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

[topman]

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.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

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?

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.

As long as the effect remains the same, as topman points out, any talk of numbers is really quite redundant.

[indeid]

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.

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]

As long as the effect remains the same, as topman points out, any talk of numbers is really quite redundant.

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.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

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.

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.

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.

[Scimitar54]

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.

[benny14]

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.

[Lord Jim]

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.

[indeid]

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.

We have 6, Sneezy didn’t make it.......

[benny14]

We have 6, Sneezy didn’t make it.......

Forgot about that. The forward fleet is 3, with 3 in the sustainment fleet. 6 still generates 3.

[shark bait]

Why does it show only 9 voyagers I thought we had 14 ?

The others have Thomas Cook painted on the side, can only paint them grey if we're really desperate.

[shark bait]

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 A330 is totally oversized for the role, thats paying for a lot of aircraft that isn't needed.

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.

6-7 is the bare minimum the RAF need to be sure to provide the coverage needed.

Where do you get that number from?

[indeid]

Forgot about that. The forward fleet is 3, with 3 in the sustainment fleet. 6 still generates 3.

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......

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.

[benny14]

Sneezy didn’t make it.......

What was the story again behind that?

[indeid]

What was the story again behind that?

Considering its service a rather inglouious end as an AAPL, 'so others may live'.

[whitelancer]

@ ~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.

[indeid]

6-7 is the bare minimum the RAF need to be sure to provide the coverage needed.

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.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The A330 is totally oversized for the role, thats paying for a lot of aircraft that isn't needed.

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?).
- 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

Considering its service a rather inglouious end as an AAPL, 'so others may live'.

So even the 707s are dwarf-sized (for the purpose)

also a formal component of the NAEW&C, so there will be an agreement somewhere on tasking share over and above National needs.

Indeed.

[shark bait]

Why are you linking an A330 and P8?

[Lord Jim]

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]

Why are you linking an A330 and P8?

Both are several times the size of bizjets.

737 based AEW&C platforms this would probably be the front runner

Heh-heh: a compromise on size?

don't Japan already operate a 767 based AEW&C platform

Indeed.

[shark bait]

Both are several times the size of bizjets.

Not really. The difference between R1 and P8 is small, but the difference between those and Voyager is massive.

Bizjets and narrow body airliners make good ISTAR platforms, anything bigger is overkill.

[Lord Jim]

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]

Of course size maters. Bigger aircraft cost more to run.

[indeid]

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?

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.

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.