Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
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.
Totally understandable that a replacement might be cheaper than a life extension.
£2billion+ buys quite a lot of biz jets.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
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.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Why does it show only 9 voyagers I thought we had 14 ?benny14 wrote:Only 3 in the forward fleet.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
In fairness 5 new aircraft could do as much as 8 E3s. They are pretty knackered.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.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Probably doesn't include the ones on the civvy register.Jake1992 wrote:Why does it show only 9 voyagers I thought we had 14 ?
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Aren't they all on a pfi lease contract to be used in the same way or have the RAF brought some ?topman wrote:Probably doesn't include the ones on the civvy register.Jake1992 wrote:Why does it show only 9 voyagers I thought we had 14 ?
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
5 new aircraft could not do as much as 6 E-3s that had been properly restored and upgraded to gain new flight hours.topman wrote:In fairness 5 new aircraft could do as much as 8 E3s. They are pretty knackered.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.
5 down from 6 is a cut, there is no twist around that, and I will be surprised if they go for 6-7.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
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
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
The RAF own 9. The other 5 are leased, and when not needed by the RAF, they are used by Thomas Cook airline.Jake1992 wrote:Why does it show only 9 voyagers I thought we had 14 ?
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
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.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.topman wrote:In fairness 5 new aircraft could do as much as 8 E3s. They are pretty knackered.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.
5 down from 6 is a cut, there is no twist around that, and I will be surprised if they go for 6-7.
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.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
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.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.
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.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
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?).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.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
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.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
We could always get on board with the A330 AWACS project that India is doing... Crack myself up sometimes
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
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.
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.
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
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.
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.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
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.topman wrote:If we can get the same availability on ops out of fewer business jets, then why not
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
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?
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
Maximum ceiling of what?RetroSicotte wrote: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.topman wrote:If we can get the same availability on ops out of fewer business jets, then why not
That's the whole point you don't need as many.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
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.topman wrote:Maximum ceiling of what?
That's the whole point you don't need as many.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
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.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 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.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
- depends on where the confrontation is, but in most cases that works on both sides of the "front"?~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:, simply because technological advancements have allowed us to shrink the number of platforms needed to produce the same effect.
- quite rightRetroSicotte 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
- they dotopman wrote:Serviceability and availability change
- 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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
That's not based on any analysis though. It's simply we must have what we've had.RetroSicotte wrote: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.topman wrote:Maximum ceiling of what?
That's the whole point you don't need as many.
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.
If we did that we'd have 22000 aircraft that we had in ww1.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
~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
That is not the discussion at hand, that is appeal to extremes.topman wrote:If we did that we'd have 22000 aircraft that we had in ww1.
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.