-35% of its SSN fleet being none operational ( as in not having diver certification) that leaves only around 30-33 operational SSNs
3) build capacity is one launch every 12-18 months.
Chinese SSN fleet
1)Yes Chinese SSNs have been shit.. the original type 93s are probably about up to a Russian November class SSN, but they never put any effort into it until about a decade ago and they only ever operated 6 of these boats.. mainly as an experimental and seed force, so each of the type 93As is fundamentally different and tested different technologies. The last of these type 93As with all the technical developments is probably on par with an early fight LA.
2) China has now developed western level of CSS manufacturing ( this is totally core to quite SSNs)
3) it has developed tile technology up to a good standard ( Russian level)
4) it’s developed a good standard of rafting technology ( again Russian standard)
5) it’s developed good pump jet propulsion systems
6) it’s developed vertical launch tubes.
This has all come together in the type 93b which china has thrown into serial production. This means the T93b is essentially as close to as quite as a last flight LA has the equivalent land attack capabilities etc… china are throwing out 12 of these. Since 2023 it’s possible that up to 4-8 have been launched. But the Type 93b has one huge drawback that limits it to “only” being as good as last generation western boats and that is the energy density of Chinese reactors at that time meant it’s a dual reactor design, this adds to reactor noise.
But most suspect that 12 will be the lot for the type 93b and they are no longer laying down any new hulls, because it’s already been superseded. Essentially Russia gave the Chinese a mobile maritime reactor with the energy density needed to run an SSN and china has now it is thought started building a new generation single reactor SSN the type 95. Essentially if the type 93B was within spitting distance of a last generation western SSN, the Type 95 will be the peer of a present generation western SSN.. and china is building them now ( probably).
This is a problem because of building capacity. China decided as china does to build the single biggest SSN and SSBN mega factory in the world ( and it is a mega factor..forget traditional ship yard this is a vast an SSN production line).
It had a traditional 4 building bay set up ( about 25% above the capacity of the UK) but it essentially added to this with 12 covered SSN bays, 4 SSBN bays. Behind all that a large section factory, small section factory, reactor fueling facility, tiling and painting bay…all connected by a railway system. This gives then the ability to lay down 20 SSNs and SSBNs at the same time.. they are it seem possibly building another shed for another 12 SSNs.. essentially this all means at present it’s estimated that at full serial production china could launch 6-8 nuclear submarines a year. That’s 10 times more than the US is managing at present.
This means essentially by around 2027 the PLAN will have 12 LA equivalent SSNs to essentially fight a deeper campaign in the Pacific.. but from that point they will start launching an unknown number of present generation western equivalent SSNs, that they can build in batches of 12-20 launching up to 6-8 a year ( potentially).
So the 2 radar set we have knocking about are now to be used for US airframes. That about sums it up.
No
Any evidence for that no?
Yep, too many debunking this obvious con by the UK Government without evidence.
We know what our Government is capable of. And this more-or-less eliminates the pressure to add the missing two airframes.
It’s one hell of a coincidence if not. The US will order hundreds of them, why mysteryly only order 2 from the UK.
Another headline with precious little for the RAF coming out of it.
““The relationship between the UK and US has never been stronger, and this new deal with Boeing creates and supports hundreds of jobs across the UK – making defence an engine for growth and strengthening our collective security.”
The usual, as I keep saying. No interest WHATSOEVER in filling gaps, expanding capabilities, or increasing the forces small size.
It is all about industry and jobs.
When Healey was in opposition, it was all about the “hollowed out” forces.
Now. Silence.
And back in 2010, that awful DS Fox said similar when in opposition “Lets give the forces what they need”
These people are all words.
