Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
I was at the Paris Air Show in the late 1990s when BAe displayed the Nimrod MR2 in order to drum up interest for the possible new build programme. It was a great display, but what was funny was that whilst watching the display from the Northrop Grumman hospitality area to execs were heard asking an air force Colonel what short of bomber was flying around at that moment. I think it was seeing the large bomb bay when its doors were open, but they were surprised when told it was a Nimrod and it was a Maritime Patrol platform.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
What? Nimrod was based on Comet for goodness sake.indeid wrote:I remember lots of very entrenched opinions on all sides asking if a modern civilian platform could ever be used as a MPA
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Do you consider the Comet a modern civilian platform? I was really worried once when told small cracks were found in a spar of a VC10, until I saw the size of the spar......Ron5 wrote:What? Nimrod was based on Comet for goodness sake.indeid wrote:I remember lots of very entrenched opinions on all sides asking if a modern civilian platform could ever be used as a MPA
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Seeing that you claim you were in favor of a Nimrod solution back then, clearly you thought it was modern enough.indeid wrote:Do you consider the Comet a modern civilian platform? I was really worried once when told small cracks were found in a spar of a VC10, until I saw the size of the spar......Ron5 wrote:What? Nimrod was based on Comet for goodness sake.indeid wrote:I remember lots of very entrenched opinions on all sides asking if a modern civilian platform could ever be used as a MPA
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Nothing wrong with the wings mate. It was the fuselage that wouldn't fit them.Little J wrote:There was paper talk of selling to the septics (before p-8), but as they couldn't even get the new wings right could you imagine what a cluster fudge they'd have made of it.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
I wasn't particularly in favour of anything at that point. So why do you consider the Comet a modern civilian platform?Ron5 wrote:Seeing that you claim you were in favor of a Nimrod solution back then, clearly you thought it was modern enough.indeid wrote:Do you consider the Comet a modern civilian platform? I was really worried once when told small cracks were found in a spar of a VC10, until I saw the size of the spar......Ron5 wrote:What? Nimrod was based on Comet for goodness sake.indeid wrote:I remember lots of very entrenched opinions on all sides asking if a modern civilian platform could ever be used as a MPA
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
FFS, read the previous posts on this. MRA4 was sold by BAe as the low risk option to MoD due to the ITA concerns raised by the US with respect to sonar (UK designed but used by USN) and the extensive changes to the 319 proposed NOT 320 (although it makes little difference). The 320 started appearing in AB ads about 2001, 4 years into the program. MRA4 was anything but low risk as BAe knew.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
I thought the problems came from trying to fudge new wings etc onto an old fuselage that had always been problematic due to the shape of the windows on the comet design having created stress cracks? Had they been able to build totally new aircraft using an updated version of the design it would actually have been a world beating aircraft IMO. Apparently they no longer had the original designs and new build nimrods was shut down straight away anyway cos some idiot thought the rebuild would be cheaper and simpler! A new build nimrod would also have offered the chance for export which the rebuild route immediately precluded. Had we gone new build none of the problems (or at least the airframe ones) would have happened.
I’d love to know if a new build nimrod would have been possible because I still feel in theory with that massive range, 4 engines, cavernous bomb bays and happiness flying low or high the MRA4 could hAve been the best out there.
I’d love to know if a new build nimrod would have been possible because I still feel in theory with that massive range, 4 engines, cavernous bomb bays and happiness flying low or high the MRA4 could hAve been the best out there.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Cruises with 2. I also seem to remember some point about the engines being close to the body being advantageous for sensor use... though can't remember exactly whycky7 wrote:4 engines
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)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3235
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
I do remember hearing that the wing root mounted engines resonated less noise downwards for an enemy sonar to detect than a turboprop or normal wing mounted turbofan arrangement...though if you'd ever heard a Nimrod you would have wondered if that was totally true...ArmChairCivvy wrote:Cruises with 2. I also seem to remember some point about the engines being close to the body being advantageous for sensor use... though can't remember exactly why
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
The problem with the wing boxes was they were hand made and therefore each was different. This does not do well with CAM wings! There were cracks but they were linked to the wing spar attachment following 30 years of low level ops. They were not the issue. As early as 1995 the engineers at Kinloss thought that if Nimrod 2000 was a goer they would need to reopen the line but by that stage all the jigs etc were long gone. It was possible to remanufacture the wing box to accommodate but that would need the disassembly of the whole centre fuselage and was deemed too expensive by BAe. In the end it was thought they could get 13 airframes to mate to the new wings.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
http://www.australiandefence.com.au/new ... getail-buy
Interesting to see if it become reality
http://www.australiandefence.com.au/new ... getail-buy
Interesting to see if it become reality
http://www.australiandefence.com.au/new ... getail-buy
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Most likely none, but because we paid for most of the development we probably would have IP rightshark bait wrote:How much of the aircraft is Australian?
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Do you know if the engineering done in Australia or the US?
