RAF Start Talks on E-3D Replacement

[ORAC]

RAF starts talks on E-3D AWACS replacement | Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/80167/raf-starts-talks-on-e-3d-awacs-replacement)

Key Points

The RAF has begun to consider replacing its E-3D AWACS aircraft
It is becoming increasingly costly to maintain the E-3Ds, meaning that replacing rather than upgrading them might be the most cost-effective option.

Senior UK Royal Air Force (RAF) officers and procurement officials have begun discussions with industry teams to look at options to replace the service’s ageing and unreliable fleet of Boeing E-3D Sentry Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) aircraft.

According to senior UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources close to the project, the MoD’s Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) review is now considering the E-3D replacement issue.

[BEagle]

This will be interesting, given the state of the UK defence budget!

Would the RAF be prepared to downsize to the C-295 AEW:

https://youtu.be/M_IZ5pk3kOw

Or consider another Boeing such as the E-767 used by Japan or the 737-based Wedgetail, favoured by quite a few nationsl?

Does the US have a plan for replacing its own E-3 fleet? Or NATOOTAN?

[ORAC]

737 AEW&C FOR RAF? The UK is contemplating the replacement for its E-3D aircraft. | VAW/VRC Foundation (http://vaw-vrcreadyroom.org/737-aewc/)

[GlosMikeP]

If the E-3D is 'oh so last century' and increasingly difficult to maintain, why have the USAF, French and NATO committed to the Block 40/45 upgrade? Doesn't add up. What I sense is someone wants a shiny new aeroplane.

There's a fair bit of doubtful information around about vulnerability to AWACS killer missiles and inability of the 'old technology' to detect hypersonic missiles.

To the former I say get into airborne bistatic radar capability - perfectly practical now as when first proposed back in the 80s - and separate transmitter from receiver by as many miles as you like. That means the ARMs will target the (cheap and sacrificial) transmitter in something like a UAV. And to the latter, there's no single, wide area surveillance scanning radar capable of detecting and tracking a hypersonic missile at long enough range to do anything about it, and a new AESA antenna won't solve the problem - but airborne bistatic operation might, because the missile is likely to be an ARM (see first point).

What daftness there is around.

[Just This Once...]

The UK E-3D was left to wither on the vine, with all too frequent cost-cutting and risk-taking leaving the aircraft so far behind in airworthiness, technology and sustainment that it's hard to see a way back for the youngest E-3 fleet. Chopping-up an expensive aircraft as a fun project was equally questionable. Cutting our losses and starting again is probably better and hopefully some lessons are learned by those who killed it with a thousand cuts.

[flighthappens]

The UK E-3D was left to wither on the vine, with all too frequent cost-cutting and risk-taking leaving the aircraft so far behind in airworthiness, technology and sustainment that it's hard to see a way back for the youngest E-3 fleet. Chopping-up an expensive aircraft as a fun project was equally questionable. Cutting our losses and starting again is probably better and hopefully some lessons are learned by those who killed it with a thousand cuts.

agreed - lack of investment/sustainment has destroyed the E3D. Start again with E7 Wedgetail - much better capability and supremely reliable to boot - will provide a better long term solution. Don’t forget the sustainment $$$ this time.

[GlosMikeP]

The UK E-3D was left to wither on the vine, with all too frequent cost-cutting and risk-taking leaving the aircraft so far behind in airworthiness, technology and sustainment that it's hard to see a way back for the youngest E-3 fleet. Chopping-up an expensive aircraft as a fun project was equally questionable. Cutting our losses and starting again is probably better and hopefully some lessons are learned by those who killed it with a thousand cuts.
Cutting up ZH105 was a seriously bad decision. https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/full_size_0314/1472838-large.jpg

That aircraft cost around £150m when it arrived in 1993. How anyone came to the conclusion it was better as scrap after minor damage than be fixed and returned to service is beyond comprehension. I'm amazed it hasn't been raised by the Defence Select Committee as a point of egregious, shocking waste for which someone should be held accountable.

As for the fleet being, perhaps, too far gone; I doubt it. If we can bring 50+ year old Airseeker airframes back from the boneyard to airworthy condition, and that the 6 remaining E-3Ds are still flying, there's not much that can't be fixed. Certainly the Block 40/45 upgrade would rejuvenate the fleet for another 20-30 years - and would also do as we said we would at the outset: keep our aircraft aligned with the global fleet and so save on development and upgrade costs. Someone forgot that bit by the look of it when they cancelled our Project Eagle (40/45 upgrade).

Crackers!

[Ogre]

the service’s ageing and unreliable fleet

Now I feel old, I remember when they were new and dynamic and replaced the Shackletons.

Things just don't last as long as they used to.

[Daf Hucker]

The Rivet Joint weren't from the bone yard, they were all active KC-135 airframes up until they arrived at Greenville for conversion and were the "newest" KC airframes available. The problem with the E3D isn't just the airframe, the mission system has also been allowed to fall behind in capability.

[Just This Once...]

The RJs were not boneyard aircraft - they were in-service KC-135s. Their airworthiness (or otherwise), sustainment and upgrade cycle is managed by the USAF and not an intellectually bereft DE&S senior leadership team.

The failure to keep the E-3D in the wider E-3 fleet block upgrade program was a major mistake. Trying to keep the E-3D ticking with in-house resources was to the considerable credit to those directly involved but overly optimistic and manpower intensive. Having a new clueless DE&S senior leadership team wondering why the (UK specific) support team was so massive when compared to other PTs, before promptly offering them up as a saving measure, was just barking mad. This left the UK not just on its own with a unique fleet, with no economies of scale, but suddenly with no UK-specific team to keep the platform going. The switch of support contractors and single track maintenance did the rest.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Over on the Royal Air Force forum on ARRSE there is a thread about this.

Replacement AWACS (https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/replacement-awacs.275084/)

See the input of a certain well known RAF PPRuNer who is seldom seen in these parts due to trolling and whataboutery.

[SirToppamHat]

I do wonder whether a replacement for the E-3D needs to be in its image, or even crewed to the same extent (or in the same way).

There is plenty of evidence, even at Waddington itself, of remote operations, keeping pink bodies in the UK.

The back end operators could stay on the ground and be available to operate alongside the desperately undermanned teams in the CRCs - and with the right comms in place, they could operate from the CRCs themselves.

Awaits incoming.

[GlosMikeP]

The RJs were not boneyard aircraft - they were in-service KC-135s. Their airworthiness (or otherwise), sustainment and upgrade cycle is managed by the USAF and not an intellectually bereft DE&S senior leadership team.

The failure to keep the E-3D in the wider E-3 fleet block upgrade program was a major mistake. Trying to keep the E-3D ticking with in-house resources was to the considerable credit to those directly involved but overly optimistic and manpower intensive. Having a new clueless DE&S senior leadership team wondering why the (UK specific) support team was so massive when compared to other PTs, before promptly offering them up as a saving measure, was just barking mad. This left the UK not just on its own with a unique fleet, with no economies of scale, but suddenly with no UK-specific team to keep the platform going. The switch of support contractors and single track maintenance did the rest.

Yes it was a major mistake not to uphold our well stated commitment to keep pace with the Boeing world-wide fleet. I heard it with my own ears from what was then the Procurement Executive. Things get lost over the years, not for the better.

[Just This Once...]

I do wonder whether a replacement for the E-3D needs to be in its image, or even crewed to the same extent (or in the same way).

There is plenty of evidence, even at Waddington itself, of remote operations, keeping pink bodies in the UK.

The back end operators could stay on the ground and be available to operate alongside the desperately undermanned teams in the CRCs - and with the right comms in place, they could operate from the CRCs themselves.

Awaits incoming.

No incoming but it tends to work out cheaper to have the bandwidth onboard rather than fighting for satellite time, especially for a nation that has precious few of them for military use. For the weapons team the update rate is critical to any intercept. Introduce satellite delay into a demanding EW and evading target scenario and you will have a world of hurt. To date, manned platform have also proved to be easier and more flexible to operate - especially when operating in or near civilian traffic; that will improve of course but we really need something that is proven.

[George K Lee]

"Back end operators"? Ooh ello Mr Horne...

It actually looks like things are headed in a good direction. And AEW is not Joint STARS. Some stand-off is possible.

[Frostchamber]

Wedgetail looks to have been maturing nicely in Australian hands, with some fairly major early teething troubles now apparently ironed out and the system reportedly working well, having achieved FOC in 2015. It's currently undergoing a major programme of further upgrades, due to be completed in 2022. What I don't know is how closely what the Wedgetail offers compares with what the UK would want, but on the face of it the timing could be propitious and the degree of commonality with P8 advantageous too. As to cost, Turkey paid $US 1.6 bn for its 4 examples and Australia probably something comparable for its initial 4 - although subsequently exercising its option for 2 more apparently cost less than $US 300m. Worth a close look as one of the options, I'd have thought.

[Valiantone]

ZH105 was probably retired for a reason…. It was subsequent used for NDT airframe testing and its now used for Evac training IIRC

And at least 2 others may have benefitted from its retirement as well, one of them being the one that took a hit from the towing trainer


The French do rather well looking after a country bigger than ours with only 4.

[k3k3]

NATO have lost one E3A in an accident. Two have been removed from service, and another one is going to the boneyard next year, these three have been sacrificed to save money on what we used to call Major servicing.

[PPRuNeUser0139]

The NE-3A Component received its first ac in 1980. All 7 E-3Ds were delivered by early 1992.

[Lima Juliet]

Big savings on the crew as well - almost half that of the E3D. The Wedgetail uses 2 pilots and between 6-10 mission crew. It would possibly see a change in the numbers and type of rear crew we need as well. Would it be the catalyst to finally take the Airborne Fighter Controllers into the aircrew fold rather than the ridiculous set up where none of them want to be promoted to Sqn Ldr as they will take a pay cut!!!

Also, that would be the end of the Air Engineer and the final aircraft to operate with a Air Navigator, in a true navigation role, would be the RJ. Also, with the Sentinel OSD looming then there will be no more Airborne Imagery Analysts (IAs).

it’s time to rationalise the Branch again into a much tidier Pilot/WSO/WSOp cadre and get rid of the “non-aircrew” fudges (FC, IA and AT) - if you operate the aircraft and the capabilities within in it then you should be called Aircrew as either a Pilot, WSO or WSOp. If you don’t then you aren’t Aircrew - it really is that simple!

[k3k3]

The first NATO E-3 was delivered in January 1982, the remainder by the end of 1985 after fitting out at Oberpfaffenhofen.

[PPRuNeUser0139]

Apologies, I stand corrected..

[k3k3]

Easy enough mistake to make, especially as the NAEWF was established with the status of an HQ in 1980.

