Anglicized? The RAF's C-17A fleet proved that unnecessary.

Surely even our brainless idiots will have heard of the farce which was the '50/50 Phantom' F-4K / F-4M? The world's most powerful and slowest F-4 variants which suffered years of Spey problems.

Rather than wasting money buggering about trying to Anglicize the Wedgetail, MoD should be pressing for the acquisition of boom-equipped tankers to support an increasingly large ME fleet which cannot currently refuel from the RAF's Voyagers.

That was a joke.

But remember they were only leased as a stop gap.

Now there is a clue. Why not lease with a right to buy?

25% deposit, 4 years at £299/month, balloon payment of 75%, or hand back. £10k an hour for hours over 900 per year. Bargain :)

Indeed. And the Anglicized Phantoms and Apache helicopters both show that Anglicizing a weapon system is often not a good idea in the long run. Upgrading the WAH-64 (or is it Apache AH Mk 1) to the AH-64E "Guardian" standard is cost prohibitive, with the result that the Anglicized Apache will increasingly fall behind in capability. Among other things, such an upgrade will require replacement of the RR engines with GE T700 engines with the end result being that it will be cheaper to just buy new-build AH-64Es than try to upgrade the Anglicized Apaches to the Apache Guardian standard.

The UAE rated the Wedgetail behind both the E-2D and the Saab Globaleye (which they selected).

Surely we should at least have had a competition, with a proper analysis of the alternatives?

That may be accurate, but it's an over-simplification.

It may show that it's an expensive idea in the long run.

In one case it showed that it was an idea that generated significant UK jobs, however, and resulted in an aircraft with fewer restrictions hot and high (and with an ability to still carry Longbow in Afghanistan, for example).

In the other case it resulted in an aircraft that was capable of operating from the UK's smaller carriers (which the standard F-4J could not have done), a less smoky aircraft, and an aircraft with better low level acceleration - all advantages in the original role. It also made the purchase politically palatable.

Were those advantages worth the tooth-suckingly high extra cost? Perhaps in one case, and perhaps not in the other?

Keep in mind that the UK's C-17 lease arrangement ended up resulting in UK C-17s not being able to perform many of the missions the C-17 was capable of. It was not until the UK owned them outright that UK C-17s were cleared for all operations. The Voyager lease arrangement increasingly seems like a bad decision. Going to war with leased equipment is often not really tenable.

Keep in mind that the Saab Globaleye is a development program with the UAE as the sole launch customer. As Australia found in developing the Wedgetail, integrating such a complex electronic system is no easy task and fraught with delays and unforeseen complications which translate into costs.

Some forget that if you're not in the US sphere of intel/technology sharing because you don't have compatible gear you're on your pat malone in a coalition. The E-7 fits nicely in this area and things like a boom refuel is first class. One of our E-7's flew a 19+hr sortie not long ago. Try that in a little E-2D or a corporate jet with roof rack and a canoe...

It's also the fourth integration of the EriEye on a new platform, the previous three having apparently been successful, and it includes the insertion of GaN technology that's been proven on ground-based radars.

For goodness sake. We don't have an industry capable of building something like this any more thanks to years of short sighted intentional debilitating by successive governments. Therefore we have to buy in from other countries.

Don't mess it up like we have several other good, working designs just to put British content into it to placate the MPs in whose constituencies the content would be made. And for God's sake don't let Marshalls write a one sided contract like they did with the Hercs!

I sometimes wonder at the people who dream up MoD contracts...

Borrowing my boss's relatively new Landrover at RAF Mount Pleasant whilst my old heap was in for servicing, I noted the words "This vehicle is not to be driven off-road" stencilled across the dashboard. My old wreck, only needed to get me around the aerodrome and back to the DeathStar or down to the TicTOC had no such restriction.

So I queried this with him as the concept of a Landrover which couldn't be used off-road was a new one on me.

"Ah yes. It's the contract we have with the vehicle suppliers. The new ones may not be driven off road until they're at least 2 years (IIRC) old."
"So the folks who have to drive off-road use the battered, unreliable old heaps and those who only need them on base get the new ones?"
"Haven't you got some meeting you need to attend...."
:\

Obviously you never came across the unofficial currency "that gets things done ".....

There's little doubt the sensor is very good. However, it is not a 360 degree sensor and has a 30 degree blind spot fore and aft. So if you need 360 degree coverage, this sensor is not for you. The biz jet airframe is also very good and the mission suite is not bad either. That being said, this very good system is not interoperable with US or NATO equipment, so for a nation like the UAE that does not need to interoperate with other forces its a great choice. For forces that need to interoperate with the US and/or NATO, not so much. Further, the airframe has no provisions for inflight refueling. Again, this might work for a small nation like the UAE, but for a large nation or a nation that needs to be able to deploy and operate its forces worldwide, that can be a serious omission.

Ken, while undoubtedly true that was not an air frame limitation but a political/financial one. It was only required as a temporary gap filler until the A400 came in. One might say a fortuitous cock up.

A lease arrangement for the P8/E7 with complete commonality with the US and permission for all UK missions could work. An example of the problem though might be the Canberra B(I)8 I think which was US funded with restrictions on role and disposal - or something along those lines.

I bet we couldn 't sell the E3s.
​​

I think you over-state the 'blind spot'. And its importance. How you orientate your orbits can compensate for the sensor's field of regard. The Erieye radar has proved extremely effective in all of its iterations, and because of the development path, many would view Erieye ER as a more mature sensor and system than that of Wedgetail.

As to interoperability, the Greek Erieye's have operated seamlessly with US and NATO assets, and interoperability with US allies was a key part of the Emirati requirement. And they rated Globaleye ahead of Wedgetail. Bear in mind that the Wedgetail has not been adopted for service by the US DoD, and is not a USAF-operated platform.

But the key point is that you should not make a decision like this without an open, proper and rigorous consideration of the alternatives.

I have worked in the Capability area. The process that has to be undertaken to justify single source is lengthy, rigorous, and requires considerable analysis of potential alternatives that involves classified details that do not appear in open source material.

if there is a case for single source acquisition, it will be based in a justified argument, pertinent details of which will remain classified and will not see the light of day for a considerable time, if ever.

The 1312 Flt QRA rover was an old heap that broke down frequently. One time it was in for repairs, we got OC Admin's new LWB while she was on R and R. When we got ours back, sure enough it failed to start on a scramble and we had to beg a lift off some passing pongos. The next morning, it was explained that the VC10 scramble was delayed due to the crew having to hitch-hike to get to the aircraft. Soon after, we got OC Admin's Rover.