Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

indeid wrote: It is still common to have extra crew onboard not even manning tactical consoles but on the various comms systems that are needed. So I can see the appeal of a wide body platform
The E3 isn't full, and electronics aren't getting bigger, neither are the roles becoming more manpower intensive, so there is little justification for a wide body.

An Airbus solution would be nice, the upcoming A321LR could make a great starting point and exactly like the Airbus MPA, it doesn't exist.
indeid wrote:That for me is what makes the E-7 the only choice, and I say that as a big SAAB fan, but at the moment their offering cannot control a Battle Management Area, which is a big drop off in capability.
Is that possible to achieve on the BizJet platform?
@LandSharkUK

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

indeid wrote:That for me is what makes the E-7 the only choice, and I say that as a big SAAB fan, but at the moment their offering cannot control a Battle Management Area, which is a big drop off in capability.
Is that possible to achieve on the BizJet platform?[/quote]

I just don't see how. When SAAB first started pushing the biz jet solution it was 5 consoles and now I think 7 have been quoted, although no idea how that fits in. So they obviously know its their weakness, maybe they have gone with the E-2D supposed '4th console' fit for entertainment........

I also wouldn't be surprised with the RAF aren't still burnt by Sentinel, and its weight, cooling, power generation and crew capacity issues and limitations. When we have needed to bolt extra stuff on the E-3 its been easy, not an option with Sentinel. We now rely on communications and systems not imagined when we bought the D's, empty space and spare weight should be key requirements for kit like this.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote: The E3 isn't full, and electronics aren't getting bigger
I agree with the rest of your points (incl. ?), but if you have read about the (very prolonged) testing of the systems upgrades (old radar!) with the USAF, it is exactly the old cramped a/c creating the problems: not enough power, not enough cooling... it is not that electronics would be getting bigger - or staying the same. It is just how much more you are trying to pack in
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Ahh the crewing numbers issues again!! For years we’ve been told that the benefit of typhoon and f35 is that there sensors are so gd that there pilots are now really battle managers taking on roles traditionally done by awacs. Infact f35 has been positively cheerleading that one of its great advances is it doesn’t need any supporting assets at all just a 4 ship of f35s networked together!

I would suggest this doesn’t tie in with the number of operators on an awac cherping!

One suspects the real reason is that someone has decided wedgetail is the answer and now the “requirement” and information campaign are being written to suit! They have form see p8 for example!

As for sentinel issues there is alway half thruth and rumours with that, regarding weight most of which originated when due to ITAR one US company wouldn’t tell another US company what the weight of the radar was until all the structural stengthing was done then the radar company announced the actual weight was double the estimate!

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

SW1 wrote:Ahh the crewing numbers issues again!! For years we’ve been told that the benefit of typhoon and f35 is that there sensors are so gd that there pilots are now really battle managers taking on roles traditionally done by awacs. Infact f35 has been positively cheerleading that one of its great advances is it doesn’t need any supporting assets at all just a 4 ship of f35s networked together!

I would suggest this doesn’t tie in with the number of operators on an awac cherping!

One suspects the real reason is that someone has decided wedgetail is the answer and now the “requirement” and information campaign are being written to suit! They have form see p8 for example!

As for sentinel issues there is alway half thruth and rumours with that, regarding weight most of which originated when due to ITAR one US company wouldn’t tell another US company what the weight of the radar was until all the structural stengthing was done then the radar company announced the actual weight was double the estimate!
BM has changed, a lot of the old Fighter Control chatter has gone, thankfully, and the quicker we move to pure digital control the better, but the amount of information coming in and the responsiveness now expected are far beyond the 'left a bit, right a bit' days. That has taken up the slack and more from whats been gained by networking and new platforms.

I've not worked with the F-35 but the other 5th Gen is an amazing platform, it still doesn't rejig an AAR plan when you damage a basket, clear fires or coordinate with nearly everyone else who isn't in the F35 network. By all means take the seats away but reduce the task, and its going to take more than a new four ship not needing as much help as a Tonka to do that.

There are a lot of people still wearing the scars from Sentinel development, if you were involved we've probably hit our heads off the same table!

