UK Defence Forum

Well they could bring the E-7 into service as is and then have a MLU for not just he USAF but the RAF and RAAF, with all three having a stake in the future configuration of the platform, based on the introduction of an open source operating system at that time.

looks like cutting our loses with AWACS was a good decision. Pity we didn't buy the other 2 top hats.

Well, with the Septics now getting 15 (or more?), the price should come down a bit... So there is still a (very) slim chance of adding those 2 back.

A RAAF Wedgetail participated in the USAF Black Flag exercise held at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada from May 9th to 13th, USAF tested two new systems to help it speed up the kill chain from 25/30 minutes to 40 seconds/4 minutes before it passed its target data onto the Link 16 for the shooter.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/05 ... placement/

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... s-ioc-2030

The U.S. Air Force plans to field a fleet of 22 Boeing E-7A Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft to replace its 31 E-3 Sentry AWACS, with the Wedgetail having beaten out two other contenders for the program, according to a new justification document.

The article is behind a paywall but (in the thread below) the other two aircraft under consideration were apparently redacted from the public release. The E-2D was not one of them.

Based on the description of no AAR or 360 coverage, I'm guessing a Gulfstream based solution, perhaps the EL/W-2085 might have been one of them. The other, possibly a Saab GlobalEye based system?

Boeing is in a mess it needs government contracts to keep cash flow going as it’s currently selling 737s at a 20% loss to cost. And impairment charges for 787 and 777x delivery suspension and delays are going thru the roof. It was a contract only ever going that direction.

SW1 wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 20:27 Boeing is in a mess it needs government contracts to keep cash flow going as it’s currently selling 737s at a 20% loss to cost. And impairment charges for 787 and 777x delivery suspension and delays are going thru the roof. It was a contract only ever going that direction.

That said, I don't imagine it was hard to justify on capability grounds, not just industry policy. And with a US tech giant fiddling with upgrades to the radar itself – yeah, not even Boeing could screw that one up.

Mercator wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 00:02

SW1 wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 20:27 Boeing is in a mess it needs government contracts to keep cash flow going as it’s currently selling 737s at a 20% loss to cost. And impairment charges for 787 and 777x delivery suspension and delays are going thru the roof. It was a contract only ever going that direction.

That said, I don't imagine it was hard to justify on capability grounds, not just industry policy. And with a US tech giant fiddling with upgrades to the radar itself – yeah, not even Boeing could screw that one up.

I don’t have problem with the radar I’m just slight surprised with the aircraft there choosing to put it on.

SW1 wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 18:48

Mercator wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 00:02

SW1 wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 20:27 Boeing is in a mess it needs government contracts to keep cash flow going as it’s currently selling 737s at a 20% loss to cost. And impairment charges for 787 and 777x delivery suspension and delays are going thru the roof. It was a contract only ever going that direction.

That said, I don't imagine it was hard to justify on capability grounds, not just industry policy. And with a US tech giant fiddling with upgrades to the radar itself – yeah, not even Boeing could screw that one up.

I don’t have problem with the radar I’m just slight surprised with the aircraft there choosing to put it on.

Why's that?

topman wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 20:33

SW1 wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 18:48

Mercator wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 00:02

SW1 wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 20:27 Boeing is in a mess it needs government contracts to keep cash flow going as it’s currently selling 737s at a 20% loss to cost. And impairment charges for 787 and 777x delivery suspension and delays are going thru the roof. It was a contract only ever going that direction.

That said, I don't imagine it was hard to justify on capability grounds, not just industry policy. And with a US tech giant fiddling with upgrades to the radar itself – yeah, not even Boeing could screw that one up.

I don’t have problem with the radar I’m just slight surprised with the aircraft there choosing to put it on.

Why's that?

737 is coming to the end of the road and I expect we will hear something to that effect shortly, their main focus is the pacific and China. I thought they may have use the KC46 as their base platform.

IF the 737 is on the way out, what is Boeing's replacement in this class of aircraft?

SW1 wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 18:48

Mercator wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 00:02

SW1 wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 20:27 Boeing is in a mess it needs government contracts to keep cash flow going as it’s currently selling 737s at a 20% loss to cost. And impairment charges for 787 and 777x delivery suspension and delays are going thru the roof. It was a contract only ever going that direction.

That said, I don't imagine it was hard to justify on capability grounds, not just industry policy. And with a US tech giant fiddling with upgrades to the radar itself – yeah, not even Boeing could screw that one up.

I don’t have problem with the radar I’m just slight surprised with the aircraft there choosing to put it on.

Yeah. The 767 has a lot of the same advantages: American, air-refuelable, spacious, already in the fleet etc. But, the time taken to develop something from scratch and at greater cost (to develop and run) probably doesn't seem like a good investment for what they would consider an interim capability on a very small fleet.

SW1

If you consider that the 737 going out of production is of such great importance, then perhaps you would be kind enough to comment on when the 707 was last produced viz-a-viz the introduction of the E3.
You may also care to comment on how your implied preference for a newer design than the 737 is likely to affect timescales for deliveries and also VFM?

