UK Defence Forum

SW1 wrote:Yes p8 has different wings, different fuselage, different fuel tank system, different engines, different avionics but yes apart from that it the same a 737ng.

Trigger’s broom?

SW1 wrote:Yes p8 has different wings, different fuselage, different fuel tank system, different engines, different avionics but yes apart from that it the same a 737ng

Yup. P-8 is not a converted 737NG. It's a military aircraft based upon the 737NG in the same way Nimrod was based on the last version of the civil Comet.

It comes off a completely different production line.

Small, low-quality image, but Boeing showed a glimpse at the new battle management stations:


Nice, big displays. And 2 wide screens per station rather than the single on the first generation of Wedgetails.

Also talking MESA radar upgrades:

So instead of upgrading the current AEW aircraft lets buy a new AEW aircraft that will immediately require and upgrade. Boeing must be very happy.

With our delivery schedule, could our five airframes come with these planned upgrades already installed. I thought the idea was we and the Australians would have a common standard platform and share future development costs etc..

Two of the five Boeing 737NG Wedgetail planes on order will be used "second-hand" former airliners.
https://www.janes.com/article/88545/uk- ... -c-project

Well it will speed up delivery as there aren't any production slots available within the planned timeframe. We could wait for all new build platforms but that would delay the programme. Whether that is a bad thing as it may allow us to install the planned upgrades during construction, but we would have to keep the E-3s going for a few more years and the expense that would involve.

It would seem that Marshalls of Cambridge is looking to relocate from their site at Cambridge Airport and move elsewhere.

Family business, Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group, has said it is considering three potential new locations: Cranfield, Duxford and Wyton.

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/c ... T7JzO_zuB8

I heard years back that they were short of space at their current site. I suppose with the prospect of the E-7 programme, they see a good opportunity to sell off valuable land and find a more spacious (and less NIMBY) location for new facilities.

Wyton seems the best option for open space and privacy (biased as I used to fly there as a cadet), though there're no shortage of under-used and abandoned RAF bases in that region. Alconbury is losing its USAF tenants next year too.

Jensy

I would love them to relocate to Wyton, I live there!

I'd have guessed Wyton as the favourite. Is Duxford really a good choice with all the other IWM etc activity there? And Cranfield might be a bit far for all Cambridge employees to transfer. Curious as to why Mildenhall isn't on the list - I thought it was being seriously looked at for the Marshalls move a year or two back - too close to Lakenheath or is Mildenhall's future still up in the air (or not )?

This is all in the 2030's though isn't it and not next week?

NB I think there's a lot of reasons for the proposed move - extra space is just one. Probably the #1 is that the City Council are desperate for more housing space. And another is that the airport is partly within the city limits IIRC (and Cambridge isn't a huge place at 120K population) and there's constant chipping locally about aircraft noise & other pollution, safety etc.

albedo wrote:NB I think there's a lot of reasons for the proposed move

How about Runway length, its quite a small airfield for handling large jets.

bobp wrote:How about Runway length, its quite a small airfield for handling large jets.

I'm sure that's another consideration with Cambridge currently at ~2000m. Remember though that's it's obviously not an operational base so the aircraft are typically lightly loaded/fuelled. And doesn't seem to have been too much of a hindrance thus far.

I am not sure runway length is the issue, they used to land Tristars there for example.

Lord Jim wrote:I am not sure runway length is the issue, they used to land Tristars there for example.

Indeed Duxford is 300m shorter than Cambridge Int.

Wyton has plenty of runway length to spare.

albedo wrote:Curious as to why Mildenhall isn't on the list - I thought it was being seriously looked at for the Marshalls move a year or two back - too close to Lakenheath or is Mildenhall's future still up in the air (or not )?

This is all in the 2030's though isn't it and not next week?

Aviation puns aside There was some murmuring about Mildenhall getting reprieved, could be best to wait until the Yanks know what they're doing with it. Trump is expected to make a visit to Lakenheath next month, might well be something to announce then.

With the 2030 deadline, I think that's more for completing the closure of their Cambridge site and new housing. They might start moving or building facilities sooner rather than later.

All guesswork of course, but I can't imagine they will set up an E-7 conversion facility at a condemned site. Plus all the Hercules equipment is going to be in use till we retire the last of the fleet.

Jensy

Jensy wrote:There was some murmuring about Mildenhall getting reprieved, could be best to wait until the Yanks know what they're doing with it.

The last I can recall hearing was:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-46237845

which speculates that the move to Fairford will maybe finish by 2024.

Jensy wrote:Plus all the Hercules equipment is going to be in use till we retire the last of the fleet.

Or longer, as I seem to remember that aside from the manufacturer they are the only one allowed to renew e.g. wing boxes for Hercs. That sort of work was planned together with us and the ozzies for the respective fleets, to cover the setting up and qualifying costs... whether it 'all' went to plan, I don't know/ remember.

Don't they also do the deep maintenance on the C130 as well for the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands

They had expected to move to mildenhall but that’s been over taken by events at this time. They already sold part of the site for housing and they intend to do that with the rest 6000 houses was the number if memory serves and a new rail connection to London means they will be very valuable hence the desire to move.

This an old article but it provides some ideas of the capabilities of this craft for the doubters
https://sldinfo.com/2015/11/from-troubl ... nnovation/

https://www.airforce.gov.au/our-mission/plan-jericho
I have placed these articles that are about the R.A.A.F to provide some context to what this aircraft may provide to the R.A.F

Hope this does not effect first two secondhand aircraft

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-461415/

I doubt they are that old.

Ianmb17 wrote:Hope this does not effect first two secondhand aircraft

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-461415/

Won’t overly matter if it does. They will be going in for major overhaul and upgrade, so any corrective modifications would be done then. All aircraft develop cracks at some point it’s the taking them out of service to fix that costs big bucks specially on primary structure..

Something that has not been dicussed for this aircraft is the R.A.A.F intentions to operate this aircraft with the C.E.C capability potentially able to vector missile launches naval platforms that have also c.e.c
https://adbr.com.au/ran-tests-cooperati ... -new-ddgs/
Is this ability something to be considered for the R.A.F with its own Boeing e-7 I can appreciate that other branches of the U.Ks armed forces would also meed to capability to exploit this any thougts ?

It would be interesting it the west adopted what the USSR/Russia has done for decades and use Aircraft to provide target date to allow AShMs to reach there full potential. This may become important once again as ships counter measures make it more difficult for the on board guidance systems of AShMs to acquire and maintain lock on a target.

Using a AWACS as an airborne C&C platform for naval combat is nothing new, I believe the USN has used the E-2 for that role, but it also places those platforms in danger with the increased range of SAMs and the various guidance packages they have nowadays.

Whether the UK follow Australia is going to come down to funding as nearly always happens. Not having installed CEC on the T-45s doesn't bode well for the RAF getting the capability on its E-7s. If the UK is going to go down the CEC route it should concentrate on linking CROWSNEST to surface platforms and also the F-35s as its priority.

An e-7 would be able to co operate with a type 26 in operations against sub surface targets as well but as you suggest comes down to funding .
The surmise that one platform performing the detection and direction is at risk of counter is correct but wouldnt the capabilities of the platforms sensors in dueling with the opposing sensor be critical to outcome, it could be expected that an an air platform would have an advantage over the allied surface platoforms radar that was bound by curvature of the earth in detection range but could assist that platform in its detection and launchagainst opposing platform