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

[Timmymagic]

Surely the Wedgetail would be the obvious answer? Stick it on a P-8 airframe, someone else has paid for its developement and by all accounts its good.

[shark bait]

If we're spending 2bn+ on a mechanically scanned radar something is very wrong.

Defiantly need to be looking at the modern flat panel options from Boeing, SAAB, and IAI.

[RetroSicotte]

Seeing it mentioned, that Indian plan to throw it on A330 is just so very...Indian.

I almost hope they go through with it, just for the sheer manic outcome of whatever the hell that would produce.

Suffice to say the operators are going to have legroom...

[ArmChairCivvy]

Japan missed out on a 707 platform (ours were the last made) so they got the same radar and similar mission system on a different aircraft. Doubt it’s even an option.

Why the doubt?

[Timmymagic]

Why the doubt?

The 767 has much longer range as well. Just checked the Wedgetail and its a fair bit less than the E-3D.

I almost hope they go through with it, just for the sheer manic outcome of whatever the hell that would produce.

Suffice to say the operators are going to have legroom...

I know this is a pipedream...but.... Surely a A330 AWACS has a big advantage with its range? A platform staying up there for huge amount of time without needing recourse to limited AAR platforms must surely bring some advantages, plus the ability to cruise into an AO from a distant secure location and orbit for a decent stretch, add in the crew habitability and it kinda makes sense. It has double the range of the E-3D, more than double the range of Wedgetail and thats before it tapped into any additional tankage that you could add in (of which they'd be plenty of space and weight margins.

Plus stick a single HDU on the back and you could refuel your CAP as well...

[RetroSicotte]

I know this is a pipedream...but.... Surely a A330 AWACS has a big advantage with its range?

Well, you're not wrong. But it's a bit like throwing a Type 26's weapons fit onto a Tide class to get a range advantage, a bit beyond requirement is an understatement.

In a more reasonable justification for why it's somewhat over the top, crew endurance is definitely a factor there, along with it presenting an enormous RCS signature for long range anti-AWACs missiles. Certainly not able to turn and "burn" as well as a smaller one can, for example.

[indeid]

Japan missed out on a 707 platform (ours were the last made) so they got the same radar and similar mission system on a different aircraft. Doubt it’s even an option.

Why the doubt?

It has the same radar and mission kit on as the E-3 series. If we could upgrade our current mission kit to Block 40/45 easily or buy that standard off the shelf to put in a new airframe, it could just be fitted to the current 707s. What are you proposing?

[Timmymagic]

Well, you're not wrong. But it's a bit like throwing a Type 26's weapons fit onto a Tide class to get a range advantage, a bit beyond requirement is an understatement.

In a more reasonable justification for why it's somewhat over the top, crew endurance is definitely a factor there, along with it presenting an enormous RCS signature for long range anti-AWACs missiles. Certainly not able to turn and "burn" as well as a smaller one can, for example.

No doubt it is. But are there not commonality benefits with the Voyager? Could these mitigate some of the additional costs. It strikes me that having6 of these we need to keep them in the air as much as possible with as little reliance on other assets as possible.

But is there any platform that can 'turn and burn' in the AWACS mission. I can't imagine an A330 being that dissimilar to a 737 or Bombardier (because they're actually really big) in that regard. If anti-AWACS missiles are a reality ANY AWACS platform is vulnerable and we'd better go down the cheap disaggregated network sensor route.

[shark bait]

It's ridiculous to use such a huge platform for that role, you've just doubled the procurement and operational costs for little benefit that is usable. How often do we expect our crews to be flying 13 hour patrols? In reality that rarely happens.

If long endurance is such a big deal, try one of the long range business jets which have about an 11 hour endurance. The cost for the additional 2 hours the A330 affords is without doubt not with it.

A typical mission profile is to fly 1,000 miles up north, or over mainland Europe, spend about 4 hours on station, and then fly home. As long as we can achieve that, most of Europe and the Middle East in within reach of RAF bases. Refueling is for the exceptional circumstances where more time is required.

[indeid]

It's ridiculous to use such a huge platform for that role, you've just doubled the procurement and operational costs for little benefit that is usable. How often do we expect our crews to be flying 13 hour patrols? In reality that rarely happens.

If long endurance is such a big deal, try one of the long range business jets which have about an 11 hour endurance. The cost for the additional 2 hours the A330 affords is without doubt not with it.

A typical mission profile is to fly 1,000 miles up north, or over mainland Europe, spend about 4 hours on station, and then fly home. As long as we can achieve that, most of Europe and the Middle East in within reach of RAF bases. Refueling is for the exceptional circumstances where more time is required.

Those may be typical training missions but on operations 8-10 hours on station are common, with multiple AARs and transit times added on top.

AAR serials have to be carefully managed as the jet mostly needs to come off station to fuel, hence the preference of the Ds to Boom tank when possible.

Plan on 3 jets for a 24 hour orbit which is why crews are often the limiting factor. With those sortie lengths you burn through manning quickly. Spare personnel can be carried and there is a reason why the galley and toilet become essential capabilities.....

Not saying that this makes a A330 solution the way to go, but it does offer advantages, along with the disadvantages you’ve mentioned. It’s also why I think going below a 737 sized platform is a mistake.

[shark bait]

I believe the longer missions tend to be in support of combat operations, in which case the tanker is already present.

