Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

[mrclark303]

Where will NATO and the US by sourcing their bbj's?

American jets and I assume the nato ones will come from there too will come from new builds that the US military are asking Boeing to make for them. It will take about 4 years to build these new airframes hence why the ISD are a number of years away.

What a shame we didn't try to time our order with the NATO/USAF buy and ran on a three E3's for a few more years, or alternatively, just reached a deal for NATO E3 coverage as a stop gap.

We would probably have saved a lot of money and had a common airframe/ radar combo with wider fleet.

A decade plus of failing to maintain e3d to the same international standards as others. A decision to buy p8 without a budget to do it meant it was e3d and sentinel or something else had to go. A failure to adequately resource a decision to proceed with e7 all adds up. You could not wait 10 years without an any form of airborne early warning to tie in with future US decisions

The process they embarked on with e7 is not out of the ordinary it’s how every wegdetail conversion around the world was done in the past. The problem was they didn’t have the budget to do it and tried to kid everyone they did and as a result ended up will pay more and take longer as a result. If you don’t have a realistic budget or are not willing to reduce something else to ensure that you do ( priorities again) don’t start it.

Airborne ISR is a constant demand as I said I would have prioritised it. But people do not like to prioritise things they want to do it all and you can’t.

As the secretary of state told the defence select committee today the cost he has for taking the fleet back up to 5 and supporting them for I assume 10 years is an additional £750m pounds. Do you delete a type 26 to pay for 2 extra aews for example these are the choices that need to be decided.

The issue we have is all capabilities are now absolutely bare bones with zero mass anywhere across all three services.

I've just watched the excellent Hypo hysterical History's extensive historical video on both Gulf Wars, on You Tube. One thing that's quite startling in this detailed military review is how astonishing it is regarding the capability we have lost since 2003.

We are today a pale shadow of our 2003 force structure.

Like I said, there is nothing to cut from anywhere now, absolutely no meat on bone.

Loose an T26 and ASW capability is compromised etc, etc, as 8 is the absolute minimum for core tasking, it's the same across absolutely everything, bar military bands and horses!!

Re, the AEW question, is there a reason we couldn't have simply withdrawn our D modems, as planned and paid to base and operate 3 NATO E3's in the UK?

They are after all NATO assets and this is exactly what they are for!

Had we done that ( some dangerous joined up thinking) the RAF could have ordered 5 E7's, alongside a large joint NATO/ USAF order.

The procurement and sustainability savings of the fleet would been 'substantial' and future counter obsolescence upgrades would simply follow the parent fleet.

I don't think that follows at all. Following the parent fleet can get expensive, see the sentry fleet for example ended up in a bit of state by the end.
Following exactly what the Americans do can be quite expensive, they have very deep pockets.

To be fair, we could have just upgraded our E3's, exactly the same way as NATO and the US did and carried on operating them into the early 2030's.

The reality is, they were simply allowed to wither on the vine, as during the Sandbox wars, they were regarded as a niche capability that was hardly needed, so deliberately starved of funds

You can't blame the Americans for that, we simply channeled a huge amount of defence cash keeping pointless, unwinnable operations going, year in, year out and allowed our previously balanced and capable force structure to crack and crumble to dust.

[topman]

I wasn't blaming the Americans, just that keeping up with them isn't cheap.

[mrclark303]

I wasn't blaming the Americans, just that keeping up with them isn't cheap.

Understood, but first tier equipment is absolutely what the RAF should have....

A core aircraft fleet of Poseidon, E7 and Rivet Joint is expensive, but they are at the core of the RAF and each fleet should be available in the right numbers.

Indeed, the the deteriorating situation with Russia, there is a good argument for and additional RC135.

[SW1]

Equipment is pointless if you can afford to support or sustain it, it just becomes and expensive boondoggle.

[abc123]

Equipment is pointless if you can afford to support or sustain it, it just becomes and expensive boondoggle.

We can support and sustain it, we simply chose not to in the past 2005-2015, during the endless Afghan intervention and the course was set in stone with the damage done.