Lord Jim wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 23:36 IF the 737 is on the way out, what is Boeing's replacement in this class of aircraft?

There’s a new plane underway that will fall into this category.

Scimitar54 wrote: ↑03 Jun 2022, 02:36 SW1

If you consider that the 737 going out of production is of such great importance, then perhaps you would be kind enough to comment on when the 707 was last produced viz-a-viz the introduction of the E3.
You may also care to comment on how your implied preference for a newer design than the 737 is likely to affect timescales for deliveries and also VFM?

Why must the military always take old planes at the end of there production runs, this isn’t even the max airframe, as opposed to newer ones that are more efficient, much longer ranged for there pacific task and with more onboard power?

If you want to talk value for money then why not modify some of your fleet of what will be around 400 plus tanker aircraft as opposed to a small number of 737 the airforce only flies in the VIP role.

They aren’t delivering an in service date until 2030 so timescales for a new aircraft integration of this nature should be in the 5 years bracket so could still meet that timescale.

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Jun 2022, 08:00

Why must the military always take old planes at the end of there production runs, this isn’t even the max airframe, as opposed to newer ones that are more efficient, much longer ranged for there pacific task and with more onboard power?

The 767 is at the end of its production run. The small demand for freighters and the tanker programme has kept it alive.

The other issue is suitability, aircraft these days are engineered very precisely to gain small % of efficiency the extra margin that maybe available in earlier designs t allow more adventurous operations or making modifications for sensors or other payloads. For example even the P8 has thicker skins than an equivalent 737-800.

tomuk wrote: ↑03 Jun 2022, 16:36

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Jun 2022, 08:00

Why must the military always take old planes at the end of there production runs, this isn’t even the max airframe, as opposed to newer ones that are more efficient, much longer ranged for there pacific task and with more onboard power?

The 767 is at the end of its production run. The small demand for freighters and the tanker programme has kept it alive.

The other issue is suitability, aircraft these days are engineered very precisely to gain small % of efficiency the extra margin that maybe available in earlier designs t allow more adventurous operations or making modifications for sensors or other payloads. For example even the P8 has thicker skins than an equivalent 737-800.

The freighter market is booming more than ever and the kc46 will be pretty much the sole fixed wing aircraft tanker in the USAF going fwd and it already has mods conducive to this integration, it just an opinion that I’m surprised they went this way nothing more.

Designing these things is the day job over more years than I care to remember, modern designs are much more robust that u think and it’s very well understood how to reinforce where required.

On such conversions it’s not the sensor integration that loads the airframe the worst, it can cause other issues, it’s deployment off a full countermeasures suite that can be most problematic from a structures point of view.

Whatever the USAF decides to do, as soon as some funding can be made available we need to order at least another two E-7s whilst we can so they can be part of the original order. This should be a very high priority for teh RAF ahead of any firther F-35s, I mean we could probably get two E-7s by simply reducing the latest order fo F-35s by two, a reduction that wouldn't really hurt the RAF or FAA but would greatly increase the RAF's AEW&C capacity.

It strange when you put it like that, 2 F-35s for 1 E-7. When you think how important AEW is to the modern command and control of air assets it doesn't seem like a big price to pay. As a nation that suffered too many casualties because of lack of AEW for our task force in the falklands you think it would be a high priority in any field of our defence.

Sure, but one E-7 is crewed by about 13 guys&gals across at least four different specialities in an aircraft that will burn a heck of a lot more gas in one mission than the F-35. I don't know, but I'd expect the total cost of ownership to be quite a bit different. And those 13 folks might not exist in your ranks anymore and take years to regenerate. Can't be many left flying right now, or if they are they've moved on to other weapon systems where they might find a long-term home. They aren't going to sit around while the capability is slowly regenerated.

I reckon re-raising this capability will be a hard slog and half a dozen might cost, over the life of the type, as much as a Fighter Wing. I don't give the MoD credit for much, but they might have good reasons for trimming their ambitions with the E-7, at least in the short term. (I do think there should be at least six E-7, but if you're broke right now and have hardly any people left, you make your choices).

The MoD may also have been wary of what the Australian DoD planned to do with the follow-on E-7A replacement program. After all, they still have not made any substantive decisions on that (apart from starting a program) and the US E-7 program has just come out of the blue in the last 12 months or so. I don't blame the MoD for being careful about investing too much in something that could have been an orphan program. Happily, it looks like everyone has options now. Especially if NATO gets involved and drag things out even more.

It would be interesting to know how many E-3 crews the RAF has/had on the retirement of that platform from RAF service. Some have been seconded to the NATO AWACS fleet and I believe some have gone to Australia to gain experience on the E-7. Recruitment of new crew shouldn't be a problem though as this sort of platform are open to NCO aircrew/operators, opening a much wider pool to recruit from.

Getting there.

Does it have any blind spots?

GarethDavies1 wrote: ↑17 Jun 2022, 11:23 Does it have any blind spots?

No, full 360 degree surveillance at all times (besides below the aircraft to a certain extent and interference caused by the tail).

Thankfully its the the 2nd aircraft, was a bit worried how bare it looked inside considering the 1st should be ready in 2023.