[abc123]

It's ridiculous to use such a huge platform for that role, you've just doubled the procurement and operational costs for little benefit that is usable. How often do we expect our crews to be flying 13 hour patrols? In reality that rarely happens.

If long endurance is such a big deal, try one of the long range business jets which have about an 11 hour endurance. The cost for the additional 2 hours the A330 affords is without doubt not with it.

A typical mission profile is to fly 1,000 miles up north, or over mainland Europe, spend about 4 hours on station, and then fly home. As long as we can achieve that, most of Europe and the Middle East in within reach of RAF bases. Refueling is for the exceptional circumstances where more time is required.

Agreed. And even Gulfstream G550 CAEW in Italian service has refueling probe. That WITH range of 12 000+ km.

[Timmymagic]

It's ridiculous to use such a huge platform for that role, you've just doubled the procurement and operational costs for little benefit that is usable. How often do we expect our crews to be flying 13 hour patrols? In reality that rarely happens.

I know, I was only joking, but I'd have thought the range and persistence would have been extremely useful especially as we have very limited number of AWACS and in a full blown war anything that takes the pressure off the AAR fleet would be useful. Refuelling CAP aircraft would have a multiplier effect as well.

Mind you...given the chance I'd have built an A330 MPA... Imagine the range, weapons and sonar buoy payload you could hang on it..

[shark bait]

Back to the age old dilemma, we can always pay more to get more capability, and it's always at the expense of numbers.

Someone just has to decide where the right balance is.

[dmereifield]

So according to this article (warning, paywall), the Boeing E-7 is the favourite, but the order (if it materialises) could be for as few as 4(!!!) or as many as 6.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -36b2drlhm

If it goes down to 4, presumably that mean we will have 1, maybe 2, operational at any given time, is that correct? How does that compare to the current Sentry fleet of 7?

[RetroSicotte]

If it's anything less than 6, then it's an objective cut disguised under the "but its more effective" false argument, so how it compares is irrelevant, as it assumes that no-one else in the world has also been improving availability either.

The current Sentry fleet is only 6 really, one is scrapped. So 6 E-7s would be the optimum.

[indeid]

If you’re looking to replicate the availability of the Ds a fleet of two E7s would probably suffice.....

Boeing is the obvious answer, which I imagine will go down really well in some quarters. Airbus will push something that doesn’t exist and unfortunately the SAAB offerings don’t have the operator positions or amount of radios to control a whole BMA.

I suppose that’s the decision to make, keep the capability to control an area ourselves, or downgrade so that we can just help by taking part of another platforms AOR or specific tastings.

[shark bait]

To be fair 4 new aircraft would probably exceed the performance of the E-3’s.

It is welcome news to hear replacement is now the favoured option, the cost for upgrade was getting silly, which I can totally understand, the E-3 were decrepit when I worked on the a decade ago and nothing has been upgraded since.

I would caution against jumping straight to the Boeing option, there are some other nice solutions out there, top of which has to be Saab option. Global Eye has the only gallium radar in the air, with more capabilities across the land and maritime domains, all on a cheaper platform.

[downsizer]

Biz jets aren’t big enough for what we need. 737 is the smallest we should go.

[RetroSicotte]

To be fair 4 new aircraft would probably exceed the performance of the E-3’s.

Well, we've had more than enough discussion on this one that not much need for me to respond again on that one. :p

I would caution against jumping straight to the Boeing option, there are some other nice solutions out there, top of which has to be Saab option. Global Eye has the only gallium radar in the air, with more capabilities across the land and maritime domains, all on a cheaper platform.

Is it capable of the same scale of operation as the others like Sentry and the Wedge? They're more than just AEW, they're also AWACs, can they handle large scale operations in the air as the leader of a multinational coalition like the UK currently can?

That's a very hidden, and very crucial, point of UK capability and international reputation to lose.

Heck I dunno if even the E-7 can do that.

[Clive F]

Could someone do a quick comparison between the options?

[Pongoglo]

Is that the same airframe as our P8's ? If so make a lot of sense in terms of logistics , however it looks a lot smaller to my untrained eye?

[shark bait]

Biz jets aren’t big enough for what we need. 737 is the smallest we should go.

Why? Less consoles?

Could someone do a quick comparison between the options?

Only realistic options are the Boeing E7 and SAAB global eye.

Both are flat panel arrays, but only the Boeing manages 360 degrees of coverage, global eye only has side panels resulting in 300 degrees of coverage.

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. Also importantly gallium radars are suppose to preform better in the lower frequencies, which is more effective against today's low observable aircraft.

The Boeing is bigger, with more operator stations, and the globaleye is cheaper.

Mission endurance is similar for both platform, with the global express flying higher and faster.

The global eye also has an optical sensor and another radar on its belly for Maritime search, or ground moving target indication.

Other options are new build sentry's (like Japan) extended range E2D (like Japan), or an option from Israel (like Italy) but I'd suggest all of those are much less likely. Airbus would also like to sell an imaginary option.

[downsizer]

Lack of consoles.

[indeid]

I see the advantages of the smaller system, but too many times have I seen operational capability constrained by lack of operators or comms channels. There is a massive difference between what six people in the back of a SAAB could achieve vs ten (ideally I’d like twelve!) in the Boeing. That’s before spare crew are considered, either to replace personnel or nowadays operate comms that are off the C2 system.

I say this as a massive SAAB fan, and maybe if we were looking at a ISD 10 years out a distributed system could be looked at; but having suffered a mixed BLOS/LOS control channel we’re not there yet.