E-3 REPLACEMENT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wedge tail and P8 looks like a good mix. Potentially a common platform.
CGB,
I believe E3 is a 707 and RJ is a KC 135 which is different.
Clearly from SA's post a manned platform is required with size being important to carry a large crew.
How are the Turks getting on with their wedge tail. Is it interoperable with NATO systems.
A quick google has shown it has a much smaller crew than an E3 so what would be its shortfall in ops NATO is likely to conduct?
CGB,
I believe E3 is a 707 and RJ is a KC 135 which is different.
Clearly from SA's post a manned platform is required with size being important to carry a large crew.
How are the Turks getting on with their wedge tail. Is it interoperable with NATO systems.
A quick google has shown it has a much smaller crew than an E3 so what would be its shortfall in ops NATO is likely to conduct?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
"A quick google has shown it has a much smaller crew than an E3 so what would be its shortfall in ops NATO is likely to conduct?"
The Turkish AEW is not officially part of the NAEW Force and therefore NATO cannot task it - it is a national asset (The FAF E-3F often "joins" the NATO Force, but this is on a voluntary basis). The experience that the E-3 has of working with smaller assets is when on ops with the USN Hawkeye. The Hawkeye does not have the same capacity to carry out the "AWACS" task as the E-3 - nor does it have the legs.
The "problem" with the E-3 is that it can carry out many C3 roles - unfortunately CAOCs have the habit of trying to task all of them simultaneously, in which case the E-3 rapidly runs out of consoles and radios. Often the smaller platform will be given a supplementary role thereby allowing the E-3 to get on with its business. This is not decrying the crews of the smaller platforms, which are often in AEW roles as supposed to AWACS roles but a practical way of employing them in support. (Yes, the RAF procured a very capable AEW platform that adds much more in the way of C3 support).
For the future? As the individual E-3 fleets enjoy their mid-life update away from the block 30-35 model, they diverge away from a commonality of capability. The difficulty in future ops may be the integration of the many E-3s of a different standard in a common operation.
The Turkish AEW is not officially part of the NAEW Force and therefore NATO cannot task it - it is a national asset (The FAF E-3F often "joins" the NATO Force, but this is on a voluntary basis). The experience that the E-3 has of working with smaller assets is when on ops with the USN Hawkeye. The Hawkeye does not have the same capacity to carry out the "AWACS" task as the E-3 - nor does it have the legs.
The "problem" with the E-3 is that it can carry out many C3 roles - unfortunately CAOCs have the habit of trying to task all of them simultaneously, in which case the E-3 rapidly runs out of consoles and radios. Often the smaller platform will be given a supplementary role thereby allowing the E-3 to get on with its business. This is not decrying the crews of the smaller platforms, which are often in AEW roles as supposed to AWACS roles but a practical way of employing them in support. (Yes, the RAF procured a very capable AEW platform that adds much more in the way of C3 support).
For the future? As the individual E-3 fleets enjoy their mid-life update away from the block 30-35 model, they diverge away from a commonality of capability. The difficulty in future ops may be the integration of the many E-3s of a different standard in a common operation.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
"How many consoles on an E-3?"
It depends. The USAF E-3C has 14 consoles - the E-3D has 10. I believe that the NATO E-3A Mid-term also has 14(?) - used to have 9 when I worked on them before the mid-life update. The consoles are multi function and can be changed to support specific roles in the aircraft. The number of radios also varies between models/nations.
It depends. The USAF E-3C has 14 consoles - the E-3D has 10. I believe that the NATO E-3A Mid-term also has 14(?) - used to have 9 when I worked on them before the mid-life update. The consoles are multi function and can be changed to support specific roles in the aircraft. The number of radios also varies between models/nations.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the Wedgetail has up to 12 consoles (RAAF apparently have 10 consoles at the moment).
I accept the E-3 is the standard by which others are judged, but given development, the newer/smaller aircraft are possibly very capable as well. However, I have no detailed info.
RAAF couldn't afford E-3, despite lusting after it for many years, and had to wait till an affordable solution came about given advances over time? How close to E-3 capability I can only speculate.
I accept the E-3 is the standard by which others are judged, but given development, the newer/smaller aircraft are possibly very capable as well. However, I have no detailed info.
RAAF couldn't afford E-3, despite lusting after it for many years, and had to wait till an affordable solution came about given advances over time? How close to E-3 capability I can only speculate.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
"One wonders where the chaps and chapesses put their Samsonites and duty-frees given the number of consoles in the current E-3A/C"
They go into the luggage storage area behind the radar technicians console. (Same place as the E-3D). The E-3D has an empty space where the extra E-3C consoles go. It is referred to as the "ballroom" and makes an excellent area for crew briefings and the resident card school on transits. I believe that the hard points are available under the floor for the consoles to fit into the E-3D. However, it would take big changes in the aircraft software etc to fit them.
They go into the luggage storage area behind the radar technicians console. (Same place as the E-3D). The E-3D has an empty space where the extra E-3C consoles go. It is referred to as the "ballroom" and makes an excellent area for crew briefings and the resident card school on transits. I believe that the hard points are available under the floor for the consoles to fit into the E-3D. However, it would take big changes in the aircraft software etc to fit them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wensleydale,
If say you could buy a smaller platform which cost a lot less could you, assuming MoD bought sufficient numbers, launch 2 or more platforms to do the complete CAOC tasking when required.
Such an idea would allow much more flexibility, but probably you would need more crews.
The Wedgetail seems to have a flexible crew each individual is capable of assisting with picture compilation (sorry if that is the wrong term) and can control.
Also I could not find any reference to technicians etc.