[topman]

I wasn't blaming the Americans, just that keeping up with them isn't cheap.

Understood, but first tier equipment is absolutely what the RAF should have....

A core aircraft fleet of Poseidon, E7 and Rivet Joint is expensive, but they are at the core of the RAF and each fleet should be available in the right numbers.

Indeed, the the deteriorating situation with Russia, there is a good argument for and additional RC135.

Yes we'd do more with more and it would be nice to have.
But the way of the world (in the UK) isn't like that. There's no big money train appearing any time soon.

So we have to plan accordingly. Tbh the biggest problem isn't equipment budgets it's people.
3x E7 is probably all would could man anyway.

[abc123]

I wasn't blaming the Americans, just that keeping up with them isn't cheap.

Understood, but first tier equipment is absolutely what the RAF should have....

A core aircraft fleet of Poseidon, E7 and Rivet Joint is expensive, but they are at the core of the RAF and each fleet should be available in the right numbers.

Indeed, the the deteriorating situation with Russia, there is a good argument for and additional RC135.

Yes we'd do more with more and it would be nice to have.
But the way of the world (in the UK) isn't like that. There's no big money train appearing any time soon.

So we have to plan accordingly. Tbh the biggest problem isn't equipment budgets it's people.
3x E7 is probably all would could man anyway.

Manning three is fine, you require 5 to ensure 3 are fully operational at any one time.

[topman]

I'm not sure what the serviceability of them are yet, however if we want 5 then we need enough people to support 5.

There's more to it than just flight crew numbers, without everyone else they're just paper weights.

[abc123]

I wasn't blaming the Americans, just that keeping up with them isn't cheap.

Understood, but first tier equipment is absolutely what the RAF should have....

A core aircraft fleet of Poseidon, E7 and Rivet Joint is expensive, but they are at the core of the RAF and each fleet should be available in the right numbers.

Indeed, the the deteriorating situation with Russia, there is a good argument for and additional RC135.

Absolutely.
If anything, the war in Ukraine has shown the importance of such force-multipliers like E-3, Rivet Joint and Poseidons. UK needs all three of them, and in decent numbers. How much it would cost? As much as necesarry.

[abc123]

Equipment is pointless if you can afford to support or sustain it, it just becomes and expensive boondoggle.

So, during the last Cold War 1945- 1990, UK was able to have defence spending on average 5-6 percent of the GDP- and surprise, surprise- it didn't bankrupt itself.
And today, in the middle of new Cold War 2.0 ( with not only Russia, but China too ), UK will be bankrupt basket case for even a pound more than 2%?
Come on. Let's be serious.

If the HMG is serious about getting involved in these new conflicts, then it needs to give UK armed services what they need to fight it, and not only equipment, but people too.
If the ambition is to be a 51st State, then, there are much better ways to spend that 2%, the US allready have it's armed forces- they don't need British 3 E-3 or 8 F-35 on carrier.

[SW1]

Equipment is pointless if you can afford to support or sustain it, it just becomes and expensive boondoggle.

So, during the last Cold War 1945- 1990, UK was able to have defence spending on average 5-6 percent of the GDP- and surprise, surprise- it didn't bankrupt itself.
And today, in the middle of new Cold War 2.0 ( with not only Russia, but China too ), UK will be bankrupt basket case for even a pound more than 2%?
Come on. Let's be serious.

If the HMG is serious about getting involved in these new conflicts, then it needs to give UK armed services what they need to fight it, and not only equipment, but people too.
If the ambition is to be a 51st State, then, there are much better ways to spend that 2%, the US allready have it's armed forces- they don't need British 3 E-3 or 8 F-35 on carrier.

We spend more than 2% on defence. It’s usually between 2-2.5% of gdp. Some would argue it’s as high as 2.4% this year if you count Ukraine funding but I wouldn’t add that in.

There is 145k regular professionals and further 35k reservists operating some extremely sophisticated equipment to contribute to operations as required. That in my opinion is sufficient to defend this country and its territories around the world as well as contributing to our defence alliances.