[chopper2004]

Wedgetail is coming back to RIAT for 2nd time in a row

https://www.airtattoo.com/airshow/aircraft/confirmed-aircraft

[Wensleydale]

With all the comments about whether ground branch personnel are or are not aircrew.... it is interesting to read Wg Cdr Jefford's excellent book about rear crew training through the ages. It seems that flying badges should be submitted to the Palace for approval by the Sovereign, but the last flying badge to be so approved was the "AE" flying badge in 1957. Flying badges since then have not gone through the correct approval and a state of confusion now exists as to whether the QM, LM, FC, and AT badges are indeed authorised for wear on uniform. This progresses further to the WSO/WSOp flying badge which also has not been correctly authorised. Indeed, at the time of the first award of the FC Brevet at Lossiemouth, responsibility for awarding flying badges was held by Air Officer Training at HQ Support Command and his feathers were ruffled when it was learned that AOC 11 Gp had been pinning an unknown variety of badge on chests at Lossiemouth. (As said by a reporter at the first FC badge award ceremony..."Is this FC Brevet an Italian football team?"). Jefford also states that when the RPAS "pilot wings" were considered, it would seem that having neglected to follow correct procedure since the 1960s, the RAF no longer had any idea of how to go about this. Even after the College of Arms became involved, a procedure was just made up by Air Command. A FOI request to the RAF stated that the "paperwork authorising the flying badges does not exist". At the end of the day, the RAF High Command stated that the badge was to be worn without the required approval. It is still all as clear as mud as evidenced by the two sides of A4 that Jefford uses to describe the total confusion and (in some cases) pig headedness) as to who authorises the badges and indeed if they are official at all.

[Daf Hucker]

The way things are going with regard to Rear Crew training, it might be that the only "aircrew" in the future will be the Pilot, with personnel filling flying duties in the other roles in the aircraft based on specialist knowledge from ground trades. Harks back to the early days of the RAF, where the chap that fired the guns was an armourer who happened to be flying that day. It'll save on pay and training costs; the Bean Counters will love it even though it will mean a drop in effectiveness.

[The B Word]

Nice post Wensleydale - all except for the word “Brevet”. As you will know in Jeff Jefford’s excellent book, the use of the word “Flying Badge” is the correct term; the “brevet” is actually the certificate that goes with the Flying Badge! We’ve been getting that wrong too, for years!

[Wensleydale]

Thanks TBW. I tried to be careful but one slipped through! Perhaps though this is the RAF plan - by calling it a Brevet rather than a Flying Badge then it does not have to follow Flying Badge rules for approval?

[Davef68]

Only really three options - upgrade Sentry, possibly reducing number of airframes to save costs, buy Wedgetail, or get out the AEW&C game.

Other options (e.g. RPV/UAV, CN235 etc are probably either too far in the future or too much a drop in capability)

[Wensleydale]

"Only really three options"

You forgot the fourth option which is to cancel the Sentry and join the NATO Component of the AEW&C Force by sending crews to Geilenkirchen (Which is where we were going to be in the late 70s, although the aircraft would not have been at GK).

[chopper2004]

Over on the Royal Air Force forum on ARRSE there is a thread about this.

Replacement AWACS (https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/replacement-awacs.275084/)

See the input of a certain well known RAF PPRuNer who is seldom seen in these parts due to trolling and whataboutery.

ARRSE forum has been offline / down most of this week. Laughingly with costs in mind, ones thoughts are wondering with smaller platforms such as Saab GlobalEye (well several platforms) but lest with today's technology "less is more".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcfzlbUjy-Q

However our mission workloads demand a lot more......maybe the easy answer is Wedgetail based on commonality?

cheers

[Pure Pursuit]

Cutting up ZH105 was a seriously bad decision. https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/full_size_0314/1472838-large.jpg

That aircraft cost around £150m when it arrived in 1993. How anyone came to the conclusion it was better as scrap after minor damage than be fixed and returned to service is beyond comprehension. I'm amazed it hasn't been raised by the Defence Select Committee as a point of egregious, shocking waste for which someone should be held accountable.

As for the fleet being, perhaps, too far gone; I doubt it. If we can bring 50+ year old Airseeker airframes back from the boneyard to airworthy condition, and that the 6 remaining E-3Ds are still flying, there's not much that can't be fixed. Certainly the Block 40/45 upgrade would rejuvenate the fleet for another 20-30 years - and would also do as we said we would at the outset: keep our aircraft aligned with the global fleet and so save on development and upgrade costs. Someone forgot that bit by the look of it when they cancelled our Project Eagle (40/45 upgrade).

Crackers!

Sadly, a 40/45 update would not make the aircraft anymore serviceable or, available. The USAF are having the same old airframe issues with their E-3Gs.

Wedgtail or bust. It’s a great capability and would take us forward with airborne C2 until 2045.

[ORAC]

Could the Wedgetail 737 airframe and systems be updated to also carry the AN/APS-154 the P-8 has been carrying in trials in addition to the standard fit?

[VinRouge]

Why not use it with P8 instead?

[Heathrow Harry]

Why not use it with P8 instead?

Lets just say the cost and time to refit one or the other would be large and long ... and the record of such attempts is littered with expensive mistakes

Far better to bite the bullet and get something off the shelf that you know works and you can get quickly

Which is pretty much what we did with the E3, the Rivet Joint & the P-8 - no-one wants to risk another Nimrod fiasco....................

[TBM-Legend]

RAAF Boeing E-7A Wedgetail recently conducted the longest mission of the type in the ME Theatre. Launched for a four [4+] hour plus sortie and wound up flying with multiple IFR's for more than nineteen [19+] hours straight....

[ORAC]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/28/defence-industry-ready-fight-new-awacs-jets-deal-raf/

Don't freeze UK defence sector out of Sentry contract, ministers warned

A battle is brewing between defence companies and government over upgrading or replacing the RAF’s fleet of airborne early warning “Sentry” jets.

The E-3D Awacs aircraft are used to detect enemy aircraft and guide fighters to intercept them. The ones currently in service were built by Boeing and first began protecting Britain’s skies in the Nineties. With the heavy demands placed on them the RAF’s Sentries are worn out, with maintenance on the ageing aircraft becoming prohibitively expensive. It has been argued that rather than spend an estimated £2bn on upgrades, it would be cheaper to replace them in the long term.

However, fears are growing that a contract for new aircraft will be handed to US defence giant Boeing without a competitive process, freezing out companies in the UK. This could be the latest in a series of multi-billion arms contracts handed to US and other foreign manufacturers at the expensive of companies in the UK. Recent examples include the MoD’s agreements with Boeing to buy P-8 Poseidon maritime spyplanes (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/09/britain-to-begin-orders-of-nimrod-replacement-spyplanes/) and Apache attack helicopters (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/28/mod-poised-to-award-2bn-apache-deal-to-boeing-in-new-blow-to-uk/). Last month MPs heard the MoD had awarded a £4.4bn deal to a German-led consortium for new armoured vehicles for the Army without a full competition (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/04/24/british-army-set-buy-armoured-vehicles-german-led-consortium/).

MP Madeleine Moon, a member of the defence select committee, has called for any Sentry contract to be bid for in an “open and transparent” way. She said: “Buying from Boeing forgets the importance of British defence jobs and maintaining this country’s defence industry’s capabilities. By buying off the shelf without an open competition how will we know we will be getting not only the best deal but also the best equipment?”

The MP also claimed Boeing has a "poor record" in the UK for “offsetting” defence deals. Offsetting is the process where companies agree to build or maintain equipment in the country which is buying it, keeping some of the value of a defence order within the economy making the purchases.

Defence industry insiders say that UK and European companies - and even US groups with a UK footprint - are preparing for battle with Whitehall to have an open competition held over renewing the Sentry fleet. “It’s looking like the P-8 Poseidon all over again,” said one industry source. “We’re ready to fight to have a chance to take part.”

Companies likely to offer their version of the Sentry include Airbus, using a design based on it A330 airliner whose wings are made in company’s factory in North Wales. Sweden’s SAAB could also be a contender. Rival bids are likely to pledge to offset as much work in the UK with subcontractors as they can to secure the deal.

Answering parliamentary questions on Sentry, Guto Bebb, defence procurement minister, said: “No decision has been made with regard to the future delivery of the UK’s airborne warning and control capabilities, although a range of options are being explored.”

[PPRuNeUser0139]

It's déja vu all over again innit..

[melmothtw]

Wedgetail or GlobalEye. it will be yet another type that can't be aerial refuelled with the Voyager.

With the prospect of an RAF F-35A buy in the offing also, we must be close to the point where the UK has as many types that it can't refuel as it can - F-35A (maybe); Wedgetail / GlobalEye (maybe); C-17; Voyager; P-8; RC-135; and Sentinel just off the top of my head. Sure there are others to add.

[Pure Pursuit]

Ultimately, we have to go for an option that can be built, tested, proven and then delivered in a realistic timeframe. I can’t see the MoD going for an Airbus ‘concept’ in any way shape or form. The development costings and time in order to get it to where we would need it to be would be massive.

Wedgtail works....

[Just This Once...]

I'd be more than happy to evaluate a British or European design that could step in as a true Sentry replacement. The naked truth is precisely zero manufacturers would be be prepared to fund, develop, mature and prove such a capability. What they are happy to do is to spend MoDs money to fund/develop/mature their platform over an extended period whilst we continue to spend more MoD money sustaining the current platform.

The UK MoD just does not have the funds to support domestic industry and HM Treasury will not pay extra to do so.

[Davef68]

"Only really three options"

You forgot the fourth option which is to cancel the Sentry and join the NATO Component of the AEW&C Force by sending crews to Geilenkirchen (Which is where we were going to be in the late 70s, although the aircraft would not have been at GK).

I kind of included that in the 'Get out of the AEW&C' option - whilst maintaining expertise, we would lose the option to deploy an asset in a non-NATO situation

[Davef68]

“It’s looking like the P-8 Poseidon all over again,” said one industry source. “


You mean the UK not having the capacity to deliver the capability on time and on budget, so we have to buy American?

Maybe we have learnt from Nimrod AEW and MRA4....

[VinRouge]

Wedgetail or GlobalEye. it will be yet another type that can't be aerial refuelled with the Voyager.

With the prospect of an RAF F-35A buy in the offing also, we must be close to the point where the UK has as many types that it can't refuel as it can - F-35A (maybe); Wedgetail / GlobalEye (maybe); C-17; Voyager; P-8; RC-135; and Sentinel just off the top of my head. Sure there are others to add.
Well, if Mohammed wont go to the mountain...

About time we re-considered whether the RAF needs to only consider pointy fast things from an enduring/reach capability perspective. And whether we need 2 boomers to cover off the requirement (Maybe 2 point with boom, one covering the depth requirement).

[vascodegama]

Wedgetail or GlobalEye. it will be yet another type that can't be aerial refuelled with the Voyager.

