Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

[Mercator]

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/01/boe ... rning-gap/

[Little J]

Hopefully they build them better than the Max's

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/faa ... 77.article

[SW1]

Hopefully they build them better than the Max's

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/faa ... 77.article

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67919436

Always fly an Airbus!

[SD67]

Loose bolts? Don't worry BAE Glasgow have some araldite available

[SouthernOne]

Hopefully they build them better than the Max's

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/faa ... 77.article

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67919436

Always fly an Airbus!

Incidents like Qantas flight 72 in 2008 don’t generate confidence.

Air safety is complex. If you think you’ve got it all sorted and wrapped, you’re courting disaster.

[SW1]

Air safety is complex. If you think you’ve got it all sorted and wrapped, you’re courting disaster.

It is. But even after disaster years of it and repeated assurances Boeing still hasn’t got a grasp of the basics. The Rot is right through in Boeing it would seem.

[SW1]

Some interesting context for both our E-7 purchase and the USAF's procurement of the 'same' platform:

Service officials thought their requirements were close to the E-7s that the U.K. has already begun procuring from Boeing, [USAF acquisition chief, Andrew] Hunter told reporters here.

“Those discussions have been challenging and we're trying to get in to learn [and] understand the specificity of what's kind of implied in the Boeing proposal,” he said.

Hunter said Boeing has previously agreed to contacts without knowing “key information” about what would be required of them. Over the years, the company has taken billions of dollars in losses after agreeing to fixed-price contracts.

https://www.defenseone.com/business/202 ... ne/394163/

I'm not sure there's anything to be said about the state of Boeing in 2024 that hasn't already been said. It's just a lot more concerning when the world is quickly becoming a more dangerous place.

[SD67]

Air safety is complex. If you think you’ve got it all sorted and wrapped, you’re courting disaster.

It is. But even after disaster years of it and repeated assurances Boeing still hasn’t got a grasp of the basics. The Rot is right through in Boeing it would seem.

Had this conversation last year with the spouse of a Boeing engineer - holidaying in the UK - basically the company's going to pot, literally. Air Force One is the poster child - fixed price contract signed without due dil - the writeoff is going to be in the billions.

But also they thought much of the problem is the new 737 site in Charleston, South Carolina. Right to Work state ie cheap labour .

[SW1]

Air safety is complex. If you think you’ve got it all sorted and wrapped, you’re courting disaster.

It is. But even after disaster years of it and repeated assurances Boeing still hasn’t got a grasp of the basics. The Rot is right through in Boeing it would seem.

Had this conversation last year with the spouse of a Boeing engineer - holidaying in the UK - basically the company's going to pot, literally. Air Force One is the poster child - fixed price contract signed without due dil - the writeoff is going to be in the billions.

But also they thought much of the problem is the new 737 site in Charleston, South Carolina. Right to Work state ie cheap labour .

The unions who are usually their own worst enemy don’t like non unionised workforce that’s the biggest problem they have with Charleston.

I wouldn’t characterise it as a cheap labour problem it’s a skilled labour problem. A lot of experience walked during or immediately after covid. Fully qualified and experienced people are covering a very large group of inexperienced ones and some of that inexperience is being promoted into positions they aren’t ready for but through desperation and over confidence it’s happening. Not wholly unique to Boeing.

There is/has also been a drive to design out the need for experience on the shop floor these past 10 years which is ok to a point but you get into a vicious circle and that’s come together with covid retirements to create a perfect storm.

[SD67]

The thing is though many of these issues have affected every advanced manufacturing organisation in the world - Covid, supply chain, new production sites retiring workforce.- and they deal with them

Toyota runs 10 plants in the other Carolina

[SW1]

The thing is though many of these issues have affected every advanced manufacturing organisation in the world - Covid, supply chain, new production sites retiring workforce.- and they deal with them

Toyota runs 10 plants in the other Carolina

That is all true, but building planes isn’t building cars. To many got into positions in aerospace thinking it was and came to grief because of it.

At Boeing it was going on long before covid along with cost cutting and over confidence on safety and quality. 787 was a disaster of a program from a commercial point of view the aircraft itself is quite good and cseries forced there hand on 737 when they didn’t want or have the resources to do it after 787.

[Jensy]

Following on from what I posted above:

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/02 ... otiations/

“We’re having a hard time with [the E-7 program], getting price agreement with Boeing,” Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told reporters in a roundtable at the Air and Space Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium here. “We’re still in negotiations with them, and that’s not been finalized yet.”

[tomuk]

Following on from what I posted above:

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/02 ... otiations/

“We’re having a hard time with [the E-7 program], getting price agreement with Boeing,” Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told reporters in a roundtable at the Air and Space Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium here. “We’re still in negotiations with them, and that’s not been finalized yet.”

So does that mean the UK has no satellite communication, military GPS and cybersecurity and program protection requirements on its E7s?

[wargame_insomniac]

Presumably this is more on whatever the USAF have specified and how that contrasts to those for UK/AUS/RoK/TK. The later three of which haven't specifically been mentioned in any of these stories.

Not exactly a perfect example but there are 767s which have been modified to be tankers but differ wildly from KC-46 Pegasus aircraft.

From a British perspective I'd hope we haven't done another one of our classics, and specified a unique platform that is out of sync with everyone else. History doesn't make me confident.