The Russian armed forces are nothing like the soviet equivalent and while the Chinese are a concern, militarily they are countered mainly by our allies in Asia not us.

Yes we had a higher gdp percentage spend in the Cold War we also had until the 60s a conscript army, a number of outposts around the world and at its height 18k service personnel deployed in Northern Ireland. The context is very different today.

[abc123]

Equipment is pointless if you can afford to support or sustain it, it just becomes and expensive boondoggle.

So, during the last Cold War 1945- 1990, UK was able to have defence spending on average 5-6 percent of the GDP- and surprise, surprise- it didn't bankrupt itself.
And today, in the middle of new Cold War 2.0 ( with not only Russia, but China too ), UK will be bankrupt basket case for even a pound more than 2%?
Come on. Let's be serious.

If the HMG is serious about getting involved in these new conflicts, then it needs to give UK armed services what they need to fight it, and not only equipment, but people too.
If the ambition is to be a 51st State, then, there are much better ways to spend that 2%, the US allready have it's armed forces- they don't need British 3 E-3 or 8 F-35 on carrier.

We spend more than 2% on defence. It’s usually between 2-2.5% of gdp. Some would argue it’s as high as 2.4% this year if you count Ukraine funding but I wouldn’t add that in.

There is 145k regular professionals and further 35k reservists operating some extremely sophisticated equipment to contribute to operations as required. That in my opinion is sufficient to defend this country and its territories around the world as well as contributing to our defence alliances.

The Russian armed forces are nothing like the soviet equivalent and while the Chinese are a concern, militarily they are countered mainly by our allies in Asia not us.

Yes we had a higher gdp percentage spend in the Cold War we also had until the 60s a conscript army, a number of outposts around the world and at its height 18k service personnel deployed in Northern Ireland. The context is very different today.

Yes and no, the context is very different, but paradoxically, it's the same!

Modern warfare and a new Cold War have changed where the mass needs to be. We no longer require BAOR and it's 900 MBT's, or an army of 160,000, but we do need to seriously invest in bringing back mass to sensible levels.

The RAF should absolutely never have gone below 12 fighter Squadrons, the RN should never have gone below 30 escorts and 12 SSN's and the Army should have remained at a sensible level of manning, about 115,000.

The above force structure was already massively below our Cold War OoB.

We have fallen 'so far' below the above minimum levels that they almost seem unobtainable goals now!

We absolutely need a sensible 3% GDP on defence and mass carefully restored to minimum levels. An extra 12 billion a year, over a decade and the damage can be slowly fixed.

[Caribbean]

I'm not sure what the serviceability of them are yet, however if we want 5 then we need enough people to support 5.

There's more to it than just flight crew numbers, without everyone else they're just paper weights.

That really shouldn't be a problem, these are lots of overweight, shiney arse pen pushers in the RAF, time to get them back to work.....

The RAF has 30,000 people and a comparative handful of aircraft these days, put the iPad down and pick up a spanner...

[topman]

That makes no sense. If you don't know, just say so.

[mrclark303]

That makes no sense. If you don't know, just say so.

Oh lighten up..... The point being, the RAF has many thousands of personnel, of course they could fly and mainly 5 aircraft, they obviously wouldn't because probably only 3 would be operational at any one time, with a back up and one in the maintenance cycle.

They have just reduced the large aircraft fleet by 13 C130's for goodness sake...

It's not like they would suddenly be expected to man/ woman/ they, 100 extra fighters, it's an extra two aircraft, if that 'really' is a huge issue, then there really is no hope and we might as well just pack it all in and become like Ireland!

Re my comments on fat blokes in uniform, try walking the corridors of Abbey Wood, quite a few 18 stone
'pilots' milling around doing very little......

Far too many over weight shiney arses carrying around clipboards trying to look busy, as they wait to cash in the pension these days....

[topman]

That makes no sense. If you don't know, just say so.

Oh lighten up..... The point being, the RAF has many thousands of personnel, of course they could fly and mainly 5 aircraft, they obviously wouldn't because probably only 3 would be operational at any one time, with a back up and one in the maintenance cycle.

