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

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

They were really old and decrepit when I worked on them over a decade ago, and things haven't got better since then.

Totally understandable that a replacement might be cheaper than a life extension.

£2billion+ buys quite a lot of biz jets.
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

I should clarify, I'm not saying that keeping them is the only good option that's being ignored. I'm saying that the way they are wording it is very clearly a pretext to enable them to cut more during the process and claim that its not a cut.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

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

Post by benny14 »

Only 3 in the forward fleet.

Image

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

benny14 wrote:Only 3 in the forward fleet.

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

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »

RetroSicotte wrote:I should clarify, I'm not saying that keeping them is the only good option that's being ignored. I'm saying that the way they are wording it is very clearly a pretext to enable them to cut more during the process and claim that its not a cut.
In fairness 5 new aircraft could do as much as 8 E3s. They are pretty knackered.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »

Jake1992 wrote:Why does it show only 9 voyagers I thought we had 14 ?
Probably doesn't include the ones on the civvy register.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

topman wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Why does it show only 9 voyagers I thought we had 14 ?
Probably doesn't include the ones on the civvy register.
Aren't they all on a pfi lease contract to be used in the same way or have the RAF brought some ?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

topman wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:I should clarify, I'm not saying that keeping them is the only good option that's being ignored. I'm saying that the way they are wording it is very clearly a pretext to enable them to cut more during the process and claim that its not a cut.
In fairness 5 new aircraft could do as much as 8 E3s. They are pretty knackered.
5 new aircraft could not do as much as 6 E-3s that had been properly restored and upgraded to gain new flight hours.

5 down from 6 is a cut, there is no twist around that, and I will be surprised if they go for 6-7.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Little J »

South Korea ordered 4 for $1.6B in 2006, if we could get 6 for £2B that would be worth doing (IMO), but if they just use it as another excuse to cull, then I'd keep the E-3's just to spite the treasury :thumbup: :wave:

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

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

Post by benny14 »

Jake1992 wrote:Why does it show only 9 voyagers I thought we had 14 ?
The RAF own 9. The other 5 are leased, and when not needed by the RAF, they are used by Thomas Cook airline.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »

RetroSicotte wrote:
topman wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:I should clarify, I'm not saying that keeping them is the only good option that's being ignored. I'm saying that the way they are wording it is very clearly a pretext to enable them to cut more during the process and claim that its not a cut.
In fairness 5 new aircraft could do as much as 8 E3s. They are pretty knackered.
5 new aircraft could not do as much as 6 E-3s that had been properly restored and upgraded to gain new flight hours.

5 down from 6 is a cut, there is no twist around that, and I will be surprised if they go for 6-7.
Not really a valid comparison, you're not looking at what we have now with something that is a possible purchase. You're comparing something we don't have.

Anyway even then I'd probably go for 5 business jets over 6 sentries of any type. Modern business jets are very reliable and much cheaper to operate.

That gives us cash to spend elsewhere.

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

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

Post by indeid »

RetroSicotte wrote: 5 new aircraft could not do as much as 6 E-3s that had been properly restored and upgraded to gain new flight hours.

5 down from 6 is a cut, there is no twist around that, and I will be surprised if they go for 6-7.
Even if a ‘zero hours’ upgrade is on the table some parts will still be from the 70s, you will never get the availability a new build gives you and some kit will not be touched. The mushroom has provided sterling service but if a new build option is there, even if it does drop the fleet by one, it’s the only option on the table for me.

The US Block 40/45 upgrade has hardly received rave reviews, and if we went for that would likely be looking at another upgrade by the time we were fitted out and still end up without an AESA. If we go bespoke, that budget will disappear quite quickly. The Aussies are putting their E-7s through a minor upgrade finishing in the early 20s, sounds a great fit.

Air C2 has time and time again been shown to depend on the amount of available operators and comms. Smaller platforms just don’t house the consoles and kit needed to do the job. In Afghanistan an E3 would take a Battle Management Area, and just about manage, while the E2 with its 3 (3 and a bit for the D!) would be relegated to taking on a few towlines.

I think that a move to a 5/6 console platform would be a move to the second tier of Airborne Air C2, always operating under a larger platform.

E7 all the way for me.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

topman wrote:Anyway even then I'd probably go for 5 business jets over 6 sentries of any type. Modern business jets are very reliable and much cheaper to operate.
No doubt about the operating costs, but which biz jet will have the capability to fully operate the modernised Block 40/45 standard? Or any matching software and user interface capability (how many years of testing did testing that 40/45 upgrade take, from the base of a "fully" working previous version?).