[Mercator]

Australian Defence Force news article:
Working with partners to control the skies
21 February 24
https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/ ... trol-skies

For the first time, air force experts have gathered in Australia to share solutions on Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) of the skies. The Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Air Force (USAF) joined Australian partners for the E-7 Wedgetail Trilateral Working Group meeting at RAAF Base Williamtown from February 5 to 9.

The E-7A Wedgetail provides Australia with one of the most advanced airspace capabilities in the world, while its AEW&C system provides battlespace surveillance, and command and control of air, sea and land assets.

Established in 2022, the trilateral agreement is a commitment of the RAAF, USAF and RAF to work together under an E-7 Joint Vision Statement towards collaboration and interoperability.

Flight Lieutenant Adam Beasley, a RAF exchange officer and E-7A Wedgetail mission computing system asset manager, said these regular engagements supported the RAF and USAF fleets in the move towards further cooperation.

“My position here is a reflection of the three nations’ drive towards the establishment of a cooperative program under the Air Force Chief’s E-7 Joint Vision Statement,” Flight Lieutenant Beasley said.

“Since signing the Joint Vision Statement in 2023, the USAF have established a sizeable footprint of personnel across operations, maintenance and support to assist with the introduction of the USAF E-7 Wedgetail. The UK have continued with their acquisition program ahead of the first aircraft delivery this year.

“In the short term, the joint intent is cooperation on the E-7 Wedgetail’s introduction to service for the RAF and USAF; in the longer term, to cooperatively pursue a common interoperable capability.”

Project Director Group Captain Darren Spee said cooperation with Australia's close partners would deliver wide-ranging benefits both now and into the future.

“Future advanced AEW&C will bring some really exciting capabilities to us. Developing it together with our partners will share development costs and provide some economies of scale that will make it affordable,” Group Captain Spee said.

[Jdam]

E-7 Wedgetail to enter service next year

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/e-7-wed ... -next-year

“The Wedgetail Full Business Case is planned for submission in March 2024, and an approval is expected from the Ministry of Defence in late 2024. The Wedgetail aircraft will commence flying for early stages of testing in 2024, with delivery into service with the RAF in autumn 2025.”

Nothing really new here but considering the total lack of news on our E-7s, I guess this is better than nothing.

[jimthelad]

Since when did we have to do a 'business case' for National Defence? Are the opposition going to be subject to CMA investigationi if they try to 'monopolise' us?

[pko100]

Since when did we have to do a 'business case' for National Defence? Are the opposition going to be subject to CMA investigationi if they try to 'monopolise' us?

All MoD equipment programmes go through several approvals rounds, larger projects above £100m will have the following ;

strategic business case - early concept approval,
outline business case between concept and assessment phase
full business case - at the end of assessment phase to allow start of the demonstration and manufacture phase

subsequent business cases may also be required to provide in service support or mid life refresh etc.

smaller projects may only have a single stage of approvals and may approved at relatively low levels in MoD, but larger projects may need approval at 4 star level by a committee chaired by PUS with a recommendation made to minister for approval or rejection.

I am amazed that the E-7 project has been allowed to reach this stage without a full business case, but I've heard a number of rumours about the soundness of the costings and its affordability being based on saving money by taking E-3 out of service.

[tomuk]

Since when did we have to do a 'business case' for National Defence? Are the opposition going to be subject to CMA investigationi if they try to 'monopolise' us?

All MoD equipment programmes go through several approvals rounds, larger projects above £100m will have the following ;

strategic business case - early concept approval,
outline business case between concept and assessment phase
full business case - at the end of assessment phase to allow start of the demonstration and manufacture phase

subsequent business cases may also be required to provide in service support or mid life refresh etc.

smaller projects may only have a single stage of approvals and may approved at relatively low levels in MoD, but larger projects may need approval at 4 star level by a committee chaired by PUS with a recommendation made to minister for approval or rejection.

I am amazed that the E-7 project has been allowed to reach this stage without a full business case, but I've heard a number of rumours about the soundness of the costings and its affordability being based on saving money by taking E-3 out of service.

Why amazed? The procurement of E7 has been a complete mess, no competion, an order for five for $2bn reduced to three for it would appear an even higher cost and supposedly we have two spare radar sets as NG wouldn't let us cancel the order.

[mrclark303]

Since when did we have to do a 'business case' for National Defence? Are the opposition going to be subject to CMA investigationi if they try to 'monopolise' us?

All MoD equipment programmes go through several approvals rounds, larger projects above £100m will have the following ;

strategic business case - early concept approval,
outline business case between concept and assessment phase
full business case - at the end of assessment phase to allow start of the demonstration and manufacture phase

subsequent business cases may also be required to provide in service support or mid life refresh etc.

smaller projects may only have a single stage of approvals and may approved at relatively low levels in MoD, but larger projects may need approval at 4 star level by a committee chaired by PUS with a recommendation made to minister for approval or rejection.

I am amazed that the E-7 project has been allowed to reach this stage without a full business case, but I've heard a number of rumours about the soundness of the costings and its affordability being based on saving money by taking E-3 out of service.

Why amazed? The procurement of E7 has been a complete mess, no competion, an order for five for $2bn reduced to three for it would appear an even higher cost and supposedly we have two spare radar sets as NG wouldn't let us cancel the order.

The usual dogs dinner.....

[SD67]

We should just cut Boeing a cheque for a billion a year as a xmas present and save all this mucking around.