I guess they deem emphasising the economic benefits in a sluggish economy is the only way to keep many of their core voters and indeed MPs onside. Worryingly that gives much wiggle room for words not ending in increased military capacity. I remember and shiver at how Labour and even Tory Govt’s used to pile money into BL to simply retain jobs without (unlike an equally decrepit Renault) any real thought of making the changes and enhancing efficiency to enable it to produce over time the products and quality required to compete. Avoiding strikes took precedence over the future sadly. Let’s hope that similar notions are not the present priority.
Daniele, Another way of looking at it is it could make 2 more for the RAF more affordable and it could possibly be a very smart move. The reason we are building E7s by modifying existing airframes is because that model is out of production and there isn’t a cat in hells chance of Boeing agreeing to build more of what would be a fairly small production batch (they built over 7000 over 30 years).
The other advantage is Europe wants to order E7’s and as Boeing aren’t into modifying old airframes (they chose STS in the first place) we would stand a very good chance of getting the contract as we would be the only folks who have actually done this, built up experience and more importantly have the necessary Licences.
So we get our 3, then convert 2 for USAF and then order 2 more for ourselves and 🤞🏻 maybe at a better price as part of a European order. Or even get the main USAF order, just remember conversions of US produced kit isn’t going to upset Trump and are very Manpower intensive (expensive) and our skilled Labour costs are far lower than theirs.
As for the Government focusing on Industry, just remember not focusing any attention on it has resulted in us being nearly 100% dependant on Foreign kit / designs for just about every single item the Army has on order or on its wish list. We can’t even build more of our own U.K. designed CR3 MBT’s.
Hmmme
All true.
I don’t think Boeing would want to touch a new conversion line with anyone else anyways.
This way Congress gets its two E7 prototypes and the UK gets £££ and nobody looses. The Tangerine keeps both UK and Congress happy.
Could be a much larger order as someone will have to make the NATO E7 orders as well.
Apparently it’s been reported that the U.S. airframes will be new, not old.
“the new 150 jobs in the UK will modify two prototype E-7A Wedgetail aircraft using the airframe from new commercial aircraft which will be the first E-7A models received by the US.”
The Boeing NG has been out of production since 2019. There is no way they are using the Max for these airframes so I can’t see how they can possibly be new build airframes.
Just to correct your there, while Boeing no longer builds commercial 737NG’s they still build NG’s for the Military (eg E7 Wedgetail and P8 Poseidon ) and for private jets (eg Boeing 737 BBJ Select) . The 737 NG’s fuselage and, AFAIK, the core wings are the same as the Max and the CFM56 engines are still in production so its not a major issue to keep the production lines open.
Boeing wouldn’t build anymore. Their production lines are maxed out for the foreseeable future, even if the FAA is convinced their quality assurance is now up to par and allows them to increase production.
Anyone ordering a new aircraft from either Airbus or Boeing is now waiting years before they get it.
Morning ABC.
Possibly. But I doubt it, as why not say so. It’s brown nosing at its best.
At this point, my priority is actually, real, kit and people for the forces rather than where it comes from, sadly.
As I’ve suggested many times, this makes the MoD budget primarily for two things.
Nukes, so HMG can grandstand to justify our UNSC status, and HMG priority, keeping a home defence industry resourced and in profit, and equipping the military a distant third.
You say “not focusing any attention on it” has caused us to go elsewhere. Yes, but that is past history, again courtesy of Labour and the Conservatives. It won’t help the forces now, and the forces need help now, not words.
Wetlands Yeovil is an ongoing case in point. Tiny numbers, expensive, but look at the jobs and the MPs are happy. Jobs that need to be well paid, have rights, conditions, and health and safety our enemies in Russia China happily ignore, meaning they get a lot more for their money.
The RAF now have zero medium helicopters. HMG were offered 60 Blackhawk for 300 million years ago.
Has anyone asked the forces themselves what they want?
Does it even matter? No. Politics and jobs matter.
I remember several years ago the hoo ha here that the 4 Tides went to Korea.
I didn’t give two hoots. I was pleased they were actually being built.