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by Halidon »

SW1 wrote:Are Boeing still making the 737-700 series on which E7 is based? Or will we need to buy second hand airframes? Pretty certain the 737 production line will becoming a 737max only very soon if not already which isn’t the same.
737 NG is still in production, and still offered for sale although most airlines are switching to MAX. In fact they could use a few extra orders to keep the NG line at a more efficient rate, they only have a couple hundred NG in the backlog.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

indeid wrote: BM has changed, a lot of the old Fighter Control chatter has gone, thankfully
May be the canning of Project Eagle actually saved money... for once!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Indeid

We probably have that. But what needs to be remembered is when we developed sentinel it hadn’t been done before it was all new this would not be the case here. Sentinel has lead the way for a number of different variants for a number of different countries and the tech revolution brought about by unmanned systems has enabled more systems to be on platforms like global express. The proposed updates to sentinel shows that.

No matter if it’s 7 or 10 we will do things differently just like we do when any new aircraft replaces an old one.
But we need to acquire a system that is both affordable and supportable for us or we will quickly end up right where we are with e3d all over again and where we are going with p8.


Halidon

It was half rhetorical the question I posed the Boeing people i talk to tell me there itching to close down the 737ng line they simple don’t want to product it and max together, it unlikely they will be producing them this time next year.

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

SW1 wrote:Indeid
We probably have that. But what needs to be remembered is when we developed sentinel it hadn’t been done before it was all new this would not be the case here. Sentinel has lead the way for a number of different variants for a number of different countries and the tech revolution brought about by unmanned systems has enabled more systems to be on platforms like global express. The proposed updates to sentinel shows that.

No matter if it’s 7 or 10 we will do things differently just like we do when any new aircraft replaces an old one.
But we need to acquire a system that is both affordable and supportable for us or we will quickly end up right where we are with e3d all over again and where we are going with p8.
I can go with that, my issue is that I have seen too many powerpoint presentations, senior officer promotion pushes and out of date consultants try and reduce what is needed to do Air BM, all have failed. The role has changed massively since my first 'left a bit' transmission (just remembered we were still using port and starboard back then....) but as the role has changed the complexity has increased, meaning that I think its more challenging, and resource heavy, than ever.

Some is self-inflicted by the unwillingness for HQs to delegate decision making, but when I look at anything smaller than the E7 it just screams compromise. If that compromise is needed to make it affordable then fine, but most commentators don't seem to understand what they would be throwing away.

Also disturbingly heard that the P8 doesn't have a full galley. KUR fail right there.......

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

IS one of the reasons we have not looked at fitting a boom to any of the Voyagers being that holiday makers might not want to see one at the back of the shiny plane taking them to Minorca?

On the manning levels, if the Command and COntrl aspect of AWACS platform sis deminishing cuold we take the crew out of the platform all together and develope a platform based on those new airship thingies they have stashed at RAF Cardington. Large plaform with big AESA radar with multiple arrays, data links to both air and ground plus satellite links and a huge endurance and passive arrays to boot. Have it orbit way up high seeing everything for miles and passing on the data to everyone who needs it as well taking taskings to concnetrate on specific areas when needed. Sort of a mobile evoluton to the good old Aerostaor what ever it was called.

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

Lord Jim wrote:IS one of the reasons we have not looked at fitting a boom to any of the Voyagers being that holiday makers might not want to see one at the back of the shiny plane taking them to Minorca?

On the manning levels, if the Command and COntrl aspect of AWACS platform sis deminishing cuold we take the crew out of the platform all together and develope a platform based on those new airship thingies they have stashed at RAF Cardington. Large plaform with big AESA radar with multiple arrays, data links to both air and ground plus satellite links and a huge endurance and passive arrays to boot. Have it orbit way up high seeing everything for miles and passing on the data to everyone who needs it as well taking taskings to concnetrate on specific areas when needed. Sort of a mobile evoluton to the good old Aerostaor what ever it was called.
I'm not entirely sure of the KC2/3 breakdown on the operational Voyager fleet, but fitting a boom to the KC2s might be a solution, no idea if all the KC3s have the third nozzle attached all the time. The non core aircraft could stay as two point P&D, unless Airtanker rotate them. I can see why the decision not to to with the boom was made at the time, training boom operators for one, but if we go back on that I would like to see a receiver fit added to. Fantasy fleet stuff though I fear.

Centralising the people away from the geographical area they control has been done, indeed is routine for home defence and ATC, and has been used in parts of the world where operations have become static. It works ok but has taken a lot of infrastructure, takes time to set up and also is very vulnerable to your links becoming contested by the enemy or nature. As always the power you need to operate the radar and all the comms kit is a major issue for remote sensors, as the amount of data you need to move in real time is large. I have no doubt we will end up that way, but not yet.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by R686 »

Has anyone asked Boeing if they can fit a probe on the P8/Wedgetail?

