PACAF Calls for E-7s to Replace E-3 AWACS [Archive]

ORAC

25th Feb 2021, 09:23

https://www.airforcemag.com/pacaf-boss-calls-for-e-7s-to-replace-aging-e-3-awacs/

PACAF Boss Calls for E-7s to Replace Aging E-3 AWACS

The head of Pacific Air Forces is calling for new aircraft in his theater to meet the need for air superiority, including a quick short-term replacement for aging airborne warning and control aircraft and, in the future, the service’s next generation fighter.

PACAF boss Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach told reporters during the Air Force Association’s virtual Aerospace Warfare Symposium he is advocating for the Air Force to quickly procure the E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft, the Boeing 737-based aircraft already in use by Australia and South Korea to replace aging E-3 Sentrys that have struggled to get in the air.

“The fact is, we actually need something relatively quick because of the reliability of the E-3,” Wilsbach said. “It gets harder and harder to get airborne.”

The Air Force’s E-3 AWACS is based on the older Boeing 707. There have been recent upgrades, and the fleet is expected to fly into the 2030s, though Wilsbach said “it’s challenged at the moment because of how old it is.”

Within the Pacific, PACAF will be tasked with fighting in anti-access, area-denial areas set up by adversaries, which would require both takedowns of surface-to-air missiles and taking away an enemy’s air-to-air capability. The modernized E-7 would help with domain awareness, and then PACAF would need an advanced fighter to complete the missions.

To that end, Wilsbach said he is advocating for the Air Force’s future Next Generation Air Dominance platform and its advanced weapons “so that we can stay relevant as our adversaries continue to advance.”

“Air superiority is foundational to most other things that we would want to be able to do in our theater,” he said. “Because if you don’t have air superiority, then most everything else that you want to do is really held at risk.”

TBM-Legend

9th Mar 2021, 08:04

Easy as they could grab a couple of E-7's that the RAF thinks it doesn't need...

chevvron

9th Mar 2021, 08:57

I believe there are a few 737 Max airframes going spare.

TBM-Legend

9th Mar 2021, 09:14

Pity they're not build on a Max frame but a B737-700NG with big wings

Asturias56

10th Mar 2021, 07:51

I'm sure Mr B would be happy to offer them an upgrade - at a price of course.................

tdracer

10th Mar 2021, 17:31

Pity they're not build on a Max frame but a B737-700NG with big wings
Sorry to be anal, but not "big wings", they are -800 wings. Same size and planform but strengthened for a higher gross weight.

TBM-Legend

10th Mar 2021, 23:59

Sorry to be anal, but not "big wings", they are -800 wings. Same size and planform but strengthened for a higher gross weight.

I just checked with a friend at Boeing Australia here in Brisbane who writes the technical manuals for the E-7A program and he said they internally refer to the structure as the 700 [BBJ] with the big wing off the 800

tdracer

11th Mar 2021, 18:14

I just checked with a friend at Boeing Australia here in Brisbane who writes the technical manuals for the E-7A program and he said they internally refer to the structure as the 700 [BBJ] with the big wing off the 800
Well they may call it 'big wing' - but physically it's the same size, just stronger.
BTW, the 737-700 BBJ already has the -800 wing structure (to give higher gross weights and longer range compared to the standard -700).

ORAC

7th Sep 2021, 06:37

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2021/09/06/four-questions-with-the-head-of-air-combat-command/

Four questions with the head of Air Combat Command

…..If anybody asked me what’s my priority in the ISR portfolio, I have to say the AWACS. We frankly have to be wide-eyed. We have to acknowledge that unlike our closest treaty allies — the Australians and the [U.K. Royal Air Force]— we do not field a cutting-edge, air moving target indicator, or AMTI, capability like they do with their E-7A Wedgetail (https://www.defensenews.com/smr/air-force-priorities/2021/02/26/us-air-force-top-general-isnt-ready-to-buy-the-e-7-wedgetail-just-yet/).

In my opinion, you’re not a true fifth-gen Air Force until your fifth-gen fighters have fifth-gen weapons and fifth-gen sensing, like an AMTI [aircraft] to go with them. We’ve got to make sure we’ve got the surveillance piece and the weapons piece to go with our platform piece.