With the prospect of an RAF F-35A buy in the offing also, we must be close to the point where the UK has as many types that it can't refuel as it can - F-35A (maybe); Wedgetail / GlobalEye (maybe); C-17; Voyager; P-8; RC-135; and Sentinel just off the top of my head. Sure there are others to add.

Just a small point-the Voyager can’t receive from any tanker type.

[TBM-Legend]

Interesting spec for the RAF Voyagers. I guess they didn't consider coalition ops. Our RAAF KC-30A's [MRTT] can feed both ways and receive through boom from anyone with a boom. The RAAF E-7A, C-17A and P-8A all take the boom as do our F-35A's while the Super Hornet, Hornet and Growler fleets take the hose. I note Singapore, Korea, Saudi MRTT's all do both....

[Lordflasheart]

........
That’s all down-under dandy TBM, but I bet your Caseys can’t be hired out on long term civvie contract, redecorated inside and out, with the mil seats and all the mission equipment removed and gathering dust at the back of the hangar, on a six-month recall in case of gnashional emergency ? ...... Gotcha there sport !

Oh, and if we run short of tanker capacity or need something the voyagerrrrs can’t provide, we pay monopoly money corkage to the voyagerrrr contractor as well as paying the provider for the extra service. .......... Betcha didn’t think of that either ?

None of your colonial cheapskate stuff, where only the military benefit from military contracts - back here in the old country everybody wins, except the losers. ...........Yeee - haaaah !
....
LFH

...................

[vascodegama]

Interesting spec for the RAF Voyagers. I guess they didn't consider coalition ops. Our RAAF KC-30A's [MRTT] can feed both ways and receive through boom from anyone with a boom. The RAAF E-7A, C-17A and P-8A all take the boom as do our F-35A's while the Super Hornet, Hornet and Growler fleets take the hose. I note Singapore, Korea, Saudi MRTT's all do both....

I suspect that the Voyager config had just a little to do with the PFI-ie the ability to reconfigure at relatively low cost in man hours etc. Still it wouldn’t be the first time the RAF ended up with the most expensive option would it?

[flighthappens]

I suspect that the Voyager config had just a little to do with the PFI-ie the ability to reconfigure at relatively low cost in man hours etc. Still it wouldn’t be the first time the RAF ended up with the most expensive option would it?

the PFI must surely have figured into it; as well as total cost. It is a great shame, as well as extremely short sighted on the RAF’s part to not have a boom tanker - as much for RAF assets but also for the interoperability/value adding to a coalition. It’s not like in current ops the RAF fighters are not routinely refueled by an assortment of Coalition assets such as KC135/10/30’s as well as other drogue only tankers.

Anyhow, back to AWACS - hopefully there is an announcement at RIAT!

[BEagle]

Back when Voyager was still FSTA, the RAF was trying to see whether the aircraft (whether B767, A310 or A330) could be operated with a 2-person crew. After several expensive and pointless investigative sessions, the decision was made to use a 2 person crew for AT, 'augmented' by a food-powered pump attendant for AAR. Whereas more sensible nations listened to those with experience and settled on a 3-person crew for their new tanker fleets, so that the pilots' workload wouldn't be increased trying to manage AAR dynamics as there would be an ex-Tornado / F-4E / C-130 navigator in the 3rd seat with a fit-for-purpose AAR mission planning and management system at his/her disposal.

It was even recommended that FSTA should have a boom "If only to guarantee a 3-person crew"! 20 years ago, BAE's A310MRTT was also offered with a boom.

But back then, no-one ever thought that the RAF would have quite so many receivers which require boom AAR - and if a decision to change the F-35 order were to mean half F-35A and half F-35B, unless the UK is stupid enough to sign a blank cheque for UK-bespoke F-35A + probe mods, that number will only increase.

[Davef68]

Wasn't the boom option dropped early in FSTA as a cost saver (as only C17 was boom only in the inventory at that time, and it didn't need IFR for airhead to airhead operations)?

[melmothtw]

Just a small point-the Voyager can’t receive from any tanker type

Only because we requested it that way, and only because we don't have boomer tankers.

[flighthappens]

Back when Voyager was still FSTA, the RAF was trying to see whether the aircraft (whether B767, A310 or A330) could be operated with a 2-person crew. After several expensive and pointless investigative sessions, the decision was made to use a 2 person crew for AT, 'augmented' by a food-powered pump attendant for AAR. Whereas more sensible nations listened to those with experience and settled on a 3-person crew for their new tanker fleets, so that the pilots' workload wouldn't be increased trying to manage AAR dynamics as there would be an ex-Tornado / F-4E / C-130 navigator in the 3rd seat with a fit-for-purpose AAR mission planning and management system at his/her disposal.

It was even recommended that FSTA should have a boom "If only to guarantee a 3-person crew"! 20 years ago, BAE's A310MRTT was also offered with a boom.

But back then, no-one ever thought that the RAF would have quite so many receivers which require boom AAR - and if a decision to change the F-35 order were to mean half F-35A and half F-35B, unless the UK is stupid enough to sign a blank cheque for UK-bespoke F-35A + probe mods, that number will only increase.

the point as far as I am concerned is not so much that the RAF was never thinking they would have so many boom receivers, it’s more that they exist. The RAF doesn’t really think they are going to end up in a serious fight by themselves, yet they bought a tanker which is of no use to most of their NATO allies and coalition partners. It was an inwards looking decision that currently limits the flexibility and effectiveness of Voyager in coalition operations and will increasingly affect the usefulness for the RAF.

[vascodegama]

the point as far as I am concerned is not so much that the RAF was never thinking they would have so many boom receivers, it’s more that they exist. The RAF doesn’t really think they are going to end up in a serious fight by themselves, yet they bought a tanker which is of no use to most of their NATO allies and coalition partners. It was an inwards looking decision that currently limits the flexibility and effectiveness of Voyager in coalition operations and will increasingly affect the usefulness for the RAF.

A bit harsh-the ac can and does refuel probe and drogue rx of various nations. The big loss as you say is in flexibility such as the option of consolidation to make better use of assets. The US obviously learnt that lesson when they made their specification for KC-X. Still it will be a while til all their non rx capable KC135s are gone!

[Just This Once...]

The USAF learned the lesson way back with the KC-10, which has a UARRSI on top and a proper centerline hose and drogue to complement the boom. The last batch gained wing pods too.

The KC-135 can still act as a receiver though, typically taking fuel from KC-10s as and when required.

[2805662]

Still it wouldn’t be the first time the RAF ended up with the most expensive, yet least capable option would it?

Fixed it for you.

[vascodegama]

The USAF learned the lesson way back with the KC-10, which has a UARRSI on top and a proper centerline hose and drogue to complement the boom. The last batch gained wing pods too.

The KC-135 can still act as a receiver though, typically taking fuel from KC-10s as and when required.

I await correction from a 135 driver but my understanding is that the vast majority of 135s are not Rx capable. Also I thought that all KC10s could be fitted with wing pods -just the USAF didn’t buy enough kits.




’
’

[Just This Once...]

The KC-135 can receive fuel via the boom - it's a big pipe that works both ways. It can collect spare fuel from a returning package and distribute it to those in need. For bigger uplifts a KC-10 plugged in the back can provide a lot of fuel. Our own Rivet Joint could (as an example) pump fuel back to the tanker to trade unused contingency fuel for a reduced landing weight.

[vascodegama]

The KC-135 can receive fuel via the boom - it's a big pipe that works both ways. It can collect spare fuel from a returning package and distribute it to those in need. For bigger uplifts a KC-10 plugged in the back can provide a lot of fuel. Our own Rivet Joint could (as an example) pump fuel back to the tanker to trade unused contingency fuel for a reduced landing weight.

The US SRD suggests that very few 135 ac can Rx via reverse pump method. Perhaps a current 135 driver can enlighten us.

[mymatetcm]

"'augmented' by a food-powered pump attendant for AAR"
MSO Nice to feel appreciated!!

[BEagle]

The role of the 3rd seat crewmember should have been far more than that! But the 2-pilot mafia at Airbus wanted the pilots to do everything. So the workload allocation is as you see it today....

I have no criticism of the actual crews, just of the design and ConOps.

[Heathrow Harry]

Beagle - that pass was sold decades ago................

As for the replacement if we go back to the OP quoting Janes " replacing rather than upgrading them might be the most cost-effective option" - note the MIGHT.

I suspect a straight request to upgrade would be throttled at birth by the Treasury so we start by building a campaign that the current airframes are very expensive to maintain (altho everyone else seems to manage OK), then we have to spec & cost a replacement

Oh My GOD!! The Co$t!!!!!!

but we can upgrade them for , well....... almost washers TBH... I mean - reluctantly, we'll accept second best in the National Interest etc etc etc

[Frostchamber]

Wasn't £2bn mentioned as the likely budget for the required upgrade? From what I've seen publicly on Wedgetail costs, we could have half a dozen for that price or close to it - brand new and with nicely matured systems, the Aussies having spent the last few years ironing the bugs out for us.

[Just This Once...]

Perhaps JTO can enlighten us on whether it is actually authorised for use - on either the US or UK fleets.

Yes, authorised and used and for the US cleared on all UAARSI equipped -135 variants too. We (the UK) did not clear it for UK RJ as part of the initial RTS (this may have changed now), but the USAF clearance remained in place. The details of what pumps can be used and the rest of the procedures are all in the aircrew manual.

[Heathrow Harry]

Wasn't £2bn mentioned as the likely budget for the required upgrade? From what I've seen publicly on Wedgetail costs, we could have half a dozen for that price or close to it - brand new and with nicely matured systems, the Aussies having spent the last few years ironing the bugs out for us.

You'll never get a post on the Board of BAe posting stuff like that.....................

[Blacksheep]

the service’s ageing and unreliable fleet of Boeing E-3D Sentry...
In airline service the B707 series aircraft were kept in reliable, profitable service for more than 25 years. Some of those I worked on were 27 years old when i moved on. They were replaced by B757s that are still in service as freighter conversions to day, more than 30 years later. Aircraft I am presently working with include a fleet of B767-200s that were delivered in 1983. With 85,000+ hours on them they are still meeting reliability targets of 98% despatch within 15 minutes of scheduled departure time. Quite what the age of the E3-Ds has to do with it I don't understand. Why can't the Royal Air Force keep them in reliable operation?

[Fortissimo]

Blacksheep,
The B707 and the E-3D are quite different beasts, especially when it comes to complexity. The basic E-3D airframe would probably still achieve high-90s reliability rates but it is all the add-ons that hurt. When the B707 was in full airline service there were no restriction or difficulties with things like the toxic insulation on Kapton wiring, multiple aerial fixings, the small matter of a rather large radome, klystrons, IFF interrogators, data links, EW kit, refuelling systems, etc.. Supply chains were full, whereas now most 707 spares are need specialist procurement from diminishing manufacturing sources. The biggest issue will be airworthiness, as policy, practices and attitudes have changed markedly since the 2006 Nimrod accident, and the Design Authority is no longer Boeing for the RAF fleet.

