Anglicise - add tea urn. Job done

To be fair to those involved, this was all recognised at the time. But given the RAF had just embarked on a policy to run down the process which manages such things, and MoD was in the throes of successive moratoria which effectively froze many programmes for up to five years, there was no way the Gods would admit such things were necessary, or even possible.

As for modifying UK variants, this is often necessary for at least two reasons (although the degree varies depending on role of aircraft). First, the Home Office dictates use of certain kit. This is mandated upon MoD. Second, political industrial strategy. For example, certain technologies are (or were) required to be indigenous. In my day, one was acoustic processing in Nimrod MR and Sea King. It mattered not a jot that CD(C)'s devices ran rings round Marconi's.

I just stumbled across such an advertisement thumbing through an old Air International! Quite a gem....

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...be87a8fa87.jpg

Given the high profile history of removing perfectly good gear and having BAE replace it with local gear....oh my.

Consider that the reason the UK E-3D's are being replaced rather than upgraded as the NATO and US E-3s are being upgraded is because they failed to keep up with upgrades over the years so that it's now cheaper to replace them than upgrade them. Electronic systems have a short life span in terms of obsolescence and the original Wedgetails use technology that is now over a decade old. Obsolescence, lessons learned from actual operations, and changing requirements/threats drive constant upgrades.

It's interesting how the debate gets framed in the Torygraph, e.g with reference to a "worn out" fleets of E-3D's. Given these were brand spanking new in the early 90's and the USAF (and ourselves) are happily flying '135's that are a good 25-30yrs older, and that they've hardly been flogged to death then I'd describe them as anything but worn out!

That said, doesnt necessarily mean it isn't, or couldnt be made to appear, cheaper to replace than refurb. I can see the operating economics of a combined P-8/E-7 fleet, but can't quite get my head round how purchasing a new fleet of (say 6) expensive high tech aircraft is cheaper than a MLU on E-3D? Assuming that E-7 was based at Waddington you've then got setup costs there, with no doubt quite a lot of new E-7 specific support/maintenance kit + training.

Call me a cynic, but I suspect the Boeing salesmen know full well that the headline costs of E-7 purchase vs E-3D MLU only tell part of the story and that actual costs to get E-7 into service and supportable will be upto a 100% uplift.

The airframe component of the cost is tiny compared to the electronics on something like an AWACS. The original 707 based USAF AWACS back in the late 1970s were going for ~$100 million, when you could buy a brand spanking new 707 for a bit over $10 million.
Furthermore, the biggest portion of the electronics is not the actual electronic equipment, it's the integration - making all the different systems interface correctly and play nice with each other. Heck, just basic stuff like ElectroMagnetic Interference (EMI) is a massive problem on something like an AWACS aircraft.
I don't know how much of the avionics will be changed to 'Anglicise', but if it's extensive, the integration will be horrendous and could easily turn into a trainwreck.
I suspect the poster who wrote that the UK will end up spending more for something that doesn't work as well is dead on.

Well that's what we do best

Surely it's remove the cockpit clock and ashtrays, the first being done as Pilots are issued with watches, think it was the Neptune or Washington wasn't it?

RAF mock up of the Anglicised Wedgetail :E

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/302/3...e1440a41_c.jpg
Shackleton-5 by Tony Taylor, on Flickr

The mission system was actually designed in the late 60s. Westinghouse successfully demonstrated their airborne radar tracking capability in '72.
The sorry tale of the E-3D programme is an object lesson in how to mismanage a valuable capability.

Agreed, and we all know why we are where we are with E-3D obsolesence issues. But, my point is that, surely a MLU, inc replacement of mission kit should be less expensive than a complete new purchase, of a different type with its own new mission system, bespoke support requirement/training and its own obsolesence issues (as per RAAF example above)? But maybe in this disposable age the sensible answer is buy new E-7's. Way above my knowledge level to be authoritative, just puzzles me that the default answer is so often to buy new and shiney...

You're missing the elephant in the room. It's not the price of the equipment - it's the cost of developing and integrating all the systems so that they work together seamlessly. Those with long memories will recall that the original Wedgetail aircraft developed for Australia delivered late and over budget - due entirely to the difficulties of doing all that integration of the various systems.
The benefit of buying an off the shelf solution is that all that development has already been done and paid for. Further, with a fleet of Wedgetail aircraft flying for several countries, the development costs of keeping all that kit up to date can be shared.
Of course, nearly all those benefits go away if they 'Anglicise' the Wedgetail - unless it's just a few token changes to make the politicians happy...

That capacious weapon bay must be a great asset.

You need somewhere to carry all of the BBQs after a deployment!

I guess it will need a probe.