Other Air Force officials advocated for the service to buy Wedgetail, but the necessary funding never ended up in the budget. Meanwhile, the AWACS inventory is only getting older. How long can the service go without replacing AWACS?

…..We are in the single-digit number of years before that airplane votes with its wings and votes with its metal structure that it’s just not viable to operate and sustain any longer.

To your point about Wedgetail, I frankly don’t know exactly where our budgets are going to fall when it hits the reality of what we actually have [available]. But I can tell you unambiguously that it stays pretty much close to my No. 1 requirement as a force provider.

rattman

21st Oct 2021, 19:57

Basically a sole source contract has been issued to boeing to study if and what modification would be required on the wedgetail to meet baseline for american service

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/the-us-air-force-just-inched-closer-to-buying-boeings-e-7a-wedgetail/

WASHINGTON: The US Air Force plans to award Boeing a contract for analysis of the E-7A Wedgetail (https://breakingdefense.com/2021/09/brown-air-force-serious-about-e-7-wedgetail/) as it considers buying the aircraft to replace its aging E-3 Sentry (https://breakingdefense.com/tag/awacs/) airborne warning and control system (AWACS) planes.

According to an Oct. 19 notice (https://sam.gov/opp/bd61606d0ee74c71bb2e898523885a62/view)posted on SAM.gov, the service will “award a sole source Time and Materials (T&M) contract to The Boeing Company to perform studies, analyses, and activities required to ascertain the current E-7A baseline configuration and determine what additional work the government might need to accomplish meeting USAF configuration standards and mandates.”

Buster Hyman

21st Oct 2021, 21:33

It’d be a nice change for the RAAF crews to be offering training for the USAF crews. (Lots of assumptions there of course):ok:

Asturias56

22nd Oct 2021, 07:31

golder

22nd Oct 2021, 07:51

The E-7 is at the top of the tree, The yanks are well acquainted with it and speak very highly.

Of course they have to give Boeing money. Don't you still have to pay a working-girl, even if you just want to talk?

rattman

22nd Oct 2021, 09:16

"The US Air Force plans to award Boeing a contract for analysis of the E-7A Wedgetail (https://breakingdefense.com/2021/09/brown-air-force-serious-about-e-7-wedgetail/) " - why not just talk to them directly?

And what are the short term alternatives??

They dont do anything for free, but said it might be a we will pay you million to do this report if we decide not to go ahead you get the money, if we decide to go ahead that amount is the down payment. I have seen this in contacts before, not at this scale but still a million or 2 type stuff

As to short term alternatives going to guess nothing in the same class as E-3 and E-7. Theres Erieye mounted on a embraer 145 or global 6000. India were going to do Erieye on an A330 but that died a death.

Really options are a E-7, Clean sheet or E-3 life extensions

Also from what I understand australia gets a cut of all E-7 sales so could be good if the yanks buy some it might bring some other countries out of the woodwork to buy some to replace thier E-3's

ORAC

22nd Oct 2021, 10:15

India were going to do Erieye on an A330 but that died a death.
Changed to using an Airbus 319.

https://www.aviacionline.com/2021/09/india-to-convert-six-a319s-into-aew-c-aircraft-for-the-air-force/

Fortissimo

22nd Oct 2021, 17:02

Of course they have to give Boeing money. Don't you still have to pay a working-girl, even if you just want to talk?

The UK AWACS support experience was once described to me as: (Phone rings) "Hello? Boeing here. That will be 1 million dollars, please. What is your question?"

This may explain why the contract eventually went to Northrop Grumman.

tdracer

22nd Oct 2021, 21:24

The UK AWACS support experience was once described to me as: (Phone rings) "Hello? Boeing here. That will be 1 million dollars, please. What is your question?"

This may explain why the contract eventually went to Northrop Grumman.
Supposedly that all changed when Condit became CEO (1994 IIRC). Before that, Boeing almost gave away the post-sale support (which was a major reason why operators loved Boeing). Condit decided that post-sale support should be a 'profit center' - and started charging big bucks for what had formerly been free or very inexpensive. Funny thing, many customer airlines who had been long time Boeing only suddenly started talking to Airbus.
In the late 1990s, UPS (who was operating new build 767F and 757F) surprisingly announced a big order for A300 freighters. Boeing issued a press release that said Airbus had basically given the aircraft away to keep the A300 line open. UPS responded that 'Yes, we got a real good price, but we're so mad at Boeing right now that we would have picked Airbus even if it was more expensive' :ugh:
Sadly, Condit and Stonecypher didn't get the message, and continued down that road (they even started charging for the Everett factory tour - which had been free for decades - the tour center also had to be a 'profit center') - which is how Boeing ended up in the mess it's currently in.

gums

22nd Oct 2021, 22:34

Salute!

