RAF to keep all their E-3Ds but...

[Razor61]

they are to cut the aircrew.


A report from Flight International.

The UK Royal Air Force has decided against mothballing two of its seven
Boeing E-3D Sentry airborne warning and control system aircraft (AWACS), and
will instead look to cut costs and hours flown by reducing the number of
aircrews assigned to the type.
According to John Parker, who as whole-life support team director for
Northrop Grumman is based at RAF Waddington, Lincolnshire, along with the
aircraft, the air force has decided that mothballing aircraft was a more
expensive option.
Northrop in 2005 was awarded a 20-year, £529 million ($1.06 billion)
support and maintenance contract for the E-3D (one pictured above, during
last month's Waddington air show), including spares but excluding engines,
auxiliary power units and mission software. The availability-based deal is
designed to save the RAF £80 million over its course, says Parker, whose
team consists of 150 staff.
A mission system upgrade to transform the E-3D - which is based on Boeing's
commercial 707-320B - into a hub for UK network-centric warfare capability
is meanwhile under consideration by the Ministry of Defence. One proposal,
from Boeing Defence UK, is based on Boeing's Block 40/45 upgrade for the US
Air Force's 32-strong AWACS fleet.
If advanced, the project would represents the first major upgrade for the
E-3D's 1970s-vintage mainframe-based mission system. It would introduce new
operator consoles with flat-panel displays, and open-architecture computing
using commercial off-the-shelf equipment for lower through-life support
costs.
Meanwhile, NATO's military committee on 29 July discussed a request by the
alliance's senior commander in Afghanistan to deploy some of its E-3As to
manage air traffic movements within the country.

[Double Zero]

In the grand scheme of things, £80 million doesn't seem that much ( so please PM me for details of my account to send it to ).

I doubt there are many hangers-on in a Sentry, so how are the cost reductions as in less crew going to work unless the new no doubt VERY expensive - but essential - kit is fitted ?

Even with the fanciest kit, these things are up for long periods and people get tired - I doubt reducing crew is a sensible idea, except to accountants on the ground, and not even to them if looking ahead more than the next month, as such creatures tend to do.

[Wensleydale]

Old News. Guess what has been postponed to save money....

[Something witty]

Can't you see? Cut the number of crews and it's cheaper - simple!

The added benefit is that then the number of crews is self depleting as the remainder get cheesed off and shagged out doing the work of many with a few - even more cash saved - Gleaming!

This is after all the principle that HM Forces have been run on for some time now and no one can argue it doesn't work... apart from any other consideration, to argue there needs to be someone to listen and they've solved that problem too!

[unclenelli]

Seven E3-D's??????

I thought the RAF only had 6 E3-Ds & a formation of assembled spares bins.

So is this a reduction to 4 or 5 E3-Ds???? (plus/including a formation of assembled spares bins)

-----------------------
1970's vintage???????
Weren't they the last of the B707 line delivered in 1991???
Maybe 1970's design, but would have also included all mods upto and including 1990 at least before delivery, and have then been upgraded since then.

[pr00ne]

unclenelli,

Do you have trouble reading?

No reduction in airframe numbers but a cut in allocated flying hours and numbers of aircrew assigned to the Sentry fleet, which will remain at seven aircraft.

Jeez............................

[KeepItTidy]

Well lets face it what purpose have they got for now in todays climate , do we need Airborne early warning?

Rather than cut down the red arrors we have the MOD cutting the AWACS that does nothing really

good move and for once a good decision
All i seen in the gulf was the awacs fleet transiting through on there way to excercises in India/ malaysia in nice hotels while others suffer the crap , also nice dets to red flag and all that . If the AWACS done a real job (and not even in the carribean can they do that ) then they might be considered by the rest of the air force to have a case, now the C17 is here they not the golden balls of the RAF now

[In Tor Wot]

Reduce the crews and save money? Utter b:mad:ks.

How many af the crews are going to get a P45 and redundancy? None. So the defence budget will still be paying out.

It does not save money at all - it is an excel spreadsheet exercise to shuffle some numbers around. In the meantime the lower number of personnel left on the airframe will get higher tasking and more p!ssed off.

