E-3 REPLACEMENT [Archive]

Phoney Tony

22nd Mar 2014, 08:53

What platforms are being developed to replace the E-3. I suspect they will need replacing in about 2025ish so a replacement should be on the drawing board now.

Do we need a big platform with a whole load of supplimentary personnel to service the needs of old inefficient systems?

I have heard the F-35 can do everything so maybe a few extra operating as AEW?

RPAS must be a player in the 2025+

Fleet with CROWSNEST and SAMPSON look like their requirement is sorted.

Would a fleet of smaller aircraft such as E-2 do the job if fitted with suitable tools to enhance the effectiveness of the mission crew?

I have seen pictures of a slightly large tuboprop than the E-2 which may do the trick at one end of the scale and a large Russian transporter with big dome operated by the Indian Air Force?

Wensleydale

22nd Mar 2014, 09:39

I suspect they will need replacing in about 2025ish

Add a good few years to that. The mid-life update is only just in place on the majority of fleets (the original mission system is still based upon 1970s technology). Although I have been out of the loop for a couple of years, I would guess that the system will still be around in 2035 if not later.

betty swallox

22nd Mar 2014, 10:17

Anyone for a bespoke Multi-Mission Aircraft?!

P6 Driver

22nd Mar 2014, 11:14

Perhaps we could try to re-develop the Nimrod AEW3...
:yuk:

(No, I'm not being serious)

Dash8driver1312

22nd Mar 2014, 12:52

You really think the F-35 has anything like the observational power of the radar system fitted to the E-3, or even the Hawkeye? You might want to go check your sources over...

The Russians have been flying radomes on airframes almost as long, you refer to the Shaanxi turboprop and the Ilyushin 76, there was also a heavily modified Antonov Coaler.

Look up the Japanese 767 AEW, the Australian Wedgetail program, and quite a few others...even the Iraqis modified an Il-76 off their own back for this once.

EW73

22nd Mar 2014, 13:01

Yes, the Australian RAAF, and both the South Korean and Turkish air forces fly the militarized B737-700 with the big electronically scanned array radar antenna atop, looks like a surfboard, not a revolving dish! This AEW&C airplane type has been in service for a couple of years now.

P6 Driver

22nd Mar 2014, 13:09

Dash8driver1312

Although I can't be 100% certain on this, I feel that there is a very slight possibility that post the post above, from Phoney Tony may have contained a subtle degree of sarcasm with regard to the enormous list of claimed capabilities of the marvellous and magnificent F-35.

This post may also contain a degree of sarcasm, as did my last post.
Hope this helps.
:)

P6 Driver

22nd Mar 2014, 13:21

This is a 1/72 scale model I made last year - it's not of a real aircraft, of course, but was to illustrate a "What if" solution to the AEW requirement of a possible future Scottish Air Force.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8070/8158864183_952dd36f72_z.jpg

I have also made a model of a Hawk on floats, to help out the Royal Navy with an idea for a current sea-going fast jet. I like helping!

Phoney Tony

22nd Mar 2014, 15:37

P6 Driver

I hope you have secured the IPR on your design!

Interesting that Boeing have 2 ac types being used for MPA and AEW. Put a GMTI/SAR under a 737 and you have the set.

Has anyone tried a RPAS AEW capability. With a big pipe it may be possible.

I have seen the USN balloons used against the drug runners.

As we move to a home defence force a few balloons out in the UK ADR should do the trick.

Sun Who

22nd Mar 2014, 17:32

The Air ISTAR Optimisation Study (AIOS) is looking to understand the most appropriate future air ISTAR mix. As part of its remit, the AIOS is looking at Multi-Mission Aircraft and the role they might play in intelligently brigading air ISTAR capability.
While I'm sure this study will be lampooned by many on this forum, this is the way capability development is conducted. Senior decision makers, who are actually responsible for making decisions, as opposed to armchair generals and armchair air commodores, seek objective information on which to base their decisions. Now, that decision may well subsequently be subverted by political expediency, but they do try.
See here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmdfence/827/82704.htm) for an interesting perspective on how the AIOS is being presented to the political elite.