We could do a "Japan" instead? Japan has four new Boeing 767 AWACS aircraft. This could address the actual availability which by Justin Bronk has been put at
"Bronk explained that the current E-3D availability is somewhere between zero and two on a given day, so a modern system that is proven and off-the-shelf could mean a procurement of less than six initially to replicate at least that level of availability." That was reported by Shephard almost a year back.
- taking the numbers out of my hat: out of 4 total we would get 3, instead of the lower number

The old airframes (with power generation, cooling etc limitations) are planned to be extended by 15 years by bringing the software up to the same standard as that used by USAF and at least by France, too. However, the radar on top will stay the same, when the targets (and the friendlies, engaging them) will all soon have AESAs (or at least PESAs)
- so the radar is not within the £2bn being talked about
- how much would a "Japan" deal for 4 new Boeing be? Could we stick in an AESA, or 4 ;) , with the money saved?

A lot of this stuff is not in the public domain, so hard to say (hence the many question marks in the above)
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)

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »

I get that they may not be as capable but like everything it's a compromise. And where we are now with the fleet, it's a compromise worth taking.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Little J »

We could always get on board with the A330 AWACS project that India is doing... :lol: Crack myself up sometimes :shifty:

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

This is like what I said before, "planning for peacetime" is a horrible, horrible error. Just because easy times allow a fleet to work on its standard availability doesn't mean that in serious war those availability elements would change.

The RAF ought to have 6-7 AWACS that are not clapped out, that was the original requirement, just because they've been budget crushed intothe floor to let them become clapped out does not mean that requirement changes.

Having 6-7 gives fleet depth, robustness and covers the required capability that was invisioned for the UK. "Arguing for cuts" based on "well these days things are quieter and we have less money anyway" is not a justification to avoid forgetting what is supposed to be there to do its job, win wars.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »

You seem to be talking about availability and if we don't have x number it'll go a bit pete tong. Serviceability and availability change, they've come on leaps and bounds since the requirements for sentry were written in larger aircraft.

If we can get the same availability on ops out of fewer business jets, then why not.

I've not got numbers to hand but it's definitely something worth looking into.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

topman wrote:If we can get the same availability on ops out of fewer business jets, then why not
Because you lose your maximum ceiling, and lose your fleet depth. Especially so now that anti-AWACs missiles are definitely a more credible threat now.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

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?

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »

RetroSicotte wrote:
topman wrote:If we can get the same availability on ops out of fewer business jets, then why not
Because you lose your maximum ceiling, and lose your fleet depth. Especially so now that anti-AWACs missiles are definitely a more credible threat now.
Maximum ceiling of what?

That's the whole point you don't need as many.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

topman wrote:Maximum ceiling of what?

That's the whole point you don't need as many.
Of how many you have in your fleet when one breaks, crashes, is shot down or is even there in events when you need another one, regardless of readiness.

Saying "this thing is better than the old one, so thus we don't need as many" has been proven again and again as a false arguement. It relies on the rest of the world having not improved in the slightest either, which obviously is not the case.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

RetroSicotte wrote: Saying "this thing is better than the old one, so thus we don't need as many" has been proven again and again as a false arguement. It relies on the rest of the world having not improved in the slightest either, which obviously is not the case.
I don't think this is the case at all. As long as you can adequately cater to your requirement, talk of numbers is a little arbitrary at the end of the day.

I mean, you would likely laugh at someone claiming that the RAF has an actual requirement for upwards of 700 frontline fighter aircraft today, as it did back in 1939, simply because technological advancements have allowed us to shrink the number of platforms needed to produce the same effect. There are times when a reduction in the number of platforms operated does not mean a loss of capability - historical trends, especially in the post war period, point to exactly the opposite in fact.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:, simply because technological advancements have allowed us to shrink the number of platforms needed to produce the same effect.
- depends on where the confrontation is, but in most cases that works on both sides of the "front"?
RetroSicotte wrote: based on "well these days things are quieter and we have less money anyway" is not a justification to avoid forgetting what is supposed to be there to do its job, win wars
- quite right
topman wrote:Serviceability and availability change
- they do
- for bizjets of course that argument works (as they were developed to give exactly that... and carry a few guys plus their briefcases)
- for complex fast jets it seems that the number required in sustainment fleet, as a proportion of what they sustain, is forever going up?
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)

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »

RetroSicotte wrote:
topman wrote:Maximum ceiling of what?

That's the whole point you don't need as many.
Of how many you have in your fleet when one breaks, crashes, is shot down or is even there in events when you need another one, regardless of readiness.

Saying "this thing is better than the old one, so thus we don't need as many" has been proven again and again as a false arguement. It relies on the rest of the world having not improved in the slightest either, which obviously is not the case.
That's not based on any analysis though. It's simply we must have what we've had.

If we did that we'd have 22000 aircraft that we had in ww1.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:I mean, you would likely laugh at someone claiming that the RAF has an actual requirement for upwards of 700 frontline fighter aircraft today, as it did back in 1939
topman wrote:If we did that we'd have 22000 aircraft that we had in ww1.
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.

Post Reply