A like-for-like comparison doesn't work.

[sandiego89]

Cutting up ZH105 was a seriously bad decision....That aircraft cost around £150m when it arrived in 1993. How anyone came to the conclusion it was better as scrap after minor damage than be fixed and returned to service is beyond comprehension.....
Crackers!

What was the damage to ZH105?

[downsizer]

Aircraft steps blew into and punctured the skin IIRC.

[VinRouge]

Aircraft steps blew into and punctured the skin IIRC.
I bet they have used the spares well though. I reckon probably saved a fortune in support costs when considered against residual value.

[Pure Pursuit]

Beagle - that pass was sold decades ago................

As for the replacement if we go back to the OP quoting Janes " replacing rather than upgrading them might be the most cost-effective option" - note the MIGHT.

I suspect a straight request to upgrade would be throttled at birth by the Treasury so we start by building a campaign that the current airframes are very expensive to maintain (altho everyone else seems to manage OK), then we have to spec & cost a replacement

Oh My GOD!! The Co$t!!!!!!

but we can upgrade them for , well....... almost washers TBH... I mean - reluctantly, we'll accept second best in the National Interest etc etc etc

The cost for the E-3D CSP is, infact, rather more than £2bn and was approved by the Treasury in 2015. Furthermore, the purchase of a new airframe like a Wedgetail offers significant savings over 25 years. Smaller crew, smaller eng team and a much, much cheaper running cost. Crazy, but, it is actually cheaper to go out and get a new car sometimes!

USAF have the same issues with all of their E-3 variants, slightly disguised by the fact that they have a few more than the RAF does. FAF struggle too so, it’s actually a fleet wide issue.

NATO fair rather better with a superior spares and support package.

[Jabba_TG12]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/28/defence-industry-ready-fight-new-awacs-jets-deal-raf/

Don't freeze UK defence sector out of Sentry contract, ministers warned

A battle is brewing between defence companies and government over upgrading or replacing the RAF’s fleet of airborne early warning “Sentry” jets.

The E-3D Awacs aircraft are used to detect enemy aircraft and guide fighters to intercept them. The ones currently in service were built by Boeing and first began protecting Britain’s skies in the Nineties. With the heavy demands placed on them the RAF’s Sentries are worn out, with maintenance on the ageing aircraft becoming prohibitively expensive. It has been argued that rather than spend an estimated £2bn on upgrades, it would be cheaper to replace them in the long term.

However, fears are growing that a contract for new aircraft will be handed to US defence giant Boeing without a competitive process, freezing out companies in the UK. This could be the latest in a series of multi-billion arms contracts handed to US and other foreign manufacturers at the expensive of companies in the UK. Recent examples include the MoD’s agreements with Boeing to buy P-8 Poseidon maritime spyplanes (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/09/britain-to-begin-orders-of-nimrod-replacement-spyplanes/) and Apache attack helicopters (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/28/mod-poised-to-award-2bn-apache-deal-to-boeing-in-new-blow-to-uk/). Last month MPs heard the MoD had awarded a £4.4bn deal to a German-led consortium for new armoured vehicles for the Army without a full competition (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/04/24/british-army-set-buy-armoured-vehicles-german-led-consortium/).

MP Madeleine Moon, a member of the defence select committee, has called for any Sentry contract to be bid for in an “open and transparent” way. She said: “Buying from Boeing forgets the importance of British defence jobs and maintaining this country’s defence industry’s capabilities. By buying off the shelf without an open competition how will we know we will be getting not only the best deal but also the best equipment?”

The MP also claimed Boeing has a "poor record" in the UK for “offsetting” defence deals. Offsetting is the process where companies agree to build or maintain equipment in the country which is buying it, keeping some of the value of a defence order within the economy making the purchases.

Defence industry insiders say that UK and European companies - and even US groups with a UK footprint - are preparing for battle with Whitehall to have an open competition held over renewing the Sentry fleet. “It’s looking like the P-8 Poseidon all over again,” said one industry source. “We’re ready to fight to have a chance to take part.”

Companies likely to offer their version of the Sentry include Airbus, using a design based on it A330 airliner whose wings are made in company’s factory in North Wales. Sweden’s SAAB could also be a contender. Rival bids are likely to pledge to offset as much work in the UK with subcontractors as they can to secure the deal.

Answering parliamentary questions on Sentry, Guto Bebb, defence procurement minister, said: “No decision has been made with regard to the future delivery of the UK’s airborne warning and control capabilities, although a range of options are being explored.”

Yes, of course Mrs Moon. The last time we gave THAT particular job to BAE, before having to buy the E3, it all went so swimmingly well, didnt it?? *eyeroll*
And she's seriously part of the Defence Select Committee??
Have a (surviving for now) BAE plant in her constituency, does she?

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/raf-risks-row-over-3bn-us-boeing-deal-without-a-competition-36b2drlhm

RAF risks row over £3bn US Boeing deal without a competition

Britain is to announce plans to replace a fleet of ailing surveillance aircraft in a move that could cause a political row for Theresa May and an outcry from industry if a US model is selected without a competition, The Times understands.

The Royal Air Force is in favour of buying between four and six planes from the US aerospace giant Boeing at a cost of £2 billion to £3 billion. The aircraft will take over the specialist role of running air operations from the sky, according to industry sources. A decision could be made in time for the international air show in Farnborough next month and after a trip to the UK by President Trump in an attempt to signal strong UK-US relations on defence and trade, they said.

An announcement on the general plan to replace the six Sentry E-3D airborne warning and control system aircraft will form part of the headline conclusions of a defence review that will be released by early next month. This is a change from a 2015 defence review, which had signalled that the aircraft would be upgraded to stretch out their lifetime until 2035. A decision by the RAF to save money by not investing in support and maintenance for the Sentry fleet over the past ten to fifteen years meant that the aircraft were in a poor state of readiness, with only one or two available for operations at any one time, defence sources said.

The potential choice of Boeing’s E-7 Wedgetail as a replacement would receive a cool reception from the Democratic Unionist Party, which is propping up Mrs May’s government. The US aerospace company was accused last year of endangering 4,000 jobs at the Belfast plant of Bombardier, a smaller Canadian aerospace competitor, amid a row over subsidies that also pitched the UK government against the Trump administration. Gavin Robinson, the DUP’s defence spokesman and a member of the Commons defence select committee, said that he would hold the government to its pledge that the American company would face consequences for its actions over Bombardier. “I can’t speak for the rest of the defence select committee, but to proceed [with the purchase] in the absence of a competition would be a grave error,” Mr Robinson said.

Airbus, which has a strong presence in the UK, would also be infuriated at a move to select Boeing without a competition, a second defence source said.

A Boeing spokesman said: “We would welcome any opportunity to work hand-in-hand with the government and our UK industry partners to provide this critical capability to the Royal Air Force.”

An MoD spokesman said of the plans: “This is pure speculation.”

[Heathrow Harry]

How much did we save by not taking the maintenance and upgrade option??

[AnglianAV8R]

Bear with me on this, I have an idea.

The outdated concept of having a huge rotating dish mounted astride the airframe results in considerable aerodynamic penalties.
Likewise, the rigid mounted scanner atop the airframe is all very well for minor air arms, but we are above all that and see ourselves as leaders in the field.
So, what is needed here is a new approach that embraces advances in computing technology, particularly the ability to have a networked solution, by producing a screen image formed from more than one radar array.
So, here's what we could do: Have two radars mounted at the fore and aft extremities of the airframe, in aerodynamic fairings which give a much improved drag factor, thus improving endurance. This could be achieved by adapting an existing type. It could be argued that we have managed without any long range maritime patrol capability for a long time and that nine airframes is more than we need. So, we can divert three P8s, strip the MP kit from them to sustain the remaining six and convert three to AEW.
I know this is rather unorthodox and nobody has tried anything like this before, but I believe it has potential.
Politically, this could be a welcome boost to UK industry and job creation.
What could possibly go wrong?

[Heathrow Harry]

I think it should have 4 engines....

[WB627]

Sounds like the Nimrod AEW3

Hat, Coat, Etc...….

[George K Lee]

Two radars mounted fore and aft is fine.

It's when you have one radar in the middle, connected to the nose and tail by waveguides like tree-roots....

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/380x450/71c4xqjxd4l_sy450__2c7250f1ef7912de8547ae9ab0881464d0f68d7a. jpg

[STATSMAN]

You could track an SR71 taking off from an USAF airfield in the east of England or was it that ice cream van, sorry DJ.

[Davef68]

Hmm, competition. What serious rivals to the Wedgetail are there? Saab-Ericsson, IAI and Boeing E767. Or vapourware from Airbus, with attendant R&D risks

[tdracer]

The Royal Air Force is in favour of buying between four and six planes from the US aerospace giant Boeing at a cost of £2 billion to £3 billion.
If they are really lucky, a couple billion pounds might cover the development costs of a new AWACS platform. Of course then they'd need another billion or two to actually produce functional aircraft.
There is something to be said for buying 'off the shelf' when practical.

[Sook]

Looks like any announcement at Farnborough has used been cancelled.

UK must compete future surveillance aircraft procurement, parliament states (http://www.janes.com/article/81497/uk-must-compete-future-surveillance-aircraft-procurement-parliament-states?utm_campaign=CL_%20Jane%27s%20360-July-4-2018_PC5308_e-production_E-12155_KP_0704_0601&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua)

[ORAC]

Badly worded headline - the text states the committee chairman has “requested” the government to hold a competitive tender.

The MoD and government has ignored all their other suggestions concerning defence - I see no reason to forecast any change in their attitude.

[Davef68]

The committee also considers that a competition is particularly appropriate in this case, as there are viable alternatives available, which deserve to be given fair consideration

I wonder what they consider 'viable alternatives' ?

[LincsFM]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-e-7-wedgetail-should-this-aircraft-replace-the-sentry/

[esa-aardvark]

Nimrod aew3
being on the edges at the time, I recall that a large part of the problem was
the GEC4080 computer, a bit pedestrian for the task. But it was made by GEC.
Lots of better, faster boxes available at the time.

[TBM-Legend]

RAAF E-7A has worked real fine in the ME for a number of years. Considered by the Yanks to be a top piece of kit. One did a 14.3hr mission recently. Stick that in your E-3D hat!

[DCThumb]

I wonder what they consider 'viable alternatives' ?

Saab Globaleye?

Proven mission system - tick

Commonality with Sentinel - tick

Multi-role - tick

UK jobs (built by marshalls) - tick

[cokecan]

Saab Globaleye?