They are here, AFAIK were on time and budget. Had they been built here, IF there was even a yard to build them, would they even be built yet, to the cost we paid?
We’ve spent a decade talking about FSS, and it’s not started yet, neither has it had the chance to go wrong yet!!
Industry first, forces a distant third, and HM forces will remain as they are. Professional. Well trained, highly capable for limited operations, and admired widely, living off their past history, which those politicians of both leading parties I despise so much happily feed off and 99% of the population are blissfully unaware, mostly through utter indifference.
I don’t give a monkeys if SOME of our kit is built or sourced elsewhere alongside sovereign kit as long as it is plentiful, REAL, and works.
TLDR, it’s about time we ordered assets for our forces and recruited people, everyone keeps saying we could be at war in the future, and meanwhile we strive for perfect sovereign capability and Healey looks for Brownie points with the jobs created.
That didn’t matter in ww2 with lend lease, the forces needed assets alongside home built, out of necessity.
But at least they had assets.
Maybe of we ask Xing and Putin nicely they’ll delay 30 years so we can buy everything from home. In tiny numbers.
Cheers! As you can see, my scepticism remains…but I waw pleased about Patria Cavs. If they actually order it….
Let’s be honest if the UK becomes the defacto manufacturer of wedgetail, essentially the only strategic AEW aircraft now available to western allies, that is huge.
This is a massive opportunity for the UK
Full circle on NIMROD AEW.
But this time possible the entire NATO block will purchase….seriously interesting bit of sovereign capability.
Sometimes the only other bods on here who understand that industry is vital to Defence is you and SB 😉 If STS can deliver this on time and within budget, it stands a very good chance of being a very lucrative enterprise.
It’s a bit of an oddity but essentially STS were chosen by Boeing as a sub contractor to build our E7’s from existing Airframes and did the same with Turkey, and Australia.
All the important wars that really change history have been won and lost on industrial capabilities.. the nation that can out build will win..even its its armed forces started off a bit Shite and the quality of its products is only “ Just about right”… it’s the Sherman vs panther question.
Some interesting comments . The P8 is close enough to the basic E7 dervird rom the 737 NG airframe to provide the basis for a USAF run of say 25 plus airframe. Those two radar sets were worth more than any airframe and would no doubt be the ” sweetener” for a deal to get something to make up for the last government’s crass decision to cancel 40% of the fleet to save 12% of the cost and not realising it results in no 24 hr coverage 7 days a week 375 days a year capability.
The protyping here seems a bit of con as Austrail and Turkey havd already done the conversions and the development work, but using new build airframe and not trying to repeat the Tristar fiasco of taking used ones built for different airlines.
It might cause apoplexy in some quarters, but you could of course look at putting the radar into an A320 variant , use an Erikson radaras being flown by some operators and get some strategic independence from.a USA thst is now of questionable reliability ? The USAF could buy and get a much better airframe and Europe could get some balance in the trans Atlantic arms trade ?
Interesting to see we have 375 day, years !
It is another product of inflation?
Using Rachaelonomics if you increase the number of days per year growth is increased proportionately.
This indirectly leads to Ed’s Conundrum. Previously it was thought that multiplying an integer by a number very close to zero the products tends towards zero. But under nut zero maths it has been found that this is not the case and multiplying by close to zero net daily growth can lead to significant annualised growth.
Taken together with the new SNP maths that I outlined a few weeks ago it amazing to contemplate the strides taken in our basic mathematical understanding in recent years.
As ever UK AEW procurement is a farce, three Wedgies? Five Wedgies? Two of those five Wedgies for the USAF? Scrap the Wedgies and buy Erieye? Go Indian with Netra?
Yesterday, from my sunlounger, I watched a G550AEW go over, at an altitude and speed a Hawkeye could only dream of, and couldn’t help but paraphrase Jim Bowen: ‘Look at what you could have won.’
“Scrap the Wedgies and buy Erieye? Go Indian with Netra”
Erieye is not a patch on an E7.