Thanks for the insight, TD.
===============
I like the idea of the new AWACS, mainly for the cosmic radar. The sucker looks like slow F-35, but has acquisiiton and tracking of both air and ground tgts the E-3 has not dreamed of.. Didn't realize how good it was/is.

Gums sends...

rjtjrt

22nd Oct 2021, 22:44

Supposedly that all changed when Condit became CEO (1994 IIRC). Before that, Boeing almost gave away the post-sale support (which was a major reason why operators loved Boeing). Condit decided that post-sale support should be a 'profit center' - and started charging big bucks for what had formerly been free or very inexpensive. Funny thing, many customer airlines who had been long time Boeing only suddenly started talking to Airbus.
In the late 1990s, UPS (who was operating new build 767F and 757F) surprisingly announced a big order for A300 freighters. Boeing issued a press release that said Airbus had basically given the aircraft away to keep the A300 line open. UPS responded that 'Yes, we got a real good price, but we're so mad at Boeing right now that we would have picked Airbus even if it was more expensive' :ugh:
Sadly, Condit and Stonecypher didn't get the message, and continued down that road (they even started charging for the Everett factory tour - which had been free for decades - the tour center also had to be a 'profit center') - which is how Boeing ended up in the mess it's currently in.

When accountants start to run a company, they only think of bottom line in short term.
No concept of long term profitability.
So many examples of disastrous medium term consequences for the company and shareholders.

golder

23rd Oct 2021, 07:21

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strike-air-combat/5687-wedgetail-continues-to-impress-operators-and-allies-alike

The Boeing 737 AEW&C is a state-of-the-art system providing powerful airborne surveillance, communications and battle management.

The 737 AEW&C system encompasses both the Boeing 737-700 aircraft platform and a variety of aircraft control and advanced radar systems. Consisting of components created by Boeing and Northrop Grumman, the 737 AEW&C represents the standard for future airborne early warning systems. The E-7A Wedgetail AEW&C functions include:

A steerable beam, L-band, electronically scanned array that provides optimal performance in range, tracking and accuracy;
Radar that can track airborne and maritime targets simultaneously;
Assistance to the mission crew in directing the control of high-performance fighter aircraft while continuously scanning the operational area;
A "top hat" portion that provides a practical solution for fore and aft coverage while maintaining the low drag profile of the dorsal array system – enabling the MESA system to be installed on the mid-size 737-700 platform without significant impact to aircraft performance;
An integrated identification friend or foe (IFF) function that shares the primary radar arrays to reduce weight, improve reliability and simplify target correlation; and
Advanced open-system architecture with standards-based design for cost-effective integration and add-on flexibility.

Davef68

25th Oct 2021, 08:45

Whimsical thought - if the USAF does buy the Wedgetail, will they call it the E-7 or the E-12? E-7 was never used,but was intended to be used on what became the EC-18 range aircraft

rattman

14th Nov 2021, 00:43

Boeing is saying they are expecting an E-7 order early next year

Boeing executive says USAF will order E-7A next year ? Alert 5 (http://alert5.com/2021/11/14/boeing-executive-says-usaf-will-order-e-7a-next-year/)

Alabama boy

15th Nov 2021, 10:03

It will be interesting to see how many and any changes the USAF requires- a large order could be the impetus to use the latest 737 airframe or even something else. A more modest order <10 with no changes would indicate it being just a stop gap to bridge between the E3 and Integrated Space based systems originally planned to replace the E3. Currently the USAF operates around 10 E3Cs out of the original 34 E3As the remaining 22 are E3Bs ; 2 E3s have been lost or written off. . Given the recent investment its logical that the E3Cs will be retained and some or all of the E3Bs replaced by the E7A. Good news for the Commonwealth of Australia (RAAF) as they probably receive some sort of license fee on the improvements they funded on their E7s after they were fist delivered. The flight of 3 RAF E7s will be to the same standard. (I cannot call it a squadron!!!).

golder

15th Nov 2021, 23:32

They were talking of gap filling. How many they consider needing, will be determined. Also they may add tech to it. UK and AU may get in on their update. An AUKUS win for everyone.