They have just reduced the large aircraft fleet by 13 C130's for goodness sake...

It's not like they would suddenly be expected to man/ woman/ they, 100 extra fighters, it's an extra two aircraft, if that 'really' is a huge issue, then there really is no hope and we might as well just pack it all in and become like Ireland!

Re my comments on fat blokes in uniform, try walking the corridors of Abbey Wood, quite a few 18 stone
'pilots' milling around doing very little......

Far too many over weight shiney arses carrying around clipboards trying to look busy, as they wait to cash in the pension these days....

I think you misunderstand how sqns and fleets work. If there's 5 aircraft then you need 5 aircrafts worth of ground crew and support staff etc. You might get away with 3 flight crews but not with the rest. Aircraft need constant maintenance. You've got 3 on the line ,plus one on a primary plus one other they all need people to maintain and support them.

Although aircraft numbers themselves aren't the way to look at it, it's flying hours. How often are you wanting to fly and when. If you're wanting a 24/7 operation vs a normal shift system needs so many more people.

Yes manning really is that tight. The RAF and the RN are shrinking by 1000-1200 people a year each at the current rate.

The C130 draw down released nowhere near that many people, from what i understand talking to drafters at manning, mainly due to the rate people are leaving. By the time the fleet was drawn down, the equivalent number of people had left.

Retention is the CAS top two priorities (of different branches/trades) at the moment. I believe the navy is the same.

Have a look at stats of people leaving in one of the other threads.

Could all the posts be filled, probably but then you'd have to ask what you don't want to do anymore. There's no pool of people sat around. A couple of overweight pilots at abbey wood won't make much difference.

[abc123]

Equipment is pointless if you can afford to support or sustain it, it just becomes and expensive boondoggle.

So, during the last Cold War 1945- 1990, UK was able to have defence spending on average 5-6 percent of the GDP- and surprise, surprise- it didn't bankrupt itself.
And today, in the middle of new Cold War 2.0 ( with not only Russia, but China too ), UK will be bankrupt basket case for even a pound more than 2%?
Come on. Let's be serious.

If the HMG is serious about getting involved in these new conflicts, then it needs to give UK armed services what they need to fight it, and not only equipment, but people too.
If the ambition is to be a 51st State, then, there are much better ways to spend that 2%, the US allready have it's armed forces- they don't need British 3 E-3 or 8 F-35 on carrier.

We spend more than 2% on defence. It’s usually between 2-2.5% of gdp. Some would argue it’s as high as 2.4% this year if you count Ukraine funding but I wouldn’t add that in.

There is 145k regular professionals and further 35k reservists operating some extremely sophisticated equipment to contribute to operations as required. That in my opinion is sufficient to defend this country and its territories around the world as well as contributing to our defence alliances.

The Russian armed forces are nothing like the soviet equivalent and while the Chinese are a concern, militarily they are countered mainly by our allies in Asia not us.

Yes we had a higher gdp percentage spend in the Cold War we also had until the 60s a conscript army, a number of outposts around the world and at its height 18k service personnel deployed in Northern Ireland. The context is very different today.

Yes and no, the context is very different, but paradoxically, it's the same!

Modern warfare and a new Cold War have changed where the mass needs to be. We no longer require BAOR and it's 900 MBT's, or an army of 160,000, but we do need to seriously invest in bringing back mass to sensible levels.

The RAF should absolutely never have gone below 12 fighter Squadrons, the RN should never have gone below 30 escorts and 12 SSN's and the Army should have remained at a sensible level of manning, about 115,000.

The above force structure was already massively below our Cold War OoB.

We have fallen 'so far' below the above minimum levels that they almost seem unobtainable goals now!

We absolutely need a sensible 3% GDP on defence and mass carefully restored to minimum levels. An extra 12 billion a year, over a decade and the damage can be slowly fixed.

Even more than 3%, because of the damage done during last 20 years. At least 3,5% for the next 10 years, just to repair damage, after that 3% should be just about enough.

[abc123]

That makes no sense. If you don't know, just say so.