[Vim_Fuego]

Pr00ne said:

'No reduction in airframe numbers but a cut in allocated flying hours'

(Can't get it to 'quote'!)

If my colleagues and I get any less flying hours we'll be classed as groundcrew soon....

[Lurking123]

pr00ne, unclenelli is sort of right. Go back a few years (I think about 15 or so) and the RAF 'reduced' the E3D fleet from 7 airframes to 6. They just happened to keep the seventh as a rolling spare. I don't know whether it was subsequently reinstated.

[nmt]

Although all 7 are still declared to NATO!

[Razor61]

Wasn't the airframe which had a run in with a 'rolling' object declared to expensive to repair or is it/was it sent back to the USA to be repaired eventually?

[Vim_Fuego]

No...It's being repaired at the moment at Waddington. It's not a quick fix though.

[Razor61]

my last comment was a slight cock up, can't really fly back the E-3D to the states in the state it is in...so it was obviously going to stay at Waddington.

Thanks for the reply though, i thought they may have wrote it off and just used it for spares.

[barit1]

Regarding the date of the E-3 (AWACS) design - the biggest part of the design was done about 1970. Boeing beat McD-D (DC-8 based machine) in part because of Boeing's plan to use eight TF34 engines in B-52-style nacelles. This increased the loiter time substantially.

Of course, after winning the AWACS contract, Boeing dropped the TF34 idea and reverted to JT3D donks. Lower cost, you know. :rolleyes:

[Lima Juliet]

6 for NATO and 1 for National Tasking is how I remember the split of the 7 when I saw a brief in the late 90s...

[Skyhigh-Ulster]

wrong thread sorry

[sonicstomp]

KeepitTidy -

What utter :mad:

You must have a very short memory - up until the end of 2003 the jets had been continiously employed on operations since their purchase. Balkans, Afghanistan & Iraq.

Not all items in the toolbox need to be used for every job - to throw them out as a result is to court disaster.

Have you thought about a career in politics?

"You only want a lifeboat when you are drowning!" - unfortunately by then it is too late.

The Sentry is a remarkably versatile platform that can be used in a variety of roles, AEW being just one.

You never know what is round the corner.

[I've_got a traveller]

I can see your point sonic however, as the rest of the RAF are spending more and more time away on Ops with little resources it is a little bit annoying to see a fleet not doing anything except swanning around doing nice sunny dets. One only has to look at the shortage of helicopter crews to know that there is a real imbalance in defence spending at the moment.

[rudderboost]

My how times have changed; I was getting 600hrs a year in the late 90s, and we were more concerned with fatique use than anything else. I do remember the Boeing man saying that these frames would last us 80yrs, looks like it maybe a bit longer at this rate

[Sentry Agitator]

What a difference a few years can make.

WTN - I too remember getting anything from 350 to 600 hours and anything from 80 to 140 days away per year during my first tours and it was pretty much all done on Ops. Yes it was a very different kind of Op and for the majority, it was nowhere near tents or sand (unless you wanted to go to the beach). However, it was still alot of flying and alot of time away from home. I know it is nowhere near what most are going through now but was it really such a bad thing?

The crews and the jets still worked their wotsits off and when not doing the Op thing we still had to support other platforms doing their trg, either at home or overseas, so that they would be ready for the Op thing when their turn came.

I am also well aware that the TAL/HELO fleets were heavily involved as well as some fast jet fleets as well. I spoke to most when they wanted a flight following or whatever.

This thread seems to point the finger at those of us from within as if we have a choice! I was told directly during a recent talk with a 'big boss' that we have had our chance i.e. we have done our Ops flying in the past. I wish we could be involved in the decision making process as most of us realise that we do need to get involved in some way and we would love to get hold of that pot of cash that is reserved to buy the spare parts necessary and pay for the manpower required to fix a capable platform.

And that is the main crux is it not? we have a capability waiting in the wings ready for the next 'party in the sand'. If we do not keep that capability serviceable and the crews prepared (via the myriad of exercises available), what will happen when we need to send the little pink boddies beyond ground radar coverage. For that I mean the fast jets to get the ground prepared for the army before the TAL/Helo can ingress and resupply with 'big brother' giving the watchful eye.