Sun.

howiehowie93

22nd Mar 2014, 20:47

Ah is that Hawk the reason there is a Fin & Rotordome free E3 on the pan at Waddo today as I went past on the top deck of the #1 to Grantham.

TEEEJ

22nd Mar 2014, 23:11

Howiehowie93,

That will be serial ZH105 that was withdrawn from use.

ZH105 - UK - Air Force Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 at Waddington | Photo ID 324812 | Airplane-Pictures.net (http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/324812/zh105-uk-air-force-boeing-e-3d-sentry-aew-1/)

ZH105 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15110856@N02/7494403434/)

radar101

27th Mar 2014, 14:12

Has anyone tried a RPAS AEW capability. With a big pipe it may be possible.

About 10-15 years ago one of my MSc students used the Erieye radar system (Saab) as the basis for an AEW system on a Global Hawk. - Seemed to be a possibility - at least he got a good mark for his design! :8

howiehowie93

27th Mar 2014, 14:28

thanks for the info and links TEEJ

Phoney Tony

27th Mar 2014, 18:03

Radar 101,

Was his paper published? The SAAB radar only looks left and right so may not be a good candidate. I think you really need 360 degree cover.

Sentry Agitator

27th Mar 2014, 18:05

Multi-msn (E-10): was considered and discounted by the US a few years back with costs, integration, different operating characteristics, system fusion and most importantly COST being the driver for the block40/45 E-3G upgrade and P-8 Poseidon procurement.

RPAS: available bandwidth for comms and data relay likely to be the biggest hurdle. Perhaps the great great grandson of 5G may be a potential answer.

Dirigible: may offer greater persistence but manned or unmanned with bandwidth for unmanned yet again needing to be considered.

Smaller platform = smaller crew = potentially more limited capabilities ie smaller sensors suite with more limited range.

Satellites: geosynchronous offers persistence & wide field of regard at massive cost. Sensors with bandwidth for data/comms and counter satellite capabilities are very big questions?

Upgrade: current production line in place (for sister fleets) and most likely to be the most cost effective solution (in near term) with probable life extension beyond OOS date.

Different variant: reopening production lines (E767) won't be cheap.

Cost vs need vs another capability 'vacation'?

radar101

27th Mar 2014, 18:48

Was his paper published? The SAAB radar only looks left and right so may not be a good candidate. I think you really need 360 degree cover.

PT, I agree. His tactic was to fly at right angles to the threat axis, turning quickly at either end. For 360 cover - that is what the Wedgetail "surfboard" is for.

It's Life Jim 208

27th Mar 2014, 22:02

Radar 101

The Wedgetail does in fact have 360 degree cover, it would appear that it is fast developing into the best AEW&C system in the world. Looks like Turkey and South Korea have made very clever choices. Yes these systems have been very late into service but it looks like the wait may have been worth it.;)

FoxtrotAlpha18

27th Mar 2014, 23:07

For Wedgetail, if only we'd put the NG radar on a larger airframe - the 737-700, even in IGW/BBJ form it just doesn't quite cut it.

Perhaps an -800 would have been better, or even a KC-46 as a donor platform? Then we're back to E-10 again I guess...

Cows getting bigger

28th Mar 2014, 05:47

Ssssh, don't tell the politicians Pikey, but the new RJ is the same airframe as the E3. Buy RJ, rip out all that expensive stuff and then bolt a plate to the roof. Simples. :}

Phoney Tony

28th Mar 2014, 07:08

Wedge tail and P8 looks like a good mix. Potentially a common platform.

CGB,

I believe E3 is a 707 and RJ is a KC 135 which is different.

Clearly from SA's post a manned platform is required with size being important to carry a large crew.

How are the Turks getting on with their wedge tail. Is it interoperable with NATO systems.

A quick google has shown it has a much smaller crew than an E3 so what would be its shortfall in ops NATO is likely to conduct?

Wensleydale

28th Mar 2014, 08:24

"A quick google has shown it has a much smaller crew than an E3 so what would be its shortfall in ops NATO is likely to conduct?"