Oh lighten up..... The point being, the RAF has many thousands of personnel, of course they could fly and mainly 5 aircraft, they obviously wouldn't because probably only 3 would be operational at any one time, with a back up and one in the maintenance cycle.

They have just reduced the large aircraft fleet by 13 C130's for goodness sake...

It's not like they would suddenly be expected to man/ woman/ they, 100 extra fighters, it's an extra two aircraft, if that 'really' is a huge issue, then there really is no hope and we might as well just pack it all in and become like Ireland!

Re my comments on fat blokes in uniform, try walking the corridors of Abbey Wood, quite a few 18 stone
'pilots' milling around doing very little......

Far too many over weight shiney arses carrying around clipboards trying to look busy, as they wait to cash in the pension these days....

I think you misunderstand how sqns and fleets work. If there's 5 aircraft then you need 5 aircrafts worth of ground crew and support staff etc. You might get away with 3 flight crews but not with the rest. Aircraft need constant maintenance. You've got 3 on the line ,plus one on a primary plus one other they all need people to maintain and support them.

Although aircraft numbers themselves aren't the way to look at it, it's flying hours. How often are you wanting to fly and when. If you're wanting a 24/7 operation vs a normal shift system needs so many more people.

Yes manning really is that tight. The RAF and the RN are shrinking by 1000-1200 people a year each at the current rate.

The C130 draw down released nowhere near that many people, from what i understand talking to drafters at manning, mainly due to the rate people are leaving. By the time the fleet was drawn down, the equivalent number of people had left.

Retention is the CAS top two priorities (of different branches/trades) at the moment. I believe the navy is the same.

Have a look at stats of people leaving in one of the other threads.

Could all the posts be filled, probably but then you'd have to ask what you don't want to do anymore. There's no pool of people sat around. A couple of overweight pilots at abbey wood won't make much difference.

And why do you think the people are leaving? After 20 years of cutting everything possible and not-possible from UKAF, big wonder that only the most, don't know how to call them, let's say most-patriotic, are willing to serve.
I mean, who would like to serve in an airforce of supposedly great power that is content with 3 AWACS? Or 9 Poseidons? For Gawd sake, Germany decided that they will have 8 Poseidons. Anyone normal knows that UK should need at least double any number of anything naval Germany has.

[abc123]

Equipment is pointless if you can afford to support or sustain it, it just becomes and expensive boondoggle.

So, during the last Cold War 1945- 1990, UK was able to have defence spending on average 5-6 percent of the GDP- and surprise, surprise- it didn't bankrupt itself.
And today, in the middle of new Cold War 2.0 ( with not only Russia, but China too ), UK will be bankrupt basket case for even a pound more than 2%?
Come on. Let's be serious.

If the HMG is serious about getting involved in these new conflicts, then it needs to give UK armed services what they need to fight it, and not only equipment, but people too.
If the ambition is to be a 51st State, then, there are much better ways to spend that 2%, the US allready have it's armed forces- they don't need British 3 E-3 or 8 F-35 on carrier.

We spend more than 2% on defence. It’s usually between 2-2.5% of gdp.

You are aware that NATO reccomendation of 2% is a minimum number? Not optimal, especially for a country that still lives in delusions of (post)imperial grandeur and considers itself a great power.

If you are say Portugal or Belgium, then around 2% is just fine. If Britain- it is not fine.

[topman]

That makes no sense. If you don't know, just say so.

Oh lighten up..... The point being, the RAF has many thousands of personnel, of course they could fly and mainly 5 aircraft, they obviously wouldn't because probably only 3 would be operational at any one time, with a back up and one in the maintenance cycle.

They have just reduced the large aircraft fleet by 13 C130's for goodness sake...

It's not like they would suddenly be expected to man/ woman/ they, 100 extra fighters, it's an extra two aircraft, if that 'really' is a huge issue, then there really is no hope and we might as well just pack it all in and become like Ireland!

Re my comments on fat blokes in uniform, try walking the corridors of Abbey Wood, quite a few 18 stone
'pilots' milling around doing very little......