@LandSharkUK
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Here is the ANAO report into project Wedgetail, it’s quite old now but gives an insight into the whole project
https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performanc ... management
https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performanc ... management
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Interesting that the RAF are evaluating the Boeing Wedgetail concept, wonder if the RAF have considered upgrading the Voyager Tankers so they can refuel it when needed.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
There is Australian content in Wedgetail, just like Peace Eagle and Peace Eye variants have local content. Boeing owns the basic 737 AEW&C, Australia didn't include exclusive rights to the airframe in their solicitation and would have had trouble getting bids if they had. Someone could order a 737 AEW&C to their own spec, like Korea and Turkey have, without Australia being much involved. Or they could order a Wedgetail with Australian content with Australia's approval. The reporting on the UK interest in the aircraft is using the "Wedgetail" name but I've yet to see definitive comments from the parties on whether the RAF are seeking to buy the Aussie-spec, a new variant using UK content, or something else.R686 wrote:Most likely none, but because we paid for most of the development we probably would have IP rightshark bait wrote:How much of the aircraft is Australian?
As to who paid for most of the development, well safe to say Australia paid a lot but so did the US and Boeing.
The majority was mostly in the US, but there's some Boeing Defense Australia-led work in the aircraft. Continuing work on RAAF aircraft will have a pretty high Australian share too, the $582.5 million AIR 5077 Phase 5A contract is supposed to include $200m to 240m in Australian industry content/work.shark bait wrote:Do you know if the engineering done in Australia or the US?
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
I think the UK may start with the vanilla 737 AEW&C and then try in include as much "Bolt on" UK content as is sensible to try to reduce the clamour for a full competition. They no doubt will look as other users, especially the RAAF and see if co operation is a possibility. One thing we may look for in this area is partners to help fund the development of a AAR probe for both the 737 AEW&C and P-8 Poseidon, the technical side of which should be pretty simple as there are many similarities with the 707 airframe and fuel systems and probes have been fitted to 707 based platforms for quiet a while.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
The choice of the ESM system probably has the greatest potential for local content and/or improvement. (It's also the greatest difference between all the Wedgtail variants).
If I understand correctly, the present ESM system on the Australian Wedgetail is related to the ALR-2001 on the last upgrade to our old AP-3C. That in turn was related to, or similar to, a system on the old Nimrod called Yellowgate, I believe. I don't quite understand the relationships, as they are mostly Israeli products on the Australian aircraft, but I definitely recall some sort of relationship.
The long and short of it: you can go your own way or develop the existing system alongside the Australians. Will depend on how collaborative you feel, or how much risk you decide to take on.
If I understand correctly, the present ESM system on the Australian Wedgetail is related to the ALR-2001 on the last upgrade to our old AP-3C. That in turn was related to, or similar to, a system on the old Nimrod called Yellowgate, I believe. I don't quite understand the relationships, as they are mostly Israeli products on the Australian aircraft, but I definitely recall some sort of relationship.
The long and short of it: you can go your own way or develop the existing system alongside the Australians. Will depend on how collaborative you feel, or how much risk you decide to take on.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Oh and BTW, you guys were asking what Australia gets out of the UK buying the E-7?
There might be some IP in there that Australia benefits from, but I believe one of the biggest gains will be in creating a bigger pool to pay for software development, spares, etc. Right now there is a sizeable bunch of software dudes sitting around producing periodic updates for a pool of 14 aircraft. If we can make that 20, that's a good deal. If that in turn encourages other folks or NATO to go a similar route, it would be a very big deal. To my mind, that would be reason enough for Australia to smooth out a sale for the UK.
There might be some IP in there that Australia benefits from, but I believe one of the biggest gains will be in creating a bigger pool to pay for software development, spares, etc. Right now there is a sizeable bunch of software dudes sitting around producing periodic updates for a pool of 14 aircraft. If we can make that 20, that's a good deal. If that in turn encourages other folks or NATO to go a similar route, it would be a very big deal. To my mind, that would be reason enough for Australia to smooth out a sale for the UK.
-
- Member
- Posts: 96
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:36
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
As to ESM system the illfated MR4A NIMROD was ffitted with a Israeli system ,so I suspect the same system would be bought if the UK bought the E7 wedgetail unlless they try to pool the system with P8 they are getting.it all about money at the end of the day.Mercator wrote:The choice of the ESM system probably has the greatest potential for local content and/or improvement. (It's also the greatest difference between all the Wedgtail variants).
If I understand correctly, the present ESM system on the Australian Wedgetail is related to the ALR-2001 on the last upgrade to our old AP-3C. That in turn was related to, or similar to, a system on the old Nimrod called Yellowgate, I believe. I don't quite understand the relationships, as they are mostly Israeli products on the Australian aircraft, but I definitely recall some sort of relationship.
The long and short of it: you can go your own way or develop the existing system alongside the Australians. Will depend on how collaborative you feel, or how much risk you decide to take on.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... tail-jets/
It seems that discussions with Boeing are quite advanced for the wedgetail, according to the Telegraph, it would be 6 airframes for about £2 billion. The sticking point at present, apparently, is trying to increase the UK content and workshare
It seems that discussions with Boeing are quite advanced for the wedgetail, according to the Telegraph, it would be 6 airframes for about £2 billion. The sticking point at present, apparently, is trying to increase the UK content and workshare
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Some of the comments on that Telegraph thread are amusing. I have to say I love the guy pushing for a BAE 146 Awacs
I love the 146, great wee plane & I think the RAF should have more of them for short range in theatre transport but an Awacs variant
I love the 146, great wee plane & I think the RAF should have more of them for short range in theatre transport but an Awacs variant