I used to think that we had a force and leaders capable of forward thinking and that we could actually predict more than just a few months to a couple of years ahead. PERHAPS NOT?

Did we not have a similar situation in the thirties when a threat was emerging within Europe that we discounted until it was almost too late. God bless those thinkers of RJ Mitchell, Barnes Wallace; Sir Robert Watson-Watt, A F Wilkins and H E Wimperis along with Sir Henry Tizard (last 4 RADAR although invented by a German).

I agree that the current is vitally important and that funding should be given to ensure those dealing with the current have everything they need.

However, has anybody else been watching what has been going on elsewhere in the world whilst the UK & US deal with Iragistan? Putin flexing, dinner-jacket sabre rattling, Cristina Fernandez of Argentina laying claim to South Atlantic oil reserves and a very interesting article on tv this morning about China's brand new 'secret' underground nuclear bomb proof sub pens. What do they want those for I wonder???


All fine so long as we all remain friends.........BUT!

[sonicstomp]

I've got a Traveller - you are right of course about the swanning around with nice dets - times are good on the fleet in that sense. Nevertheless there is a frustration in being left on the sidelines, particularly for a growing proportion of the force that haven't been on ops yet. I guess it is a very different experience to (most of the) rest of the RAF. However, these things rarely last.

Mothballing the fleet is unlikely to help solve any of the real problems or inbalances in the defence budget. The shortage of RW crews will not be solved by binning the Sentry force.

[sonicstomp]

Although away in the sandpit at the moment, it is sad to see that things are just as bad back at Waddo with serviceability.

It is an extrenely frustrating time for all concerned.

I hope there is a change of fortune soon, I suspect we might be caught with our pants down if the sh*t really hit the fan!

[phil gollin]

The problem for any outsider is trying to figure out whether the decision is really the "best"/cheapest - or whether it turns out to be the cheapest because of the PFI deal with Northrop (2005 - 20-year, £529 million, support and maintenance contract - "availability-based deal").

I am sure that the Northrop deal includes lots of penalty clauses for reductions in scope or even the smallest changes.

So how would anyone ever find out as any query would be treated as "commercially confidential" ?

.

[KeepItTidy]

Sonicstomp my comments were no way a dig at the E3 force in general , I know like everyone else we ned to keep all assets airborne just in case of something kicking off and it probably will. My point is we know there is not a huge bucket of money and things are having to be put aside to help fund other things , ideal world we could have everything flying but until we get a government in thats going to spend money then some will suffer more than others. We all on the same side we just against the biggest enemy of the lot

The government

[sonicstomp]

Keepittidy - Fair one, govt needs to be more honest about its level of spending vs commitments..time for a Strategic Defence Review anyone?

(a proper one and not another white paper)

[Lima Juliet]

LJ Rant On

Plenty of work coming for an airborne radar platform in the offing..

'Nuclear bomber base' raises fears of a new Cuban crisis - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4393494.ece)

Especially when the "oh, so short sighted" shut Saxa Vord to start this place...

Saxa Vord Resort - Welcome | Saxa Vord Resort, Unst, Shetland (http://www.saxavord.com/)

I know that there are airborne assets in Afg that are crying out for AWACS picture and re-bro that mobile ground radar sites cannot provide - especially when we push further into the mountains. So stop your griping, get a bloody life and give the E-3D boys/girls a break (they were probably flying over Afg long before you in 2001/2!). I'd sooner see us with more Omni-Air style PFI AT vice Tristar or "merc" helo-lift than lose this force-multiplying invaluable capability to some of the assets in the current theatre. Still they may well be joining you if SACEUR has his wishes (so you can stop the back-biting!), see here...

NATO commander seeks AWACS planes for Afghanistan | Top News | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL1032324820080710)

For those that can't be bothered for a link the headline is
NATO's commander in Afghanistan has asked the alliance to send surveillance planes to help the battle against insurgents there, an official said on Thursday...COM-ISAF has requested it in a letter to SACEUR, a NATO official said of a request by U.S. General David McKiernan to NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe General John Craddock.

LJ Rant Off

PS Yes, at the moment they never bloody turn up with "sorry we're U/S", but one hopes that more priority will be given to their eng function if they go on ops :}