The Turkish AEW is not officially part of the NAEW Force and therefore NATO cannot task it - it is a national asset (The FAF E-3F often "joins" the NATO Force, but this is on a voluntary basis). The experience that the E-3 has of working with smaller assets is when on ops with the USN Hawkeye. The Hawkeye does not have the same capacity to carry out the "AWACS" task as the E-3 - nor does it have the legs.

The "problem" with the E-3 is that it can carry out many C3 roles - unfortunately CAOCs have the habit of trying to task all of them simultaneously, in which case the E-3 rapidly runs out of consoles and radios. Often the smaller platform will be given a supplementary role thereby allowing the E-3 to get on with its business. This is not decrying the crews of the smaller platforms, which are often in AEW roles as supposed to AWACS roles but a practical way of employing them in support. (Yes, the RAF procured a very capable AEW platform that adds much more in the way of C3 support).

For the future? As the individual E-3 fleets enjoy their mid-life update away from the block 30-35 model, they diverge away from a commonality of capability. The difficulty in future ops may be the integration of the many E-3s of a different standard in a common operation.

rjtjrt

28th Mar 2014, 09:27

How many consoles on an E-3?

Wensleydale

28th Mar 2014, 09:38

"How many consoles on an E-3?"

It depends. The USAF E-3C has 14 consoles - the E-3D has 10. I believe that the NATO E-3A Mid-term also has 14(?) - used to have 9 when I worked on them before the mid-life update. The consoles are multi function and can be changed to support specific roles in the aircraft. The number of radios also varies between models/nations.

rjtjrt

28th Mar 2014, 10:01

I see the Wedgetail has up to 12 consoles (RAAF apparently have 10 consoles at the moment).
I accept the E-3 is the standard by which others are judged, but given development, the newer/smaller aircraft are possibly very capable as well. However, I have no detailed info.
RAAF couldn't afford E-3, despite lusting after it for many years, and had to wait till an affordable solution came about given advances over time? How close to E-3 capability I can only speculate.

Willard Whyte

28th Mar 2014, 10:07

One wonders where the chaps and chapesses put their Samsonites and duty-frees given the number of consoles in the current E-3A/C.

Wensleydale

28th Mar 2014, 10:18

"One wonders where the chaps and chapesses put their Samsonites and duty-frees given the number of consoles in the current E-3A/C"

They go into the luggage storage area behind the radar technicians console. (Same place as the E-3D). The E-3D has an empty space where the extra E-3C consoles go. It is referred to as the "ballroom" and makes an excellent area for crew briefings and the resident card school on transits. I believe that the hard points are available under the floor for the consoles to fit into the E-3D. However, it would take big changes in the aircraft software etc to fit them.

Willard Whyte

28th Mar 2014, 10:23

Was more in jest Wensleydale. I spent a few years on the 'D.

Phoney Tony

28th Mar 2014, 11:19

Wensleydale,

If say you could buy a smaller platform which cost a lot less could you, assuming MoD bought sufficient numbers, launch 2 or more platforms to do the complete CAOC tasking when required.

Such an idea would allow much more flexibility, but probably you would need more crews.

The Wedgetail seems to have a flexible crew each individual is capable of assisting with picture compilation (sorry if that is the wrong term) and can control.

Also I could not find any reference to technicians etc.

Wensleydale

28th Mar 2014, 11:48

PT,

Much would depend upon the capability in track capacity, sensor range etc of the smaller platform. Also, crew coordination between the different sections would be more difficult by having 2 platforms. As for training.... All the consoles in the E-3 are identical - the console is programmed to carry out a particular function on the aircraft, so you could have 10 weapons controllers on the aircraft or 10 picture compilers as required. The problem is maintaining the training and currency of all the weapons controllers. Multi training is perhaps the ideal, but if the assets are not available to train then maintain competency then too many can be more of a hindrance than a help.