Proven mission system - tick

Commonality with Sentinel - tick

Multi-role - tick

UK jobs (built by marshalls) - tick

genuine question: for how long can it sit 200 miles north of the Faeroes without refueling? how many different assets can it talk to at the same time?

is it a replacement for E-3, or just an aeroplane with a radar - coz they aren't the same thing....

[DCThumb]

I have no idea whether it is an E3 replacement or an aeroplane with radar, I was just pointing out what the select committee might think is a viable alternative.

I do know that endurance without refuelling will be significantly greater than wedgetail - and the design work for a probe was completed for Sentinel!

[ORAC]

Design work for a probe on aircraft with an underslung canoe is totally different to one for an airframe with a very large radar array on top of the fuselage....

Reading reports the original Saab radar had a maximum range of about 180nm. The new ER version supposedly has a range 70%, but it only flew for the first time this year, so not trusted in service. It apparently has 5 operator positions, but size wise the Shackleton would have been commodious. If I wanted 12+ endurance I’d want a rest area and room for expansion.

[rjtjrt]

Saab Globaleye?

Proven mission system - tick

Commonality with Sentinel - tick

Multi-role - tick

UK jobs (built by marshalls) - tick

Number of work stations/consoles?

[caped crusader]

Whilst design work for a probe on Sentinel was completed my understanding is that the fitting of a probe was considered high risk and Sentinel entered into service without an AAR capability.

[gelert1234]

I have no idea whether it is an E3 replacement or an aeroplane with radar, I was just pointing out what the select committee might think is a viable alternative.

I do know that endurance without refuelling will be significantly greater than wedgetail - and the design work for a probe was completed for Sentinel!



I don’t think you can quote the basic aircraft figures for a Global 6000 and apply them to GlobalEye, once you add all the military payload, it won’t operate at the height listed and it certainly won’t have the endurance.

[gelert1234]

Saab Globaleye?

Proven mission system - tick

Commonality with Sentinel - tick

Multi-role - tick

UK jobs (built by marshalls) - tick


When you say proven mission system, can you qualify that with recent operational experience? I believe the E-7 has been extremely successful during OKRA and recent Red Flag exercises, not sure GlobalEye has participated in anything? Suitable for in-border tasking, but not an expeditionary asset, not enough operators and limited SWAP-C for the upgrades.

[DCThumb]

Whilst design work for a probe on Sentinel was completed my understanding is that the fitting of a probe was considered high risk and Sentinel entered into service without an AAR capability.

All the probe work was complete, it was only deleted to save money (circa £60m as I recall)

The plain facts were, with no facility for extra crew or rest facilities provisioned, there was little point in flying for longer than 12 hours on Sentinel.

[DCThumb]

I don’t think you can quote the basic aircraft figures for a Global 6000 and apply them to GlobalEye, once you add all the military payload, it won’t operate at the height listed and it certainly won’t have the endurance.

Likewise the Wedgetail! A BBJ, which is a similar airframe but with all the baggage replaced by fuel, cannot get within 1000nm of a Global 6000 - both Wedgetail and Globaleye have similar protuberances. Sentinel Performance is remarkably similar to a standard Global - Globaleye would appear to be more draggy but will also be based around the 99.5 MTOW airframe, rather than the 96k Sentinel.

[DCThumb]

When you say proven mission system, can you qualify that with recent operational experience? I believe the E-7 has been extremely successful during OKRA and recent Red Flag exercises, not sure GlobalEye has participated in anything? Suitable for in-border tasking, but not an expeditionary asset, not enough operators and limited SWAP-C for the upgrades.

My understanding is that Globaleye uses a version/evolution of the Saab system already in use on the Saab 2000 and Embraer versions of this aircraft.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no idea how good or bad the Globaleye really is, I was just pointing out what a defence committee could see as a ‘viable alternative’ - at least on paper and probably after representations of the MP for Cambridge!

[BEagle]

According to a Boscombe Down chap, the Sentinel struggled to meet specification requirements. Fitting a probe would have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

He was also rather dismissive of the Army's idea of letting 'some helicopter corporal' (as he put it) fly as a Sentinel co-pilot.

Boeing E-7A is the obvious choice to replace the E-3D - anyone who thinks otherwise should be forced to study the Nimrod AEW3 saga. Airbus once offered an 'AEW&C' military derivative of the A310, to be developed in partnership with Raytheon E-Systems and ELTA, but it never even made it to the prototype stage. Planned mission duration was to have been 'over 11 hours'.

[DCThumb]

According to a Boscombe Down chap, the Sentinel struggled to meet specification requirements. Fitting a probe would have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

He was also rather dismissive of the Army's idea of letting 'some helicopter corporal' (as he put it) fly as a Sentinel co-pilot

Well, the Boscombe down chap was right about one thing! No disrespect to the AAC......

The only area were the probe may have made it difficult was if it pushed the ZFW towards the limit. However, Bombardier were more than willing to increase the Max ZFW - ‘you just have to ask the question’ was what the designer said to me.

To us, Wedgetail May indeed seem to be the obvious choice. To an MP on a select committee with perhaps less technical knowledge, a UK vested interest and a commercial promise of a similar sounding aircraft for a much lower cost, the choice may be less clear.......

[TBM-Legend]

and the JASDF E-767 seems to go OK too.

[Davef68]

Eyrie fitted to an A320?

[Just This Once...]

Sentinel probe was indeed deleted due to weight issues. Operation 'Weight Watchers' was a major last-ditch part of the program to get Sentinel down to a flyable weight. Safety systems were deleted, military kit deleted, kit redesigned to save the odd kg here and there, wiring gauge limits pushed, crew facilities reduced, equipment rack strength reduced, crash and ditch structure abandoned, safe separation limits ignored and even the whole internal cabin liner was binned - the aircraft still flies with 'single use transit trim' with multiple efforts trying to keep it attached to the interior and not falling across the crew or (god forbid) exit doors.

[DCThumb]

Which safety systems and military kit were deleted? Likewise what crash and ditch structure?

There never was a cabin liner - they were all hand stitched by an old dear in Greeneville as I recall, and the cockpit trim was because the person ordering it was presented with a standard set of options for a Global and asked ‘well what does it come with, we’ll have that!’ Neither anything to do with weight!

It is still so shabby because since the first SDSR in 2010 the axe has been hovering over Sentinel and no money made available..

I sat next between the designer of the probe and the original RAF TP, both were adamant the probe was designed, viable and doable, it was only deleted to save the money and because the small crew could not sustain extended missions.

The Globaleye is probably less capable than the wedgetail (only 7 mission crew) but is also probably cheaper, and already assembled in the U.K.....hmmm...

[Bola1]

I can't see the MoD going for an Airbus concept in any shape or form (eagles news (https://www.eaglesnewsmedia.com))The development cost and time needed to get it to where we would need it to be would be surely massive.

[BEagle]

The Airbus C-295 is available in an AEW form, but is hardly in the same league as the E-7A...

[ORAC]

I think someone needs to explain t9 the defence committee that, with its present size and possible number of orders, the RAF is no longer in the market to either request or afford bespoke solutions. The R&D costs alone could exceed the entire purchase price of a COTS solution.

[Heathrow Harry]

I think someone needs to explain t9 the defence committee that, with its present size and possible number of orders, the RAF is no longer in the market to either request or afford bespoke solutions. The R&D costs alone could exceed the entire purchase price of a COTS solution.

The way we are it's the "pre-owned" market for us I suspect in the future.............. you can get some real bargains there..........

[Fortissimo]

If you disregard trained officer qualities, ruling out a pilot on the grounds that they are only 'some helicopter corporal' is simply snobbery (Boscombe chap). There are many highly professional ex-AAC pilots out there flying with valid ATPLs, fixed wing and rotary - if they are good enough for command of an A320, the same should be true for Sentinel. When this was being discussed in MOD, the arguments hinged on undermining the RAF's all-commissioned pilot policy and the presentational aspects of entrusting a £150M of scarce combat asset to an NCO regardless of his or her competence. At the time, the Army was pushing to have the OC 5 Sqn job rotate between the RAF and the Int Corps; in the pre-Haddon Cave era, it was pointed out that the Int Corps officer would not have the requisite skills or experience to supervise a complex flying operation. SQEP they were not! ISTR it was all mixed in with the horse-trading that saw the Army given ownership of D4K.

[DCThumb]

Very true, however the bottom line is that an AAC pilot would need a significant amount of re-training to move to a multi-fixed wing type - you may as well take an ab-initio from 45. Even the AAC ex-Islander pilot on a ground role on 5 was happy to admit that!

[vascodegama]

DCT-there are ex-helicopter pilots (RAF admittedly) on Voyager ; they don't seem to have issues.

[ORAC]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/britain-arms-boeing/uk-nears-decision-to-buy-boeing-awacs-planes-sources-idUKL8N1U86B (https://uk.reuters.com/article/britain-arms-boeing/uk-nears-decision-to-buy-boeing-awacs-planes-sources-idUKL8N1U86BN)

UK nears decision to buy Boeing AWACS planes

LONDON/PARIS, July 12 (Reuters) - Britain’s government is nearing a decision to buy four to six surveillance planes built by U.S. aerospace giant Boeing, sources familiar with the plans said on Thursday - a move that could stir a growing debate over UK and European defence jobs.

The contract to replace its six ageing E-3D Sentry airborne early warning (AWACS) planes with a fleet of Boeing E-7 Wedgetail jets would, if confirmed, be worth over $1 billion.

But the decision, which could be announced in coming weeks, is likely to anger some U.K. lawmakers who have called for a full competition, and may also spark formal protests by European defence companies keen for the business.

Airbus, which is said to be teaming up with Sweden’s Saab to offer an alternative, is anxious to try to prevent the deal being awarded without a competition and does not rule out mounting a legal challenge, a person close to the matter said.

A spokesman for Britain’s defence ministry said, “We tender contracts competitively wherever appropriate. It is too early to comment further at this time.”

[Party Animal]

RIAT announcement anyone?

[ORAC]

Airbus, which is said to be teaming up with Sweden’s Saab to offer an alternative After the A400M would the MoD want to take the risk? - or Airbus wiling to sign a contract giving them all the risk and costs of any problems and slippage.

I believe the bill to Boeing over KC-47 delays and problems is now over $3B (yes, that’s billions), but at least they hope to claw that back over a production run of 180-500 aircraft, depending on KC-X and KC-Y procurement decisions.

[ORAC]

More fools they - and serves them right for attempting to collude with one side of an internal UK argument over brexit.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/07/14/airbus-fury-loss-raf-deal-brexit-warning/

Airbus fury over loss of RAF deal after Brexit warning

Airbus bosses are furious after the Government spurred them to publish a dire forecast of the impact of Brexit before handing a prize £2bn RAF contract to US rival Boeing without a competition.