Far too many over weight shiney arses carrying around clipboards trying to look busy, as they wait to cash in the pension these days....

I think you misunderstand how sqns and fleets work. If there's 5 aircraft then you need 5 aircrafts worth of ground crew and support staff etc. You might get away with 3 flight crews but not with the rest. Aircraft need constant maintenance. You've got 3 on the line ,plus one on a primary plus one other they all need people to maintain and support them.

Although aircraft numbers themselves aren't the way to look at it, it's flying hours. How often are you wanting to fly and when. If you're wanting a 24/7 operation vs a normal shift system needs so many more people.

Yes manning really is that tight. The RAF and the RN are shrinking by 1000-1200 people a year each at the current rate.

The C130 draw down released nowhere near that many people, from what i understand talking to drafters at manning, mainly due to the rate people are leaving. By the time the fleet was drawn down, the equivalent number of people had left.

Retention is the CAS top two priorities (of different branches/trades) at the moment. I believe the navy is the same.

Have a look at stats of people leaving in one of the other threads.

Could all the posts be filled, probably but then you'd have to ask what you don't want to do anymore. There's no pool of people sat around. A couple of overweight pilots at abbey wood won't make much difference.

And why do you think the people are leaving? After 20 years of cutting everything possible and not-possible from UKAF, big wonder that only the most, don't know how to call them, let's say most-patriotic, are willing to serve.
I mean, who would like to serve in an airforce of supposedly great power that is content with 3 AWACS? Or 9 Poseidons? For Gawd sake, Germany decided that they will have 8 Poseidons. Anyone normal knows that UK should need at least double any number of anything naval Germany has.

People leave for all sorts of reasons, top reason is usually impact on family life.
Others are lack of pay compared to civvy street, posted to unfavourable location and workload.

[SW1]

Equipment is pointless if you can afford to support or sustain it, it just becomes and expensive boondoggle.

So, during the last Cold War 1945- 1990, UK was able to have defence spending on average 5-6 percent of the GDP- and surprise, surprise- it didn't bankrupt itself.
And today, in the middle of new Cold War 2.0 ( with not only Russia, but China too ), UK will be bankrupt basket case for even a pound more than 2%?
Come on. Let's be serious.

If the HMG is serious about getting involved in these new conflicts, then it needs to give UK armed services what they need to fight it, and not only equipment, but people too.
If the ambition is to be a 51st State, then, there are much better ways to spend that 2%, the US allready have it's armed forces- they don't need British 3 E-3 or 8 F-35 on carrier.

We spend more than 2% on defence. It’s usually between 2-2.5% of gdp.

You are aware that NATO reccomendation of 2% is a minimum number? Not optimal, especially for a country that still lives in delusions of (post)imperial grandeur and considers itself a great power.

If you are say Portugal or Belgium, then around 2% is just fine. If Britain- it is not fine.

Great power status disappeared in 1945.

We spend more than 2% of gdp on defence. The idea around the number was that if western nations each spend that amount then everyone would share the security burden equally and the western ideal of living would be maintained.

So fine for everyone but very very few actually spend that amount Portugal and Belgium are around 1.

[bobp]

The first RAF Wedgetail could be flying next year ....

[mrclark303]

The first RAF Wedgetail could be flying next year ....

Common sense would absolutely dictate that the orders are simply added to the already up and running UK assembly line.

A production facility with trained personnel with a wealth of experience and a set up supply train.

That alone would reduce the costs of the NATO fleet....

So obviously that won't happen, " but what of the European workers" goes the anguished cry.....

There will be a brand new production line set up in Belgium or Germany to start from scratch....

[SW1]

a NATO awac that is due to enter service in 2031 financed mainly by the US will come of a uk modification line, someone’s been on the sherry early.

[mrclark303]

a NATO awac that is due to enter service in 2031 financed mainly by the US will come of a uk modification line, someone’s been on the sherry early.

"someone’s been on the sherry early"

How do you know I drink the cooking sherry while working in my Kitchen, is that you in the ice-cream van with the blacked out windows and the dish on the roof that's been sat outside my house for three days?