Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)
Posted: 14 Jan 2021, 07:48
Part of me thinks if it provides a significant schedule and cost benefit to the program, why are we not getting more second-hand air frames for the program.
News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.
https://ukdefenceforum.net/
Totally contradicts the reports where the Wedgetail proc decision has been painted as a sudden, knee-jerk decisionRichardIC wrote: Boeing notes that UK personnel have been training with launch Wedgetail operator the Royal Australian Air Force since 2018 in support of the E-7 programme
Quite right about 737-700s. However they were still knocking out commercial 738s until last spring, and the P-8 is taking those fuselages straight off the production line (albeit mating them with 739 wings).SW1 wrote:Probably using 2nd hand airframes because Boeing hasn’t sent a 737-700 down a production line in donkeys.
But the problem with second hand aircraft is they will arrive with different mod standards on the airframe.
Something the RAF is not fond off and in programs past has result in delays and increased cost as they have required all airframes to be at a common standard even if that meant de-moding some prior to conversion starting.
The E7s aren't standard 737-700s they have 737-800 wings and undercarriage an extra hold fuel tanks. 737 BBJs are the same combination.Jensy wrote:Quite right about 737-700s. However they were still knocking out commercial 738s until last spring, and the P-8 is taking those fuselages straight off the production line (albeit mating them with 739 wings).SW1 wrote:Probably using 2nd hand airframes because Boeing hasn’t sent a 737-700 down a production line in donkeys.
But the problem with second hand aircraft is they will arrive with different mod standards on the airframe.
Something the RAF is not fond off and in programs past has result in delays and increased cost as they have required all airframes to be at a common standard even if that meant de-moding some prior to conversion starting.
Would be curious why, considering no one had built an E-7 in a decade, we didn't chose to enjoy commonality with our fairly modest fleets of both? Perhaps even for a VVIP BAE 146 replacement down the line.
The marignal decreases in range would have been mostly met by the 739 wing's greater fuel storage, and I'm sure 6m of extra interior space could have provided useful space for future upgrades, additional capabilities or crew rest areas. Not sure how many 737-700s are fitted with the P-8's more powerful CFM56-7B27s either,
Of course the simple answer is, we wanted the cheapest possible solution, with the least number of changes (the reinforcement of the P-8's airframe coming to mind) and no one is selling 738/9 hybrids....
That parallel (more like off-shoot) production line closing has been used as a sales argument ('must order now') for a decade. hen is it actually due to close?Jensy wrote:the P-8 is taking those fuselages straight off the production line (albeit mating them with 739 wings)
Yep, not just cheapest but also quickest. Considering the 'gapping' we have - once again - decided to do.Jensy wrote:we wanted the cheapest possible solution, with the least number of changes
I wouldn’t be buying Boeing period and certainly not for the 146 vip replacement.Jensy wrote:Would be curious why, considering no one had built an E-7 in a decade, we didn't chose to enjoy commonality with our fairly modest fleets of both? Perhaps even for a VVIP BAE 146 replacement down the line.
Both good options as long Airbus keep making wings in the UK however it is a all new training and logistics programSW1 wrote:If Boeing wishes to open a design and manufacturing facility for wing or fuselages U.K. in the U.K. it can compete for VIP aircraft purchases if it doesn’t we can put a 300% tariff on any price they give. Don’t know why we would prop up aligning foreign manufacturers that actively attempt to destroy our own domestic industry.
The a220-100 or global express are perfectly adequate replacement for 146 which are more modern and efficient than an old 737 if indeed they are replaced.
The patent for the advanced composite technology used on the a220 wing is written in such a way that it has to remain in country.Tempest414 wrote:Both good options as long Airbus keep making wings in the UK however it is a all new training and logistics programSW1 wrote:If Boeing wishes to open a design and manufacturing facility for wing or fuselages U.K. in the U.K. it can compete for VIP aircraft purchases if it doesn’t we can put a 300% tariff on any price they give. Don’t know why we would prop up aligning foreign manufacturers that actively attempt to destroy our own domestic industry.
The a220-100 or global express are perfectly adequate replacement for 146 which are more modern and efficient than an old 737 if indeed they are replaced.
Would say losing that capability not good forTempest414 wrote: would lose the short rough strip capability but they could be good for VVIP - troop and fright movement plus Medi vac
Surely im terms of role it's merely an accident of history (and the Afghan war) that the 146 has ended up as both the "intra-theatre workhorse" and a (supposedly unloved) and ageing VVIP transport.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Would say losing that capability not good forTempest414 wrote: would lose the short rough strip capability but they could be good for VVIP - troop and fright movement plus Medi vac
- the intra-theatre workhorse role they have met, anything from cargo to HQs
-plusMedivac... with a light load,they can go a long way, from a rough airstrip
For a mixture of industrial reasons, platform numbers and a more pragmatic approach towards always "buying the best", I would have been far more happy with a common Global Express solution to AEW/MPA/VVIP, adding to the existing infrastructure for the Sentinel fleet. C-Series/A220 was probably too new to consider but considering Bombardier's recent fortunes, it might have been an option.SW1 wrote: I wouldn’t be buying Boeing period and certainly not for the 146 vip replacement.
I thought that part of the fleet was bought off an Ozzie courier company, with those wide side doors (no ramp)?Jensy wrote:The former role, is somewhat limited by the lack of a proper cargo door
Should have specified above, by "proper cargo door", I was alluding to the (still fairly compromised) BAE-146 STA concept:ArmChairCivvy wrote:I thought that part of the fleet was bought off an Ozzie courier company, with those wide side doors (no ramp)?Jensy wrote:The former role, is somewhat limited by the lack of a proper cargo door
- may have been one of those "what we should have bought" articles
I thought the Mk.3s were based on the QC not the QT? However upon checking, you're quite right the dimensions of the door were the same, 1.93m x 3.33m. Confusion all my fault, I've always assumed the STA door was much larger.Little J wrote:Slightly confused... The STA had a cargo door the same size as the QT/MK.3
You are absolutely right, but then we come to range and what 'intra-theatre' means. We were able to have a fast, point-to-point shuttle from Cyprus to anywhere that related to Iraq. Or conversely, from the bigger a/c, on landing, pick up the urgent stuff and fly it out to even short/ semi-prepared airfields.Jensy wrote:a side loading transport, that requires ground based equipment, is not an ideal configuration for the role, versus the C-295 or C-27.
this is why I said something like a 737-800-QC which can carry 130 pax's or 10 pallets or a mix of both what would be looking at here for 3 aircraft 1 x VIP seating , 2 x standard seating with weapons pallet , 30 x cargo pallets and 3 x Medi vac palletsArmChairCivvy wrote:we need to ask ourselves what other 'common' airframe, if any, can fill the 'niche' roles and be configurable at speed/ with ease to step from one niche to another.
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/ty ... 90.articleThe MoD last year ordered a trio of 737NGs for conversion into the surveillance type, plus two secondhand airframes sourced via Boeing for modification by STS Aviation Services. The first of these arrived at the company’s facility at Birmingham airport in early January.