Lonewolf_50

16th Nov 2021, 01:01

Also they may add tech to it. UK and AU may get in on their update. An AUKUS win for everyone.
That would be nice, going forward together with common systems. (And I fear politics would of course interfere with a smooth implementation, but maybe this time it won't?)

Davef68

16th Nov 2021, 13:32

Could economies of scale mean the UK could piggy back a USAF order and afford the other two after all?

ORAC

9th Feb 2022, 15:46

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/02/09/air-force-eyes-contract-for-awacs-replacement-in-2023/

Air Force eyes contract for AWACS replacement in 2023

WASHINGTON — The Air Force said this week a contract to buy a replacement for the aging E-3G Sentry (https://www.defensenews.com/smr/air-force-priorities/2021/02/26/us-air-force-top-general-isnt-ready-to-buy-the-e-7-wedgetail-just-yet/) — also known as the AWACS, or Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft — could come in fiscal 2023.

According to a request for information released Tuesday, the service wants to know within 30 days how a potential contractor would deliver at least two prototype aircraft to replace the AWACS, including ground support and training systems, within five years of an expected 2023 award.

The Air Force noted the RFI was issued (https://sam.gov/opp/b47eca2a3f05491e86044f73bc490ccc/view) for its own planning purposes and is not a promise to issue a request for proposals in the future. But it provides the fullest picture yet of the time frame and requirements the service may be eying for the E-3′s replacement.…..

The Air Force wants companies responding to the RFI to explain how their proposed replacement aircrafts would deliver multiple capabilities the AWACS now provides. Those capabilities should include an advanced Airborne Moving Target Indication radar that could maintain a 360-degree surveillance picture while homing in on targets and perform real-time data processing of targets, the RFI said.

The Air Force also wants to know how a replacement aircraft would tell the difference between friendly and enemy forces, conduct radar-based maritime surveillance, and conduct simultaneously at least six battle management command and control missions — including air traffic control, close air support, suppression of enemy air defenses, air refueling, and combat search and rescue….

ORAC

27th Apr 2022, 07:10

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/04/26/its-the-wedgetail-air-force-to-buy-e-7-to-replace-awacs/

It’s the Wedgetail: Air Force to buy E-7 to replace AWACS

WASHINGTON — The Air Force announced Tuesday it will replace part of the E-3 Sentry, or Airborne Warning and Control System (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/02/09/air-force-eyes-contract-for-awacs-replacement-in-2023/), fleet with Boeing E-7 Wedgetails.

In a release, the service said the decision to go with the Wedgetail was based on market research and that it is “the only platform” that could meet all of the Defense Department’s requirements for tactical battle management, command and control, and target tracking in time to replace the aging E-3 (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/03/28/air-force-would-cut-150-aircraft-including-a-10s-buy-fewer-f-35s-in-2023-budget/), which dates back to the 1970s.

The Air Force plans to award a contract to Boeing in fiscal 2023 for the Wedgetail, which was developed by Australia for its air force.

The service’s proposed 2023 budget calls for retiring 15 E-3s, or about half the fleet, from Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma. It would provide $227 million in research, development, test and evaluation funds for the replacement. The first rapid prototype E-7 would be delivered in fiscal 2027.

The Air Force said it plans to fund a second rapid prototype aircraft in fiscal 2024 and aims to make a production decision the following year on fielding more Wedgetails. The release did not say how many Wedgetails the Air Force might eventually buy.….

chopper2004

27th Apr 2022, 14:37

kiwi grey

28th Apr 2022, 01:37

The service’s proposed 2023 budget ... would provide $227 million in research, development, test and evaluation funds for the replacement. The first rapid prototype E-7 would be delivered in fiscal 2027.
The Air Force said it plans to fund a second rapid prototype aircraft in fiscal 2024 …

So it's going to take Boeing and the USAF four years to complete the first 'rapid prototype' of an type that's based on an in-production airframe (P-8A) and is currently in service with a 5-eyes partner?
:\

tdracer

28th Apr 2022, 01:43

So it's going to take Boeing and the USAF four years to complete the first 'rapid prototype' of an type that's based on an in-production airframe (P-8A) and is currently in service with a 5-eyes partner?
:\
You can bet big money that the USAF isn't getting the same configuration Wedgetail that Australia got. It's part of the USAF DNA - they gold plate everything, plus the basic electronics of the Wedgetail are almost two decades old - that's ancient in the electronics world - so I suspect serious updating of the electronics suite is going on.

golder

28th Apr 2022, 03:08

One can only hope that they spend money to try to improve it. It will benefit the UK and AU (AUKUS) in updates.