Fuel transfer rate wont be the same but you have them on Sentry/C130 etc

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by Halidon »

SW1 wrote:Indeid
Halidon

It was half rhetorical the question I posed the Boeing people i talk to tell me there itching to close down the 737ng line they simple don’t want to product it and max together, it unlikely they will be producing them this time next year.
Depends on which Boeing people you talk to. BCA want to move on, clearly. Boeing Defense would like to migrate P-8 and 737 AEW&C to Max, but to my knowledge haven't had the money made available yet. My understanding is that a limited NG line will persist for Defense for a few years yet.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Indeit

I fully accept that everything is a compromise and things won’t be done in the same way in the future. However I also believe we have been and continue to try to make one aircraft do far to much across the board. This has driven cost and complexity to a point we’re aircraft numbers are dwindling and the cost of upgrade increasing. It also means that instead of distributing our capabilities to reduce risk we’re doing the opposite. I can see times of particular high stressing operations the answer maybe deploying 2 a/c to work in pairs instead of 1 for certain periods to reduce the stress on the crew.

The formation pie eating team won’t know what to do if that’s the case.

LJ

Mod own the configuration of the a/c. The core voyager fleet could have a boom as could the 5 spares airtanker have mooted this option as they could then rent out the tanking service to other airforces rather than the commercial airliners. Ultimately however tankers are primarily there for the fastjets. The RAF doesn’t have any boom fighter and isn’t likely to have so the need is much more questionable financially. Yes a boom would be gd for allied operations and the strategic aircraft but on the strategic aircraft how often will they really need it. While they can stay airborne for more than 10 hrs with aar it’s take a toll on the crew and certainly affects sustainability.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Halidon wrote:
SW1 wrote:Indeid
Halidon

It was half rhetorical the question I posed the Boeing people i talk to tell me there itching to close down the 737ng line they simple don’t want to product it and max together, it unlikely they will be producing them this time next year.
Depends on which Boeing people you talk to. BCA want to move on, clearly. Boeing Defense would like to migrate P-8 and 737 AEW&C to Max, but to my knowledge haven't had the money made available yet. My understanding is that a limited NG line will persist for Defense for a few years yet.
It’s the BCA people I’ve talked to, to be honest but I wouldn’t really class the p8 as a 737NG aircraft it’s too different.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

SW1 wrote:Indeit

I fully accept that everything is a compromise and things won’t be done in the same way in the future. However I also believe we have been and continue to try to make one aircraft do far to much across the board. This has driven cost and complexity to a point we’re aircraft numbers are dwindling and the cost of upgrade increasing. It also means that instead of distributing our capabilities to reduce risk we’re doing the opposite. I can see times of particular high stressing operations the answer maybe deploying 2 a/c to work in pairs instead of 1 for certain periods to reduce the stress on the crew.

The formation pie eating team won’t know what to do if that’s the case.

LJ

Mod own the configuration of the a/c. The core voyager fleet could have a boom as could the 5 spares airtanker have mooted this option as they could then rent out the tanking service to other airforces rather than the commercial airliners. Ultimately however tankers are primarily there for the fastjets. The RAF doesn’t have any boom fighter and isn’t likely to have so the need is much more questionable financially. Yes a boom would be gd for allied operations and the strategic aircraft but on the strategic aircraft how often will they really need it. While they can stay airborne for more than 10 hrs with aar it’s take a toll on the crew and certainly affects sustainability.
I was more thinking about AAR support of the P-8s and the possible E-7s in the medium term, but if by some chance things changed and the RAF went of F-35As down the line having a tanker force, even if only six or sever strong that is equipped with Booms would make this choice easier. Regarding the configurations and who owns it, so it was the RAF who decided that the voyagers didn't need a cargo/freight door on the side of the aircraft then?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

LJ

Nimrod didn’t have aar when it entered service, it only received aar capability because it had to operate in the Falklands from ascension.

Unless team tempest go f35a that won’t be happening. But if it did then you have to price that in for buying the capability. The MoD own the configuration, I’m sure there may have been a cost trade off done during negotiations but that’s business.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by R686 »

Lord Jim wrote:


I was more thinking about AAR support of the P-8s and the possible E-7s in the medium term, but if by some chance things changed and the RAF went of F-35As down the line having a tanker force, even if only six or sever strong that is equipped with Booms would make this choice easier. Regarding the configurations and who owns it, so it was the RAF who decided that the voyagers didn't need a cargo/freight door on the side of the aircraft then?
Not necessarily there is space for a refuelling probe on the F 35A, if you do go with a mixed fleet of F35 it may be more practical To stay with the probe if it’s feasabl for P8/AWACS to be fitted as well.