The Telegraph has learnt that last month’s bombshell warning from Airbus that it could be forced to leave the UK came after discussions with senior Remainer ministers preparing for the Chequers summit....... Sources close to Airbus said the company decided to warn about the future of as many as 15,000 of its UK employees and 110,000 in its supply chain after discussions with the Government. It is understood the ministers argued that industry should speak out on the highly contentious issue and aimed to create what insiders described as “room for manoeuvre” at Chequers. The warning from Airbus allowed Mrs May and her officials to present to the Cabinet a more robust assessment of business disruption a hard or no-deal Brexit could cause and argue for Britain to make more concessions to the EU.

But having “got them out of trouble”, the source said Airbus is now furious with the Government.

It has emerged in defence circles that the Ministry of Defence has all but finalised a £2bn deal to buy E-7 “Wedgetail” early warning jets (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/28/defence-industry-ready-fight-new-awacs-jets-deal-raf/) from its bitter rival Boeing. The aircraft will take over from the RAF’s fleet of worn-out E-3 “Sentry” jets, which were also built by the US company. Airbus and other aerospace companies have been lobbying for the contract to be awarded on the basis of open bidding, rather than handed to Boeing.

The prospect of no competition and “buying off the shelf” from Boeing, which is unlikely to involve UK companies in the contract, has left Airbus “incandescent”, sources said. Alex Ashbourne-Walmsley of defence think-tank RUSI said: “I’m surprised that the British Government could behave in such a cavalier fashion towards Airbus when the company helped them apply pressure on Brexiteers and now in return it faces issuing humiliated......

[Heathrow Harry]

More fools they - and serves them right for attempting to collude with one side of an internal UK argument over brexit.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/07/14/airbus-fury-loss-raf-deal-brexit-warning/

Airbus fury over loss of RAF deal after Brexit warning

Airbus bosses are furious after the Government spurred them to publish a dire forecast of the impact of Brexit before handing a prize £2bn RAF contract to US rival Boeing without a competition.

The Telegraph has learnt that last month’s bombshell warning from Airbus that it could be forced to leave the UK came after discussions with senior Remainer ministers preparing for the Chequers summit....... Sources close to Airbus said the company decided to warn about the future of as many as 15,000 of its UK employees and 110,000 in its supply chain after discussions with the Government. It is understood the ministers argued that industry should speak out on the highly contentious issue and aimed to create what insiders described as “room for manoeuvre” at Chequers. The warning from Airbus allowed Mrs May and her officials to present to the Cabinet a more robust assessment of business disruption a hard or no-deal Brexit could cause and argue for Britain to make more concessions to the EU.

But having “got them out of trouble”, the source said Airbus is now furious with the Government.

It has emerged in defence circles that the Ministry of Defence has all but finalised a £2bn deal to buy E-7 “Wedgetail” early warning jets (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/28/defence-industry-ready-fight-new-awacs-jets-deal-raf/) from its bitter rival Boeing. The aircraft will take over from the RAF’s fleet of worn-out E-3 “Sentry” jets, which were also built by the US company. Airbus and other aerospace companies have been lobbying for the contract to be awarded on the basis of open bidding, rather than handed to Boeing.

The prospect of no competition and “buying off the shelf” from Boeing, which is unlikely to involve UK companies in the contract, has left Airbus “incandescent”, sources said. Alex Ashbourne-Walmsley of defence think-tank RUSI said: “I’m surprised that the British Government could behave in such a cavalier fashion towards Airbus when the company helped them apply pressure on Brexiteers and now in return it faces issuing humiliated......

You could apply the same to President Trump I guess...................

[VinRouge]

Someone needs to point out you can only have a competition when you have at first inspection something to compete.

In this case, a proven platform Vs a piece of cr@p. Despite being a supporter of the EU, I'm not going to miss the competition rules that so many MoD commercial officers hide behind.

Instead of throwing teddies out of the cot, Airbus sales should see this as an increasing opportunity for them to sell the UK boomer variant A330. How many platforms do we now have with boom receptive and no means of using?

[Pure Pursuit]

Let’s just wait and see how long this wing of Airbus lasts... the 400 is not performing anywhere near the the specified requirements and the reputational damage to the company has been significant.

[Prodigal Dragon]

Sadly, many much time, money and effort has been wasted on the E-3D fleet since Project EAGLE was established in the late 1990s. Furthermore, the lack of funds and mismanagement of its maintenance has exacerbated its obsolescence. A replacement is needed, if only because the crew is too large and costly, requiring too many specialists to get it working before an aircraft can be detected, identified and, in the case of friendly fighters, controlled. Furthermore, the aged computers and software, combined with a low revisit time of the hydraulically-driven radar, make it very difficult for the mission crew to react appropriately in a very dynamic situation.

As for its future, it would appear that an upgrade would now be both expensive and futile. Bandwidth and its inherent time delay makes a drone replacement very problematic, especially as there doesn’t appear to be a platform readily available. Consequently, although there are potentially other options, none seem as suitable as Boeing’s Wedgetail. Back in the late 90s and early 00s we hosted several RAAF officers sent to No 8 Sqn to glean operational AEW experience before returning to Oz and the new platform. They now should have a wealth of experience on type, from which we could learn.

Let’s hope the rumours of a Wedgetail purchase are correct, and we don’t repeat our past follies with Nimrod AEW and Nimrod MRA4. Our new carrier task group will need top cover if it is to survive the threats it is likely to face. Let’s hope the MOD gets it right, and the PT doesn’t bugger it up!

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mod-under-fire-for-giving-jet-deal-to-us-gtv0kt8h5

MoD under fire for giving jet deal to US

The Ministry of Defence is pursuing plans to sign a multimillion-pound contract for spyplanes from a US company without an open competition.

Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, confirmed that the UK was going ahead with talks to acquire airborne early-warning and control-system planes, known as “Awacs”, developed by Boeing and the Australian air force. The announcement, made before a meeting of Nato defence ministers tomorrow, was in defiance of calls from the Commons defence select committee for a competition for the new jets.

Britain wants to replace its surveillance aircraft, a fleet of E3-D Sentry planes, which guide jets in dogfights and bombing raids, amid claims that only one of the six aircraft was operational this summer. The MoD says that buying a proven “off the shelf” aircraft will be better value for money, quicker and less risky than procuring a new, untested model. The move to press ahead without allowing European companies with bigger footprints in Britain to compete for the contract has elicited a backlash.

John Spellar, a Labour member of the defence select committee, said: “I have serious concerns that the government has not launched a proper competition and, equally, is giving contracts regularly to Boeing without consideration of the impact on Britain’s defence industry capability. The Ministry of Defence seems to be running roughshod over the government’s prosperity agenda.” Julian Lewis, the Tory chairman of the committee, said this year that it would be “particularly inappropriate” to award Boeing the contract after it campaigned to levy burdensome US tariffs on airliners built by Bombardier, which would have threatened thousands of jobs in the UK.

MPs yesterday raised concerns about the government making the announcement during a parliamentary recess when it could not be scrutinised.

The contract to supply four to six E-7 Wedgetail jets would be worth more than £800 million, according to reports. It is understood that Airbus and Saab, two of Europe’s top aerospace defence companies, had been in discussion about combining their capabilities to challenge Boeing for the contract.

The MoD says that the Wedgetail has already been proven in Australian air force operations in the battle against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Boeing said: “The combat-proven Boeing E-7 is the world’s most advanced, capable and reliable command and control aircraft. We work with our UK supply chain, government and military partners to provide critical capability, UK content, UK exports, skills and value for money to our armed forces.” It is understood Boeing plans to have an assembly line in Cambridge to produce part of the Wedgetails.

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/10/02/britain-confirms-talks-with-boeing-over-potential-26b-wedgetail-aircraft-buy/

Britain confirms talks with Boeing over potential $2.6B Wedgetail aircraft buy

[sandiego89]

The UK should just buy Wedgetail off the shelf, rip out all the working gear, fit "better" locally based components and a few domes to boost domestic content... how hard can that be?


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/440x586/marconi_20f559b757a98348c1bde85a6e36d88d004fc146.jpg
Recently came across this gem thumbing through a 1982 Air International....

[Wensleydale]

As I keep writing every time this subject comes up....the only reason we ended up with Nimrod AEW3 was because the government of the day wanted a "competition" to keep the rabid unions quiet. Everyone knew that the RAF would get the E-3. However, they failed to recognise that there would be a snap election before the competition result was announced, and the subsequent Callaghan Labour government was so in the unions' pockets that they were not allowed to buy what was in reality the only contender. We therefore wasted close to £1bn (a lot of cash in the 70s/80s) in buying a British product that anyone on day 2 of a basic radar course would recognise could not work....and it didn't (huge problem with the antennae and the choice of PRF giving a low speed clutter notch that did not get rid of the clutter caused by the antennae). Please G*d that it doesn't happen again!!!!

[ORAC]

MOD making pointed references to the Nimwacs debacle - perhaps justifiably.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/10/18/pressure-mounts-on-uk-defense-chief-over-pick-of-boeing-surveillance-plane/

Pressure mounts on UK defense chief over pick of Boeing surveillance plane

LONDON — British defense procurement officials are facing fresh questions about their plan to buy Boeing Wedgetail E-7 airborne early warning aircraft for the Royal Air Force without holding a competition. At issue is whether the government is rightfully leaning toward sole-sourcing the U.S. contractor's offering over a European-made system consisting of Saab's Erieye radar and an Airbus 330 airframe.

In one of two letters released late Oct. 17 by the parliamentary Defence Committee, Saab United Kingdom boss Andrew Walton rejected the Ministry of Defence’s argument that marrying the company’s sensor with the Airbus plane would pose a problem. Instead, he explained, the combination would represent the “lowest risk” of any platform on which Erieye has been placed. The Saab letter was made public alongside a missive from panel Chairman Julian Lewis to Defence Procurement Minister Stuart Andrew. That letter poses several questions about how the MoD reached its decision to move forward with a plan to sole-source the Wedgetail when the ministry lacked detailed information on the A330-Erieye combination.

In particular Lewis wanted to know why an offer from Saab to supply classified technical information relating to the performance of Erieye was declined by the RAF and the Defence Equipment and Support organization.

It’s highly unusual, if not unprecedented, that a letter publicly refuting the procurement reasoning of the MoD and its officials is published.........

Saab’s Walton used his letter to defend the company’s ability to meet MoD timelines. “Detailed analysis indicates that it would take less than 36 months to integrate the first A330-Erieye system and subsequent platforms would follow at nine-month intervals,” the executive wrote. The Swedish company would lead the integration effort. The Saab letter said the first A330 integration would take place in Madrid, Spain, where Airbus has a military aircraft facility, but the remainder of the aircraft would be modified in the U.K.......

The Swedish company said it had never failed to integrate the AEW system despite supplying Erieye to eight air forces, using five different platforms. Saab is currently integrating a new extended-range version of Erieye on a modified Bombardier business jet for the United Arab Emirates, and the letter says Saab is in advanced negotiations for another AEW customer.

The letter from Walton was made public following testimony to lawmakers (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10/17/lawmaker-accuses-british-defense-minister-of-boeing-favoritism/) earlier Wednesday by Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson and other defense leaders. Williamson and his officials told the committee that Wedgetail offered an opportunity to deliver the best capability at the earliest possible stage.

Air Vice Marshal Knighton, the British assistant chief of the Defence Staff for capability and force design, labeled the combination of the A330 and the Erieye a “paper aircraft” and said the system had particular integration challenges relating to the size of the wing of the jet. “Because of the size of the wing, the A330 requires two radar antenna on top of the aircraft [rather than one]. It’s going to require complex integration to ensure you can unmask the radar from the wings; none of this has been done before," he told the committee. "The risk isn’t in the aircraft but the integration — that’s the challenge.”

It’s the second time in a week MoD officials have used the integration risk to justify not holding a competition. Last week, Lt. Gen. Mark Poffley, deputy chief of the Defence Staff for finance and military capability, told the committee: “We have analyzed a series of options, including one from Airbus with Saab, and that has led us to the conclusion that we ought to pursue the implications of going single-source.”

Poffley appeared to point the finger at Airbus for some of the integration doubts.

“For the purposes of Airbus, it is about their ability to deliver in the time frames and to mitigate many of the risks we believe are inside that solution. We think we therefore need to pursue single-source,” he said. “If you think about what we are trying to do here, it is to take a radar, some communication equipment and some aircraft systems, and integrate them inside an aircraft. That aircraft then has to be certified, and with complicated software programs of this type, our experience of all of that has led us to believe that even in the most optimistic of circumstances, the time frames are unlikely to meet where we think we need to be in order to counter the threat,” Poffley said.

[unmanned_droid]

The risk is always in the integration. What a nobber.

[ImageGear]

My immediate thoughts are that this is more like a poke in the eye with a short stick for Airbus and the EU. I only see more business of this type crossing the pond. (Saab excepted)

IG

[BEagle]

Airbus missed the bus back in the late 1990s when they decided not to continue with development of the A310 AEW&C project.

Airbus Industrie would have provided the air platform, design and engineering support, with ELTA providing an electronically scanned array radar and Raytheon the overall system integration. The radar antenna would have been similar in appearance to that fitted to the E-3.

Planned mission duration was to have been in excess of 11 hours, so it must have been planned to fit (5?) MRTT-style ACTs.

The A310 has the same fuselage cross-section as the A330 - so the A310 AEW&C would have provided rather more generous mission crew comfort than in a 737-based design.

[Davef68]

A330 seems rather a large airframe for the role

[Jackonicko]

The 737AEW&C or Wedgetail may be the best choice.

I do not believe that the UK has taken the necessary steps to determine that this is the case, however.

The UAE decided that the 737AEW&C was an inferior solution to the Globaleye (Global Express with Erieye ER). They were offered Erieye, 737AEW&C and E-2D and selected Globaleye. Many sources suggest that the 737AEW&C didn't even come second! That should surely indicate that some proper analysis/evaluation of Globaleye would have been appropriate, before making a decision in favour of an uncompeted, sole source procurement of Wedgetail?

Many air forces are turning away from big, airliner-based AEW&C and ISR platforms in favour of biz-jet based solutions. Italy, Singapore, Israel, for starters, with some indication that the US might also follow that approach. That should surely indicate that some proper analysis/evaluation of bizjet platforms would have been appropriate, before making a decision in favour of an uncompeted, sole source procurement of Wedgetail?

And if there are compelling reasons to go down the route of having a bigger, airliner-based solution, then one based on Voyager, with higher UK content than a 737, and with RR engines, should at least have been properly evaluated, before making a decision in favour of an uncompeted, sole source procurement of Wedgetail?

The Turks don't seem to have been very impressed by 737AEW&C so far, and IIRC, nor were the Aussies, early on. The E-7/737AEW&C radar has been out of production for the best part of a decade, while Erieye has undergone constant development and improvement, and has been proven in Europe by the Swedes and a NATO ally, Greece, as well as in Brazil, Pakistan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Sorry. 'Country X'. That should surely indicate that some proper analysis/evaluation of the Erieye ER radar would have been appropriate, before making a decision in favour of an uncompeted, sole source procurement of Wedgetail?

I understand that the planned Aussie upgrade of Wedgetail may be transformational, and may lift the 737AEW&C into a clear, class-leading position, but it is far from clear that the 737AEW&C, as it exists TODAY, enjoys anything like the superiority that has been claimed by some and implied by others.

It is also clear that there has been no serious analysis or evaluation of alternatives to Wedgetail. The refusal to accept classified Erieye data is jaw-dropping and shocking.

After the similarly uncompeted order for Boeing P-8A Poseidons, more Boeing Chinooks, and the equally uncompeted order for Boeing AH-64E Apache Guardians, this looks awful, and for the sake of appearances alone, more than a cursory look at options would surely have been appropriate, before making a decision in favour of an uncompeted, sole source procurement of Wedgetail?

Getting one of AOC ISTAR's Wing Commanders to have a quick look at Google and Wikipedia, incidentally, doesn't count as a serious analysis or evaluation of alternatives......

[junior.VH-LFA]

The 737AEW&C or Wedgetail may be the best choice.

understand that the planned Aussie upgrade of Wedgetail may be transformational, and may lift the 737AEW&C into a clear, class-leading position, but it is far from clear that the 737AEW&C, as it exists TODAY, enjoys anything like the superiority that has been claimed by some and implied by others.



It's been extremely clear to anyone that has operated in the Middle East in the last 3 years what the superior platform is... as it exists today.

[Jackonicko]

Junior.VH-LFA

No current Erieye ER has operated in the Middle East in the last 3 years, making comparisons difficult.

In any event - I'm not saying that the RAF should not acquire Wedgetail, merely that it should make a proper, in-depth evaluation of the competing contenders before doing so.

[Jackonicko]

Someone needs to point out you can only have a competition when you have at first inspection something to compete.

In this case, a proven platform Vs a piece of cr@p.

OK I'll bite.

Potential competitors:

Flying: GlobalEye, E-2D, Israeli G550-based AEW

'Paper' aeroplanes: Erieye equipped A330, C295AEW,

[TwoStep]

Just a thought, but while UAE may have considered the E-7 inferior to GlobalEye, the men from Abu Dhabi probably did not get to look over the Wedgetail variant of E-7 which is a very different kettle of fish. MoD has made that distinction very clear.

[melmothtw]

the Wedgetail variant of E-7 which is a very different kettle of fish

Can you expand on that? I thought that beyond the national-specific comms kit etc all three customers employed essentially the same aircraft.

[Jackonicko]

Without a proper look at alternatives, how do they know?

[ORAC]

I can see why the MOD ran away when the idea of using the Airtanker airframes was proposed - what would the arrangement have been, a leased AEW fleet?

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/11/15/uk-mod-other-bidders-didnt-have-a-chance-against-boeing-wedgetail/

UK MoD: Other bidders didn’t have a chance against Boeing Wedgetail

LONDON — A proposal to acquire a fleet of Boeing Wedgetail (https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/10/02/britain-confirms-talks-with-boeing-over-potential-26b-wedgetail-aircraft-buy/)airborne early warning aircraft for the Royal Air Force was so far in advance of a rival Saab/Airbus offering that the British Ministry of Defence felt it would be a waste of time and money to hold a competition (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/10/18/pressure-mounts-on-uk-defense-chief-over-pick-of-boeing-surveillance-plane/), according to Defence Procurement Minister Stuart Andrew.

“In considering the E-7 Wedgetail , there was such a clear distinction over any other options it was felt that running any type of competition would unnecessarily consume MoD and industry resources, whilst the gap between U.K. capability and the evolving threat would be expected to widen,” Andrew said in a letter to Parliamentary Defence Select Committee Chairman Julian Lewis MP. The letter, dated Nov. 1, but only released Nov. 14, was the MoD’s response to concerns raised by Saab (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/07/06/airbus-and-saab-consider-challenge-to-boeing-wedgetail-for-uk/) in a letter to Lewis in mid-October refuting claims by the ministry that marrying the Airbus A330 airframe with the Swedish company’s Erieye radar presented a significant risk...........

In its mid-October letter to Lewis though the Swedish company refuted concerns that its plan to fit two Erieye radars to the A330 to overcome possible wing blanking issues was high risk. The Saab letter said the A330 would be the “lowest risk” of any of the five platforms fitted with Erieye.

The Airbus/Saab solution was based on the use of A330 Voyager aircraft already available to the RAF for inflight refueling and transport duties as part of a long-term private finance initiative deal between Airbus and the MoD.

Fourteen A330s are available to the RAF with nine being used on a regular basis for military duties and the remainder on call as surge capacity when needed. In the meantime the aircraft are available for third-party charter. It was the surge capacity aircraft the Europeans proposed to adapt for AEW duties, possibly replacing them later with new aircraft fitted a boom refueling capability. The current British A330s only have a probe and drogue capability.

Andrew said the AEW role is not compatible with refuelling and transport roles. The procurement minister said additional aircraft would have to be obtained incurring high procurement and operating costs higher than the 737. Andrew’s letter said the MoD had no endorsed requirement for a boom and reopening the private finance initiative deal with Airbus would not be in the MoD or the taxpayers interest........

[Davef68]

That certainly casts a whole new light on the Airbus proposal (and the otherwise strange choice of A330)

[melmothtw]

Andrew’s letter said the MoD had no endorsed requirement for a boom and reopening the private finance initiative deal with Airbus would not be in the MoD or the taxpayers interest........

Separately, that's the F-35A out the window then.

[frodo_monkey]

Other way round - if we buy F35A then you have an endorsed requirement for boom refueling.

[vascodegama]

Other way round - if we buy F35A then you have an endorsed requirement for boom refueling.

By that argument , the endorsed requirement should already have manifested itself-RJ, P8, (C17) as well as E3 when it actually flies, not to mention the STANAG which covers interoperability with our allies. From an AAR point of view, the E7 procurement further shows a lack of forethought (admittedly this is not an isolated example of such).

[melmothtw]

Other way round - if we buy F35A then you have an endorsed requirement for boom refueling.

An endorsed requirement that hasn't existed with the C-17, RC-135, P-8, E-7, Voyager? RAF must be close to having as many types it can't refuel as can.

[Wensleydale]

You all seem to forget that UK AEW is not tasked by the UK but by NATO. Most of the refuelling with Sentry is done by boom in commonality with the NATO E-3A. The requirement for the Sentry's replacement must take into account the commonality of capability with the NATO AEW&C Component of the AEW&C Force almost as much (if not more) than National consideration.

[frodo_monkey]

An endorsed requirement that hasn't existed with the C-17, RC-135, P-8, E-7, Voyager? RAF must be close to having as many types it can't refuel as can.

I completely agree that Voyager *should* also have a boom a la the Aussie version, but it could be argued that the other types have sufficient internal fuel for their role (not Voyager, it doesn’t have an AAR ‘take’ facility as far as I know) but that patently isn’t the case for a FJ which is always fuel-limited.

[Pure Pursuit]

You all seem to forget that UK AEW is not tasked by the UK but by NATO. Most of the refuelling with Sentry is done by boom in commonality with the NATO E-3A. The requirement for the Sentry's replacement must take into account the commonality of capability with the NATO AEW&C Component of the AEW&C Force almost as much (if not more) than National consideration.

The commonality with NATO platforms is irrelevant. It’s all about capability and we’ve clearly made the decision to go down the E7 route. E3A and D are already worlds apart in terms of compatibility in many ways.

Wrt NATO AEW&C component, all they care about is having a sensor in the required location at a prescribed time. If it’s an E7, they won’t care.

[melmothtw]

I completely agree that Voyager *should* also have a boom a la the Aussie version, but it could be argued that the other types have sufficient internal fuel for their role (not Voyager, it doesn’t have an AAR ‘take’ facility as far as I know) but that patently isn’t the case for a FJ which is always fuel-limited.

Well, yes and no. Other operators of all these types employ aerial refuelling, so while they can operate without it they can operate further/for longer with it. Thats the point of it, obvs.

MRTT does have receiver capability.

[Wensleydale]

The commonality with NATO platforms is irrelevant

Completely disagree. The E-3A and E-3D are both tasked by NATO and have the same capability to the extent that either type can be tasked to fulfil the tasking requirement. Its all part of the agreement that UK has with the NATO AEW&C Force. The NATO AEW&C Component are not involved with tasking - that is done by the NAEW&C Force Command which is the tasking authority for both the Waddington and Geilenkirchen Components. Not withstanding that the NATO E-3A has a new updated software "back end" of the mission system, the main sensors are the same (although the ESM systems are different) and either type is interchangeable when it comes to tasking. Tanker availability is a main player during live ops, and the fact that the E-3D can take fuel from a boom tanker is a huge advantage because otherwise a drogue tanker would have to be tasked in addition to the usual boom tankers leading to a loss of flexibility (and yes I know that this capability came about by default, but it has given us major advantages during both NATO and other coalition ops).

[orca]

I know that’s it’s a little pedantic - but the requirement to tank, even if it is actually written down in a URD or SRD - is only a means to achieve a KUR which may be achieved by other means.

In this case if the user required the ability to sanitise a certain amount of airspace for a certain amount of time, or deploy a certain distance then AAR provide a means of cracking it but so could more airframes, better fuel efficiency, timely discovery of unobtainium etc.

[Fortissimo]

Wensleydale has it spot on. And even when E-3D is used on a national basis or on coalition (vice NATO) ops, the availability of boom tankers is far greater than probe and drogue. It's also a much more efficient way of getting the fuel on board (up to 6000 lbs/min), so less time off task. Incidentally, when the UK decides to use E-3D for non-NATO ops, the aircraft have to be down-declared from the NATO ORBAT so that they are formally unavailable for tasking by NAEW&C FC.

[Pure Pursuit]

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x682/d71d251e_c2a0_498e_9d12_0e37096f6bd3_a0c9c5e825da940f59eed46 15d5e7b6ae13fc9cf.jpeg
Completely disagree. The E-3A and E-3D are both tasked by NATO and have the same capability to the extent that either type can be tasked to fulfil the tasking requirement. Its all part of the agreement that UK has with the NATO AEW&C Force. The NATO AEW&C Component are not involved with tasking - that is done by the NAEW&C Force Command which is the tasking authority for both the Waddington and Geilenkirchen Components. Not withstanding that the NATO E-3A has a new updated software "back end" of the mission system, the main sensors are the same (although the ESM systems are different) and either type is interchangeable when it comes to tasking. Tanker availability is a main player during live ops, and the fact that the E-3D can take fuel from a boom tanker is a huge advantage because otherwise a drogue tanker would have to be tasked in addition to the usual boom tankers leading to a loss of flexibility (and yes I know that this capability came about by default, but it has given us major advantages during both NATO and other coalition ops).

I’m quite confident that the sensors on an E7 could cover any tasking that NATO require of its AEW component.

RAAF E7s regularly boom tank with a recent mission hitting 19 hours.

[Wensleydale]

I’m quite confident that the sensors on an E7 could cover any tasking that NATO require of its AEW component.

I'm sure that they do. Now what about the data link, track identity and communications capability. The point that I as making was that the transition between a UK Component and NATO Component platform should be seamless in all aspects of tasking including compatibility with support aircraft including tankers. I trust that the Wedgetail meets these requirements or the RAF would not be so interested (I hope).

[El Bunto]

Recently came across this gem thumbing through a 1982 Air International....

Oh that's a gem indeed!

The Challenger and Hercules proposals were done in conjunction with their manufacturers. Lockheed was still pushing models of the twin-bulge Herk around 1986 / 87 with a dual AEW-tanker version, something the rotodome proposal couldn't do. The Chally had an optional refuelling probe and ESM from the CP-140 to make it 'attractive' to the Canadians.

The Transall was for an AdlA requirement in the early 1980s.

The lightweight pivoted dome on the heli and 330 was also proposed on the rear ramp of the V-22 Osprey, with hindsight the radar might have been ready for service about the same time as the tiltrotor.

[TBM-Legend]

The RAAF E-7's are combat proven in theatre and generally have tanking from RAAF KC-30 or USAF tankers. One stayed on task with a mission time of 19 hours. They work all coalition aircraft and are twice as reliable as the E-3's that are there.

[Wensleydale]

The RAAF E-7's are combat proven in theatre and generally have tanking from RAAF KC-30 or USAF tankers. One stayed on task with a mission time of 19 hours. They work all coalition aircraft and are twice as reliable as the E-3's that are there.

I am sure that they can work coalition aircraft in theatre. How is their data-link compatibility with NATO ground sites and data-link structures? Do they use the same ID systems as NATO? The problem with datalinks in "coalition" (or at least it was 10 years ago) is that different platforms require different ID sets, and unfortunately, each "object" for transmission over the link can only have one ID. Therefore, Fighters which used to run on a "Bogie; Bandit; Hostile" system are incompatible with the standard NATO ID sets required for the SRAP, leading to workrounds and potential confusion. Even the RN used different ID categories for the same object. Hopefully, this has been sorted, but much will depend upon the ID set used in the Wedgetail software if the aircraft is to be fully compatible within the NATO air defence network. Operations out of the NATO orbit can be tailored to the individual platforms' needs but when operating within an existing Air Defence structure then any major C3 platform has to be compatible with not too many work-arounds needed.

[Pure Pursuit]

Standard Link 16 IDs work, for the most part, in all cockpits these days. Even Typhoon these days!

I would not envisage any issues with an E-7 operating within the NATO hierarchy. Any issues are generally very easy to work around but, I’m quite sure that it’s link architecture would embed without any problems.

More importantly, the E-7 has very comfortable seats, unlike the E-3 back destroyer!

[TBM-Legend]

The E-7's are the go-to aircraft at Red Flag-Nellis, Red Flag-Alaska, RIMPAC plus others in the Pacific. Being an all digital aircraft adding capability is reasonably straight forward. They are fully interoperable with USAF E-3's so I guess NATO is not an issue.

[Davef68]

Re IFR - hindsight is a wonerful thing. It's been said on here before that the boom requirement for what became Voyager was dropped at an early stage as a cost saving measure, bearing in mind the RAF had only two boom capable aircraft, one of which also had a probe and the other was not envisaged to be used in a way where IFR was needed.

[Yeller_Gait]

More importantly, the E-7 has very comfortable seats, unlike the E-3 back destroyer!


Never had an issue with E-3D seats, but then I never flew 15+ hr missions in them. The E-7A seats were a lot better once they restored the recline function for ops.

Back to more important stuff, there is no issue with E-7A compatibility with NADGE systems, They will be just fine for the RAF, and provide a far more reliable and capable C2 platform than the E3.

Y_G

[Wensleydale]

Never had an issue with E-3D seats, but then I never flew 15+ hr missions in them

Lucky. Middle row and seat 10 were ok because they faced forward - the killers were the rear facing seats. The "D" had a more pronounced nose up cruise than the "A" and it certainly made a difference which way you were facing. I trust that you don't get an electric shock from the E-7 seats either?

[cessnapete]

Who’s going to refuel it on these long missions. Not the RAF, no boom on our Tankers!

[melmothtw]

Who’s going to refuel it on these long missions. Not the RAF, no boom on our Tankers!

The same tankers that refuel our C-17s, RC-135s, Voyagers and the P-8s and F-35As when we get them. Oh, wait...

[ORAC]

AW&ST:Royal Air Force Sends AWACS to Storage in U.S.

The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) has sent one of its Boeing E-3D Sentry airborne early warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft for storage in the U.S. as it shrinks its operational fleet. The aircraft departed the UK on Jan. 15 and has since arrived at Lake Charles’ Chennault Airport, Louisiana, enthusiast reports suggest.

Chennault and its Northrop Grumman facility have handled RAF E-3s before, conducting wing repairs on one of the fleet in 2012. Northrop Grumman has been supporting the UK E-3D fleet since 2005, providing aircraft maintenance and design-engineering support services.

The UK Defense Ministry said the aircraft had been flown to the U.S. and delivered to a ministry contractor, where it will be “protected from the U.S. winter and undergo anti-deterioration maintenance delivered under an existing contract.” Officials add that while in the U.S., “a number of sale options will be explored by the Defense Equipment Sales Authority.”

The UK originally purchased seven Boeing E-3D Sentry airborne early warning aircraft in the 1980s—the last 707s built—but a lack of investment over the last decade has left the fleet struggling to maintain reliability and relevance in light of evolving threats.

The RAF announced in October 2018 it would proceed with replacing the E-3Ds with five Boeing E-7 Wedgetails, the Australian derivative of the 737-700-based airborne early warning platform also in service with South Korea and Turkey. The Wedgetails are expected to enter RAF service in 2022-23, with much of the conversion work to be done by UK defense maintenance, repair and overhaul company Marshall of Cambridge.

With the E-7 purchase announced, the E-3D fleet was shrunk to four aircraft. It is unclear whether the Sentry flown to Louisiana is one of the four operational aircraft or one of the two withdrawn aircraft. One of the seven has already been largely dismantled and sits engineless and radarless at its home base of RAF Waddington, England.