Asturias56

28th Apr 2022, 07:29

"You can bet big money that the USAF isn't getting the same configuration Wedgetail that Australia got. It's part of the USAF DNA - they gold plate everything, plus the basic electronics of the Wedgetail are almost two decades old - that's ancient in the electronics world - so I suspect serious updating of the electronics suite is going on."

And here comes another vast cost overrun and late in service debacle.................. :(

BEagle

28th Apr 2022, 08:20

I would hope that the USAF has learned valuable lessons after the utter absurdity of the KC-46A debacle....

Asturias56

28th Apr 2022, 09:03

Years ago Bill Gunston wrote "history is littered with cases of aircraft that were only supposed to have a few modifications but turned out to cost more than a clean sheet design"

he was talking about the A3D/B-66 disaster (he exempted the USN/USAF Phantom II and the Seafire) but you have to say it's a sad chronicle all in all

The FIRST priority should be introducing a standard, working aircraft (even if you have to eat Vegemite) - worry about mods later - but of course there isn't much in that for either the manufacturers or the Programme Officers

Bengo

28th Apr 2022, 09:59

If the electronics are c. 20 years old it will probably be impossible to buy any identical additional systems.

Whilst the airframes should not take long to deliver, depending on the state/queue length of the production lines involved, the USAF has to set up a complete logistic support arrangement for the Wedgetail, or ask UK and/or AUS to expand theirs, before they can bring the thing into service. The proposed timescale looks reasonably difficult for that.

That said, it does look like another opportunity for a programme Charlie Foxtrot. One would hope Boeing, DoD and USAF will have some top-notch folk in the management team, and that the pork barrel will be well hidden.

N

SWBKCB

28th Apr 2022, 10:06

I would hope that the USAF has learned valuable lessons after the utter absurdity of the KC-46A debacle....

The procurement process seems a bit different. Rather than a long drawn out competition, it seems to be "We'll have one of those..."

Davef68

28th Apr 2022, 10:33

So it's going to take Boeing and the USAF four years to complete the first 'rapid prototype' of an type that's based on an in-production airframe (P-8A) and is currently in service with a 5-eyes partner?
:\
Slightly different airframe (700 v 800) and iirc the 700ER isn't in series production at the moment (albeit they did do one for the RAF https://twitter.com/AeroimagesChris/status/1503535032417222660?s=20&t=RtuxkYfZQeE1kvVqJkHiBg) - the timescale for the RAF from order to delivery of the first is 4 years - the conversion from 737 to E-7 takes about 2 years, so if they are going for anew build test airframe, they'll have to wait for the production slot too.

TBM-Legend

28th Apr 2022, 10:46

golder

28th Apr 2022, 10:52

Alabama boy

28th Apr 2022, 12:03

Its odd that although the requirement is supposedly urgent, the contract is not expected to be signed before 2023 and the first prototype is not expected before 2027 and be followed by a second prototype which suggested that some significant changes from the current baseline are planned . Unless they change the airframe these changes are most likely to be updates and additions to the mission system.. An airframe change would require a complete aircraft re certification/qualification even if the mission system is not substantially changed. But 4 years between contract placement and first 'prototype' does not align with the UK build program for the first in service aircraft so something must be changing Some of the extra time could be down to setting up a proper conversion line for about 15 aircraft rather than the ad hoc approach needed for just 3 UK aircraft.. Also the US E3s may have certain US only equipment which will need to be added to the baseline if still required. Its difficult to see the US programme impacting the 3 UK E7s except for possible updates in about 10 years time. For the UK its difficult to see where the budget would come from for additional aircraft and the RAF will not want to support 2 extra aircraft at a different standard. But of course the same view was taken when we bought the E3 and it was assumed that the RAF would keep its fleet of E3Ds up to date with the US/NATO E3s. It could have happened but MOD managed to kill it off and our E3s struggled with availability in the end.

NutLoose

28th Apr 2022, 14:14

More on it here, I just hope the programme runs better than the 767 tanker one.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/air-force-to-buy-e-7-wedgetail-radar-jets-to-replace-aging-e-3s

Toadstool

28th Apr 2022, 14:21

Had the pleasure of working with the Aussie Wedgetail whilst on Shader. Great platform.

Alabama boy

28th Apr 2022, 17:07

One change from the E7A seems to be the introduction of an Open architecture software to the Mission System . I guess the existing system architecture is propriety. That will require extensive thread testing to ensure nothing has changed - much of this could be done by automatic test programmes but it will take time particularly requireing combination of threads to be tested to ensure correct behaviour. This may be the first upgrade which the RAF E7 will be looking for to take advantage of future system updates..

tdracer

28th Apr 2022, 18:17

Slightly different airframe (700 v 800) and iirc the 700ER isn't in series production at the moment (albeit they did do one for the RAF) - the timescale for the RAF from order to delivery of the first is 4 years - the conversion from 737 to E-7 takes about 2 years, so if they are going for anew build test airframe, they'll have to wait for the production slot too.

The Wedgetail and P8 are built on a dedicated production line in Renton - separate from the MAX production lines (originally done for ITAR purposes). So final production slots are not a concern. There are long lead items (up to two years for some) and since there are meaningful airframe differences between the NG and the MAX that will tend to dictate the production schedule. The fuselage is built in Wichita and shipped to Renton as a largely finished assembly - while there are naturally differences between the -700 and -800 fuselage, they are built on the same tooling. So the fact that the -700 isn't currently in production is not a significant issue.

The bid deal with an AWACS type airplane is the electronics system integration - not just getting all the systems to work seamlessly together - preventing ElectroMagnetic Interference (EMI) between systems is a big challenge.

ORAC

1st Mar 2023, 19:56

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/03/01/us-air-force-awards-boeing-first-contract-for-fleet-of-26-e-7-aircraft/

US Air Force awards Boeing first contract for fleet of 26 E-7 aircraft

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has awarded Boeing a contract worth up to $1.2 billion to start work on the first E-7A battle management and command-and-control aircraft (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/04/26/its-the-wedgetail-air-force-to-buy-e-7-to-replace-awacs/), with plans to field a fleet of 26 in total, the service said Tuesday…

The contract award paves the way for production on the first rapid prototype E-7 to begin in FY25, and for the Air Force to field it two years later. The service said it plans to procure 24 more E-7 aircraft by FY32, on its way to acquiring a total fleet of 26.…

tdracer

1st Mar 2023, 22:35

US Air Force awards Boeing first contract for fleet of 26 E-7 aircraft

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has awarded Boeing a contract worth up to $1.2 billion to start work on the first E-7A battle management and command-and-control aircraft (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/04/26/its-the-wedgetail-air-force-to-buy-e-7-to-replace-awacs/), with plans to field a fleet of 26 in total, the service said Tuesday…

I wonder how much gold plating and other changes from a basically good and successful platform the USAF is demanded for the E-7A.
If it's minimal, then it should be a good, successful program.
Otherwise, it's apt to turn into another multi-billion dollar cluster:mad:.

golder

1st Mar 2023, 23:48

They are getting the A version. I look at it as, there is going to be more money in the pot. For updates with AU and UK.

Asturias56

2nd Mar 2023, 07:35

Four years minim um to field a copy............................... as Tdracer says that looks liek a lot of gold plating

ORAC

24th Mar 2023, 07:01

I think he is very generous to refer to the 3 the UK has on order as a “fleet”….

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/03/23/the-ability-to-stare-why-the-us-air-force-is-eager-to-get-the-e-7/

‘The ability to stare’: Why the US Air Force is eager to get the E-7

…..The U.S. version of the E-7 will be similar to the three Boeing is now building for the U.K., particularly in terms of the air frame, sensor and mission equipment, though the U.S. Air Force made unique requests Boeing declined to specify.

Boeing wants the E-7 fleet to be largely interoperable so it’s easier and cheaper to upgrade different nations’ fleets…..

But Boeing officials reiterated the Air Force’s statements that not much can be done to rapidly accelerate the process of acquiring new E-7s. While the U.K. purchased used planes to convert into its E-7s, Meranda said there’s not many more used airframes available to adapt into additional E-7s…

ORAC

16th Feb 2024, 05:35

Can’t order off the shelf - has to be bespoke….

I can understand Boeing playing hardball, they’ve lost a fortune on all their recent fixed price contracts, and this is a sellers’ market…..

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/02/15/tricky-e-7-adaptations-complicate-us-air-force-boeing-negotiations/

Tricky E-7 adaptations complicate U.S. Air Force, Boeing negotiations

DENVER, Colo. — The Air Force’s desired adaptations to Boeing’s E-7A battlefield management aircraft (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/03/23/the-ability-to-stare-why-the-us-air-force-is-eager-to-get-the-e-7/) are proving to be harder than expected and complicating price negotiations, top service officials said Tuesday.

“We’re having a hard time with [the E-7 program] (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/08/03/us-air-force-eyes-advance-procurement-to-more-quickly-make-e-7-planes/), getting price agreement with Boeing,” Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told reporters in a roundtable at the Air and Space Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium here. “We’re still in negotiations with them, and that’s not been finalized yet.”…..

Andrew Hunter, the Air Force’s assistant secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said in another roundtable the sticky negotiations center on the E-7′s first two rapid prototype aircraft.

The level of engineering work needed to adapt the E-7 to the Air Force’s specifications was “above and beyond what we anticipated,” Hunter said.

“The big surprise there was an unexpected amount and degree of non-recurring engineering required to meet the requirement that the Air Force specified, which we thought was very close to what the U.K. is currently procuring from Boeing,” Hunter said. “Those discussions have been challenging.”….

tdracer

16th Feb 2024, 19:07

Can’t order off the shelf - has to be bespoke….

I can understand Boeing playing hardball, they’ve lost a fortune on all their recent fixed price contracts, and this is a sellers’ market…..

The level of engineering work needed to adapt the E-7 to the Air Force’s specifications was “above and beyond what we anticipated,” Hunter said.

“The big surprise there was an unexpected amount and degree of non-recurring engineering required to meet the requirement that the Air Force specified, which we thought was very close to what the U.K. is currently procuring from Boeing,” Hunter said. “Those discussions have been challenging.”….
As I posted earlier, messing with the avionics - especially on something as electrically complicated as an AWACS type aircraft - is a minefield. Getting everything to talk to each other - and do it without any interference to other systems - is really hard with tons of uncertainty.
With all the losses Boeing has taken recently, perhaps they had a heart-to-heart talk with the contracts people about how much 'minor' changes can cost.
Many years ago, we had a nightmare on the 767/CF6-80C2 when sales gave a guarantee to some small operator that their fancy new 767s could take off from a particular island runway with a full load on a hot day. Simple - thrust bump, right? Except 'thrust bumps' for sea level are a nightmare - because if you exceed the max SL thrust of the engine listed in the TCDS, they need to recertify the entire engine to that new thrust level - mega bucks (probably 9 figures).:eek:
After looking at a number of options, it was concluded that the cheapest, easiest, and fastest solution was for Boeing pay to have the runway extended...:ugh:

SLXOwft

16th Feb 2024, 19:57

I wonder if the NAEW&C (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_219907.htm?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=natopress&utm_campaign=20231115_awacs) Force is expected to get an identical model to the US one or is the reference to E-7A generic? Or one on the same common development pathway as the RAAF and RAF? Not doing one or he other would seem insane.

In either case presumably they will be expected to bear some of the development costs.

golder

16th Feb 2024, 22:05

Given AUKUS, I would say it would be a common pathway.

SLXOwft

16th Feb 2024, 23:17

I had forgotten this https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3460040/wedgetail-trilateral-joint-vision-statement-signed-at-royal-international-air-t/ . Andrew Hunter's statement suggests the USAF and the DoD were naïve in their understanding of the divergence 'U.S. satellite communication, military GPS and cybersecurity and program protection requirements' et al implied, before the agreement on 'cooperation relating to Wedgetail capability development, evaluation and testing, interoperability, sustainment, operations, training, and safety.' was finalized..