Netra is only a thing as India couldn’t buy the full fat E7 – it was too sensitive to sell them. They wanted it.
UK AEW is something I do know a fair bit about and US AEW R&D depended a lot more on UK tech than you might like to think.
NIMROD AEW wasn’t a bad idea it was just the computers of the time couldn’t handle assembling that radar picture from two independent mechanically scanned radars. E3 won as it was mechanically and therefore computationally simpler.
I had a mate who was in the RAF and on the program. I remember him saying how powerful the radar was and how well it worked on the Comet test aircraft. But he also said that the Comet’s airframe space was taken up with running just one radar. When it came to using two systems, the heat being generated couldn’t be dumped quickly enough. Which just got worse as they tried to squeeze everything in to the relatively small Nimrod airframe, the computer used to crash a lot. On the Nimrod they could get the radar working, but only when operating just the forward or aft antenna, not both at the same time. The radar and signal processing was powerful enough so it could track vehicles on roads. This wasn’t a stated requirement but showed what could be done. This was a forerunner of ground tracking radars as used by the late Sentinel aircraft.
However, the technology used to develop the then new concept of frequency modulated interruptive continuous wave (FMICW) even though the computer couldn’t process it properly, which led them to revert a simpler pulse-doppler technique instead. Along with the digital signal processing went on to serve BAe developing the Sampson radar. So not a total loss.
It was a very clever solution.
But well ahead of the very limited processing power of the day.
As I’ve posted before one of the issues with getting both radars running was forming a single radar picture synthetically.
As you can imagine if you end up with a tiny mis sync in the mechanical side you create two tracks to monitor which then start appearing and disappearing. So the number of targets and tracks multiples like tipsy until memory is filled and the system crashes.
Heat was dumped into the fuel – idea borrowed from Concord for cooling the leading edges.
Ultimately it could all have been made to work if Moore’s Law had been allowed to take over!
Sadly too true. He was on the trials unit at Waddington. He did say you might get one flight out of five that was useful. Most of the time the computer that combined the two radars crashed. Or just displayed multiple tracks as it couldn’t resolve the same tracks seen by the two radars. Probably 10 years too ambitious.
In a lot of respects NIMROD AEW would have been far better than E3 ever was.
Like a lot if projects, at the time, computers were too big and too cumbersome.
Anything that made code complicated failed. So very clean digitised data was needed as the ability to filter data in the computer used too much resource. Some of the digital filtering had to be done in hardware as did the FFTs.
There remains a lot of rose-tinted history about the Nimrod AEW and as someone who was very close to the Nimrod AEW project and saw all the trials results I can only say it was many many years away from being a reliable military system which would have required a degree of investment in money and time which could not be credibly quantified at a time when the RAF was reliant on WW2 era technology on the Shackleton AEW.
As for the UK building the USAF E7s I do not believe the current US Adminitration is fully committed to the E7 as yet and I suspect it is a face-saving way for the USAF to get the two prototypes for evaluation ahead of their proposed space-based solutions. The USAF E7 airframes are in an advanced state of build in the US and I expect will be delivered to the UK for the radar and mission system integration (same as UK E7). The USAF E7 is based on the UK system with US Eyes only comms and other equipment’s which the UK will not be able to fit without special clearance. However, it gives the UK with Boeing a chance to address a larger market such the NATO E7 (6 /14 required) and I hope we put the investment into the ‘modification line’ to step up to the larger challenge as the USAF (and NATO) will be a demanding customer. Sucess in this contract may be the only way the UK could afford to purchase the urgently needed additional E7s.
A bit of total BS as usual.
In what sense is this the first time in 50 years that the UK has ‘helped’ build aircraft for the US? The tails of F35s are built in Lancashire for example. and BAE avionics finds it’s way onto numerous other aircraft, which is why the US wasn’t able to export F16s to Argentina without our approval.
Is it a coincidence that we ordered 2 spare radars and making 2 planes for the US?
So really we are selling our two spare Radars to the USA so we can scrap by with just 3 aircraft even though the review says we should have 5, normal MOD lies, smoke and mirrors talking it like its a gain. Are shoe string armed forces doing well then with the least amount kit to muddle on. Where has or is all new money and kit asked for in the review?.
In 14 months nothing major has been ordered, the crazy CDS out of touch with reality going on about increasing this, ready for war that. 14 Wheeled SPG’s some near clapped out C2 and 40 year old Warriors and 60 year old 432/bulldogs and very limited ammo looks great though those MOD issue rose tined glasses.
Another cut written up as win, the lunatics are running the Asylum.
I say bring back the SLR!
And remind me of the Gimpy!
The SLR never held zero long, the fore sight was bigger than target at any thing over 300m. It was way too long. And single shot. Yes if you hit any they never got up again though.
Just my personnel thoughts though. I know some full on get offended if say any thing about it. Did a tour and gulf with an SLR . Much preferd the SA80 A1 when it’s issues were fixed.
Martin.
Off hand comment, apologies. Some old kit does actually work quite well.
Laid hands on the SA80, but preferred the gimpy with KORBR – targets will fall IF they try to exit the cone of fire… unfortunately MP didn’t carry gimpy in my time.
The UKE have shown how to use old kit very effectively, however, they have also shown how to use new kit very badly… Think the Armoured attack last year. Lots of lessons coming from Ukraine so I would not write off old kit, except for me, my knees are knackered!
Some old kit works well as its simple which modern stuff is not. Now a tiny cable or fuse goes and it’s all stop. No black masking tapeor a hammer is going to fix it.
Had a P200 Vespa, cruciform died.
Carried 3 specialist tools, seals and cables in the butty box.
Stripped her down in the rain and broke the casing apart, fixed her in the pouring rain at stupid o’clock and back on the road.
Today? No idea.
Good ol’ Pink Floyd song. 👍🇬🇧🙃Fly Navy.
Good ol’ Pink Floyd song. 👍🇬🇧🙃Fly Navy. (Lunatics are running the asylum) .ta Martin.
I’m guessing this is the way the MoD have worked out to offload the two surplus radar / sensor sets we have.
Message is – no more Wedgetails for the RAF.
Pathetic.
Err $36m benefit to UK industry? These things are $500m each, so UK industry gets ~1% exposure – that isn’t joint manufacture, but a political sop
We can build them but not the Nimrod which if I remember correctly was more advanced than the USA AWAC at the time 😂😂
Flight Global has a more accurate description of the UK work for the USAF E7s being modification of the 737 to take the mission systems and the radar and fitment of the Antenna. Final fit out and systems integration test to be done in the USA. Possibly the 2 spare radar antennas owned by the UK will help advance the US programme and could they be replaced by later production models from NG. This would make sense particularly if all 5 radar sets and Antennas have been delivered to the UK already.
This is truly shameful if they have sold our radars to the US, in effect stopping the RAF from getting 5 E7s. This is the MOD doubling down on their stupidity. We should be building our capabilities not selling them to the US. Then trying to spin it as a success… they obviously think we are all fools.
Time is of the essence for this deal to help both sides – the UK will benefit from a USAF & NATO purchase which could amount to around 30 aircraft. It’s important that the USAF realise the capability of the E7 against the still to be developed equivalent space-based system and full production given the go ahead. Such a large E7 force would drive enhancements and modifications which the UK will never be able to afford to develop – look what happened to the UK E3 force which slipped slowly behind the other E3 operators and eventually was too expensive to upgrade. I doubt the MOD has sold the two radars to the USAF but has probably done a deal for the USAF to use them for its prototype E7s which will be replaced when full production is approved or if it is not approved the USAF prototypes will be redundant and so could be sold complete (less US special equipment) to the UK a win win result.