At the end of the day, the controllers require a recognised air picture to carry out their tasks, and a mix of crew specialists on one platform is the most efficient way of achieving this.

sandiego89

28th Mar 2014, 15:13

For a UK E-3 replacement, isn't the process something like this:

Take a perfectly good system, strip out all the electronics to create jobs at home, send BAE gobs of money to integrate a solution, ignore warnings, add/change/delete requirement several times, then scrap or rebuild the entire thing to get you something close to the original perfectly good system? I may have missed a step. :}

On a serious note, I think a larger platfrom with more consols is always a good way to go if you can afford it. Systems that we never even thought of tend to get added over the long life of these airframes. Yes computers have reduced the workload, but a good platform still needs many brains to process, talk, direct, etc. The E-2 and biz jet designs are just to small to get a capabilty like you get from a E-3.

Mike51

28th Mar 2014, 15:51

Surely the most likely solution will be to follow whatever the US do, presumably something based on a 737/767/787 platform?

Hangarshuffle

28th Mar 2014, 19:35

UK Gov. is never going to fork out for any of this. Wake up! Cant even afford and pay for a maritime patrol aircraft, let alone a ....what exactly? Which is looking for what...against whom?
By 2030 you'll be lucky if you have a handful of airbases (2 or 3 including Scotland if) with some Eurofighter, ground radar and a few MPGS.
A new Sentry is not high on any UK Govt. priority.

Wensleydale

30th Mar 2014, 09:36

HS,

Have you met the term "Force Multiplier"? No E-3/AEW is expensive in pointy jets!!

Willard Whyte

30th Mar 2014, 17:39

Surely the most likely solution will be to follow whatever the US do, presumably something based on a 737/767/787 platform?

It would have to be conformal, anything on top could have a slightly problematic look down capability...

http://images.nationaltimes.com.au/2011/01/18/2139556/Boeing-2025-aircraft-600x400.jpg

Awaiting a po-faced rebuttal...

GreenKnight121

30th Mar 2014, 23:16

Somehow that doesn't look anything like "a 737/767/787 platform"!

Yeller_Gait

31st Mar 2014, 11:07

Looks like Qatar will be the fourth customer for the 737 AEW&C.

So how many years until the USAF buy the aircraft?

http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/03/qatar-to-buy-mrtts-aewc-and-more/

Y_G

Willard Whyte

31st Mar 2014, 11:09

Somehow that doesn't look anything like "a 737/767/787 platform"!

All of which wil be old hat in 30 years.

It's Life Jim 208

2nd Apr 2014, 12:00

Regarding the Qatari's anouncing their plans to purchase Boeing 737 AEW&C's with the Grumman MESA radar, it looks like that combination is fast becoming the platform of choice. As some one has already pointed out, having a B-737 based MPA and AEW platform has to save money along the line (clever Australia). So maybe if our Government decides to eventually purchase a new MPA then maybe the E-3D replacement should be a "Wedgetail" variant that will of course be fully sorted by then. Snag might be is how long the B 737 airframe stays in production as our E-3D's were the last B 707 types off the production line, we only just caught that particular boat. That is why the Japanese had to purchase the oversize B 767 based platform with the same radar installed (and as a result strengthen their runways at vast expense).

If any forum members are particularly interested in AEW aircraft then feel free to have a look at my new website "AEW World" which is dedicated to all aspects of AEW.

It includes the History of the subject, all the Manufacturers Serial numbers, Bureau of Aeronautics numbers and Squadron codes of virtually every AEW aircraft ever built from 1944 to date.

There is a modelling section that contains build sequences of plastic, resin and wood models and a Gallery of my completed models.

Another section relays the latest news and developments of AEW&C platforms around the world. Finally there is a Book section that lists the top ten books written on the subject.

Come along and have a look at AEW World - Home (http://aewworld.weebly.com/)

There’s something there for everyone who is interested in the subject.

Cheers

Ian Shaw :ok:

The Old Fat One

2nd Apr 2014, 16:17

HS,

Have you met the term "Force Multiplier"? No E-3/AEW is expensive in pointy jets!!

Take your point, but it is a bit of thin argument to say the least. You could equally well state that no MPA is expensive in long, thin greyline war canoes.

We binned MPAs having operated them without a break since the mid nineteen thirties. The history of AEW in the RAF is whole lot less consistent than that!

Trust me, there ain't no sacred cows no more (well, maybe one...wonder where they will put it if AS gets his way??)