How often are you getting Sentry/C17 getting AAR in your neck of the woods?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

SW1 wrote:Infact f35 has been positively cheerleading that one of its great advances is it doesn’t need any supporting assets at all just a 4 ship of f35s networked together!
A very good point, between automation and offboarding there is definitely scope to reduce the onbord work load.

Likewise the smaller aircraft are cheaper, which may enable the RAF to send two aircraft in the instances where the workload is high, with the added benefit of resilience through distribution.

We don't know how effective those points will be, but it's concerning the RAF are too blinkered to run a competition to find out.
@LandSharkUK

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

shark bait wrote: We don't know how effective those points will be, but it's concerning the RAF are too blinkered to run a competition to find out.
And thats my point, you are in Operational Analysis territory, not a competition, which would score against a set of requirements. Splitting an ops crew across two aircraft isn't done at the moment, so how would the obsession of getting the aircraft flying together help that?

Now if only we had a world leading and independent agency in the MOD capable of doing OA?

To get through a procurement gate your OA is heavily leaned on. If you did go single source E7 you would already need to prove that the radar blind arcs had no effect, as that is a change from the current system. As much as I'm sure the services would love to just pick a platform and buy it, you are not going to get very far at your approvals board without the evidence. If they do go for the Boeing solution, it won't just be on the whim of a senior officer.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:there is definitely scope to reduce the onbord work load.

Likewise the smaller aircraft are cheaper
The command and control is just elevated to cover a bigger geographical area (Sweden is bigger than the UK, and it has been stated that 6 new type Gripens ca handle half of that airspace without supporting, specialised assets)... which does not point to those assets becoming very small as they will need a sensor advantage over the fighters they are supposed to be coordinating.
indeid wrote:thats my point, you are in Operational Analysis territory
So, with the above words I agree with the point.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by Timmymagic »

Looks like IAI are trying to put their hat in the ring with their Gulfstream 550 AEW aircraft. Operational I think with the Italians, Israelis, Singapore and US (one aircraft for range control).

http://www.iai.co.il/2013/37440-en/Medi ... EW-EN-Elta

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

and offers 360 coverage unlike the SAAB system
@LandSharkUK

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by Clive F »

Can someone in the know give a quick synopsis of the pros and cons of all the "runners and riders" inc E-3D upgraded?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

By no means 'in the know', but I can copy and paste something I wrote a while back;

There are a handful of good options for the RAF's E3 replacement. Here are the two most realistic;
  • Boeing E-7 Wedgetail
  • Saab / bombardier global eye.
Let's compare the top 2 options;

Both are fixed panel arrays, bringing all the benefits of electronic beam forming, but only the Boeing manages 360 degrees of coverage, global eye only has side panels resulting in 300 degrees of coverage.

Both feature big panels facing sideways, with the Boeing featuring additional panels facing forward and back & these are less sensitive.

The Erieye ER on the global eye is the more technically advanced radar, it's the only gallium radar in the air, yeilding far greater energy transmitted per kilogram. Importantly, gallium radars are supposed to perform better in the lower frequencies, which is more effective against today's low observable aircraft.

The Boeing is bigger, which importantly allows more operator stations, whilst the smaller globaleye features 5 station cheaper, it is cheaper to buy and run.

Mission endurance is very similar, with the global express flying higher and faster.

The global eye feature some nice additional features, with an optical sensor and another radar on its belly it's has a mid range maritime surveillance role, as well as a ground moving target indicator to support land forces. The Boeing has nothing comparable.

Importantly both exists and both are already flying. The E7 is in service with the Australian's, who are very positive about its performance, as wll as turkey and Korea. The global eye has only been ordered by the UAE, and the first one is currently on flight trials.

Price is difficult to tell, but indications are the E7 is significantly more expensive than the global eye.

Other options are;
  • The IAI conformal AEW aircraft, which is similar to the SAAB system, but with additional sensors so give 360 degrees of coverage. However the radar tech is likely less sophisticated than the SAAB
  • The Japanese ordered the E2D hawkeye but optimised for land operations with a bigger fuel tank, could be an outside option.
  • The E-3 upgrade is another option, costing a lot of money for a decade of extended service. It is a big capable system, but lack some of the electronic trickery that modem electronically scanned systems can achieve. About the only advantage is probably a lower friction entry into service.
  • The Airbus option, the only advantage of which is derisking the aircraft for the French and Germans.
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply