Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
It was an example, not to divert the discussion, but to use a clear example about how things change and we need not but wedded to the past (recent or otherwise).
It's all about creating an effect not raw numbers.
I get what your saying about having a redundancy, however you have to add up all the costs with having additional aircraft in the fleet. And everything that comes with it from buying it, maintaining it, manpower costs etc, right through to the cost of, if we are spending more here what other areas are we not spending money in?
Yes there are areas/fleets were less does bring problems, however the sentry replacement, for me, isn't one of those areas. I'd be relaxed that we can do what we are doing and more with fewer.
It's all about creating an effect not raw numbers.
I get what your saying about having a redundancy, however you have to add up all the costs with having additional aircraft in the fleet. And everything that comes with it from buying it, maintaining it, manpower costs etc, right through to the cost of, if we are spending more here what other areas are we not spending money in?
Yes there are areas/fleets were less does bring problems, however the sentry replacement, for me, isn't one of those areas. I'd be relaxed that we can do what we are doing and more with fewer.
-
- Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
No, i don't, not if the requirement has changed and frankly there has been nothing to suggest, other than inherent cynicism, that a requirement still exists for between 6-7 aircraft. We can assume that it is a cut, even though we have no evidence to justify such assumption, or we can wait to see how the situation pans out and then begin to understand the rationale behind the programme's parameters.RetroSicotte wrote:
That is not the discussion at hand, that is appeal to extremes.
You don't see the difference between going "we had thousands a hundred years ago!" and the point that cutting a fleet that only ever had 6-7 planes in recent history by yet more aircraft is a straight up cut?
As long as the effect remains the same, as topman points out, any talk of numbers is really quite redundant.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
There is no guarantee that an upgrade would maintain the fleet at 6. The Block 40/45 builds on previous upgrades which the UK jets never received, so its unlikely we could just follow the other operators. The amount of extra work, which would be UK specific, might drop numbers below what you could get new.RetroSicotte wrote: That is not the discussion at hand, that is appeal to extremes.
You don't see the difference between going "we had thousands a hundred years ago!" and the point that cutting a fleet that only ever had 6-7 planes in recent history by yet more aircraft is a straight up cut? Feels a little like you're just taking my point and twisting it to mean something so beyond context that it loses all meaning, to be honest.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
And that's the point I contend. The effect is not to do "just as well as before", it's to do "just as well with the comparitive context of today".~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:As long as the effect remains the same, as topman points out, any talk of numbers is really quite redundant.
Other nations have upgraded without losing numbers, why should the UK upgrade and then lose numbers? To keep pace, the UK must retain or improve both, as others have.
-
- Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Sure. But the context in which a decision for 6-7 aircraft as being appropriate for the UK's needs was last made whenever the E-3 were purchased - however many decades ago now. That decision was informed by the demands of the time and the technical specifications (limitations) of the aircraft that was then in question. Time and technology have both moved on since then, as has the shape, form and needs of the RAF. The AWACs like aircraft currently on offer today are a world apart from the E-3 so whilst a figure of 6-7 may have once been an approriate number in the specific context of the E-3, that number may well change (shrink) when the requirement is examined in the context of another aircraft.RetroSicotte wrote: And that's the point I contend. The effect is not to do "just as well as before", it's to do "just as well with the comparitive context of today".
Other nations have upgraded without losing numbers, why should the UK upgrade and then lose numbers? To keep pace, the UK must retain or improve both, as others have.
Taking a look at the direction of AWACs systems on an international level, you will see that the global trend hasn't exactly produced an expansion in fleet sizes. In fact, if you listen to the mood music coming out of the US at present, we may well yet see a reduction in the number of large, airbourne battlefield control assets being operated by military powers. Just look at the amount of debate being had around the continued viability of an aircraft based JSTARS solution for example - it's not too difficult to imagine that the same sorts of dicussions concerning the ongoing viability of such platforms will be applied to their own AWACs fleet when it comes up for review.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1714
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Without any rationale being given for the reduction in numbers, it can only be seen as a reduction in coverage.
Before arguing that more modern = more capable and therefore less are needed, remember that "Requirements" can go up as well as down. In a world of greater uncertainty this is more than likely.
Before arguing that more modern = more capable and therefore less are needed, remember that "Requirements" can go up as well as down. In a world of greater uncertainty this is more than likely.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
The 7 we have only generate 3 for active use. Two for the UK, one overseas. Going lower than 6-7 would be incredibly silly.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
6-7 is the bare minimum the RAF need to be sure to provide the coverage needed. Any less risks holes appearing. Look at it like CASD, we need four boat to be sure of having one on station at any one time. Back in the distant past going from 50 of something to 48 didn't have a major impact, but with current force levels being so taught losing anything these days causes a drop in effectiveness. Politicians talk of capability because it make good sound bites, the Military are worried about capacity to actual do carry out and maintain the tasks given them.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
We have 6, Sneezy didn’t make it.......benny14 wrote:The 7 we have only generate 3 for active use. Two for the UK, one overseas. Going lower than 6-7 would be incredibly silly.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Forgot about that. The forward fleet is 3, with 3 in the sustainment fleet. 6 still generates 3.indeid wrote:We have 6, Sneezy didn’t make it.......
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
The others have Thomas Cook painted on the side, can only paint them grey if we're really desperate.Jake1992 wrote:Why does it show only 9 voyagers I thought we had 14 ?
@LandSharkUK
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
The A330 is totally oversized for the role, thats paying for a lot of aircraft that isn't needed.RunningStrong wrote:We have to push for some commonality in airframes and propulsion surely? With our bizjet aircraft at risk that makes the A330 family the prime candidate doesn't it?
The biz jets offer a real nice balance between performance and price, and maybe a new bombardier purchase could secure the future of the sentinel fleet.
Where do you get that number from?Lord Jim wrote:6-7 is the bare minimum the RAF need to be sure to provide the coverage needed.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Those figures are on a set date, and will yo-yo as frames move in and out of depth maintenance. I have seen the forward fleet higher than 3, and also lower......benny14 wrote: Forgot about that. The forward fleet is 3, with 3 in the sustainment fleet. 6 still generates 3.
Also being in the forward fleet doesn't mean its ready to go, you could have all 6 declared as in the forward fleet and none of them actually available.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
What was the story again behind that?indeid wrote:Sneezy didn’t make it.......
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Considering its service a rather inglouious end as an AAPL, 'so others may live'.benny14 wrote: What was the story again behind that?
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
@ ~UNiOnJaCk~
The number of Sentry bought was determined not just by requirments but by money. Remember it was bought in lue of I think 11 Nimrod AEW. The same will be true of any replacment.
The number of Sentry bought was determined not just by requirments but by money. Remember it was bought in lue of I think 11 Nimrod AEW. The same will be true of any replacment.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
The E-3D are also a formal component of the NAEW&C, so there will be an agreement somewhere on tasking share over and above National needs.Lord Jim wrote:6-7 is the bare minimum the RAF need to be sure to provide the coverage needed.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
I wonder what makes you say that? The P-8 numbers needed are calculated based on the area bordered by the Barents Sea, Cape Farewell and the Azores (not so likely that they will fly out of Akrotiri?).shark bait wrote:
The A330 is totally oversized for the role, thats paying for a lot of aircraft that isn't needed.
- I don't think they ("A330s") are to be used only for the defence of the UK airspace
- and with low numbers, the ability to stay "on station" is ever more important
So even the 707s are dwarf-sized (for the purpose)indeid wrote: Considering its service a rather inglouious end as an AAPL, 'so others may live'.
Indeed.indeid wrote:also a formal component of the NAEW&C, so there will be an agreement somewhere on tasking share over and above National needs.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Given the number of 737 based AEW&C platforms this would probably be the front runner. The latest offering from Sweden would also be on the list with Israel a possible dark horse. What the US chooses to do for its next platform could also have a say, but they will probably go down the Boeing route, linking to to the KC-46 and don't Japan already operate a 767 based AEW&C platform. I do think it is a bit strange that rather than bring our E-3Ds up to standard the idea is now to possibly replace them. What out NATO planning regarding the NAEW&C fleet?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Both are several times the size of bizjets.shark bait wrote:Why are you linking an A330 and P8?
Heh-heh: a compromise on size?Lord Jim wrote:737 based AEW&C platforms this would probably be the front runner
Indeed.Lord Jim wrote: don't Japan already operate a 767 based AEW&C platform
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Not really. The difference between R1 and P8 is small, but the difference between those and Voyager is massive.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Both are several times the size of bizjets.
Bizjets and narrow body airliners make good ISTAR platforms, anything bigger is overkill.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
I am told size doesn't matter, but having a AAR probe on both the P-8 and a 737 based AEW&C would be a good move. Should be to hard as the plumbing for he 707 and 737 are very similar as is the actually fuselage. One is simply a shorter/longer version of the other. There is significant common plumbing and wiring including the fuel system.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Of course size maters. Bigger aircraft cost more to run.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
NATO, and I believe the other operators, are going to Block 40/45, to see them out to the mid 30’s I think. Their fleet has gone through the same upgrades as the US whereas we just did RSIP. That complicates us doing the same as we have a different start point to everyone else. That means bespoke work, and I’m guessing a load of extra cash.Lord Jim wrote:Given the number of 737 based AEW&C platforms this would probably be the front runner. The latest offering from Sweden would also be on the list with Israel a possible dark horse. What the US chooses to do for its next platform could also have a say, but they will probably go down the Boeing route, linking to to the KC-46 and don't Japan already operate a 767 based AEW&C platform. I do think it is a bit strange that rather than bring our E-3Ds up to standard the idea is now to possibly replace them. What out NATO planning regarding the NAEW&C fleet?
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.