If say you could buy a smaller platform which cost a lot less could you, assuming MoD bought sufficient numbers, launch 2 or more platforms to do the complete CAOC tasking when required.
Such an idea would allow much more flexibility, but probably you would need more crews.
The Wedgetail seems to have a flexible crew each individual is capable of assisting with picture compilation (sorry if that is the wrong term) and can control.
Also I could not find any reference to technicians etc.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
PT,
Much would depend upon the capability in track capacity, sensor range etc of the smaller platform. Also, crew coordination between the different sections would be more difficult by having 2 platforms. As for training.... All the consoles in the E-3 are identical - the console is programmed to carry out a particular function on the aircraft, so you could have 10 weapons controllers on the aircraft or 10 picture compilers as required. The problem is maintaining the training and currency of all the weapons controllers. Multi training is perhaps the ideal, but if the assets are not available to train then maintain competency then too many can be more of a hindrance than a help.
At the end of the day, the controllers require a recognised air picture to carry out their tasks, and a mix of crew specialists on one platform is the most efficient way of achieving this.
Much would depend upon the capability in track capacity, sensor range etc of the smaller platform. Also, crew coordination between the different sections would be more difficult by having 2 platforms. As for training.... All the consoles in the E-3 are identical - the console is programmed to carry out a particular function on the aircraft, so you could have 10 weapons controllers on the aircraft or 10 picture compilers as required. The problem is maintaining the training and currency of all the weapons controllers. Multi training is perhaps the ideal, but if the assets are not available to train then maintain competency then too many can be more of a hindrance than a help.
At the end of the day, the controllers require a recognised air picture to carry out their tasks, and a mix of crew specialists on one platform is the most efficient way of achieving this.
For a UK E-3 replacement, isn't the process something like this:
Take a perfectly good system, strip out all the electronics to create jobs at home, send BAE gobs of money to integrate a solution, ignore warnings, add/change/delete requirement several times, then scrap or rebuild the entire thing to get you something close to the original perfectly good system? I may have missed a step.
On a serious note, I think a larger platfrom with more consols is always a good way to go if you can afford it. Systems that we never even thought of tend to get added over the long life of these airframes. Yes computers have reduced the workload, but a good platform still needs many brains to process, talk, direct, etc. The E-2 and biz jet designs are just to small to get a capabilty like you get from a E-3.
Take a perfectly good system, strip out all the electronics to create jobs at home, send BAE gobs of money to integrate a solution, ignore warnings, add/change/delete requirement several times, then scrap or rebuild the entire thing to get you something close to the original perfectly good system? I may have missed a step.
On a serious note, I think a larger platfrom with more consols is always a good way to go if you can afford it. Systems that we never even thought of tend to get added over the long life of these airframes. Yes computers have reduced the workload, but a good platform still needs many brains to process, talk, direct, etc. The E-2 and biz jet designs are just to small to get a capabilty like you get from a E-3.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must be all dreaming...
UK Gov. is never going to fork out for any of this. Wake up! Cant even afford and pay for a maritime patrol aircraft, let alone a ....what exactly? Which is looking for what...against whom?
By 2030 you'll be lucky if you have a handful of airbases (2 or 3 including Scotland if) with some Eurofighter, ground radar and a few MPGS.
A new Sentry is not high on any UK Govt. priority.
By 2030 you'll be lucky if you have a handful of airbases (2 or 3 including Scotland if) with some Eurofighter, ground radar and a few MPGS.
A new Sentry is not high on any UK Govt. priority.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the most likely solution will be to follow whatever the US do, presumably something based on a 737/767/787 platform?
Awaiting a po-faced rebuttal...
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qatar to buy A330 MRTT, AEW&C and more
Looks like Qatar will be the fourth customer for the 737 AEW&C.
So how many years until the USAF buy the aircraft?
http://australianaviation.com.au/201...aewc-and-more/
Y_G
So how many years until the USAF buy the aircraft?
http://australianaviation.com.au/201...aewc-and-more/
Y_G
Last edited by Yeller_Gait; 31st Mar 2014 at 11:08. Reason: Missing hyperlink
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the Qatari's anouncing their plans to purchase Boeing 737 AEW&C's with the Grumman MESA radar, it looks like that combination is fast becoming the platform of choice. As some one has already pointed out, having a B-737 based MPA and AEW platform has to save money along the line (clever Australia). So maybe if our Government decides to eventually purchase a new MPA then maybe the E-3D replacement should be a "Wedgetail" variant that will of course be fully sorted by then. Snag might be is how long the B 737 airframe stays in production as our E-3D's were the last B 707 types off the production line, we only just caught that particular boat. That is why the Japanese had to purchase the oversize B 767 based platform with the same radar installed (and as a result strengthen their runways at vast expense).
If any forum members are particularly interested in AEW aircraft then feel free to have a look at my new website "AEW World" which is dedicated to all aspects of AEW.
It includes the History of the subject, all the Manufacturers Serial numbers, Bureau of Aeronautics numbers and Squadron codes of virtually every AEW aircraft ever built from 1944 to date.
There is a modelling section that contains build sequences of plastic, resin and wood models and a Gallery of my completed models.
Another section relays the latest news and developments of AEW&C platforms around the world. Finally there is a Book section that lists the top ten books written on the subject.
Come along and have a look at AEW World - Home
There’s something there for everyone who is interested in the subject.
Cheers
Ian Shaw
If any forum members are particularly interested in AEW aircraft then feel free to have a look at my new website "AEW World" which is dedicated to all aspects of AEW.
It includes the History of the subject, all the Manufacturers Serial numbers, Bureau of Aeronautics numbers and Squadron codes of virtually every AEW aircraft ever built from 1944 to date.
There is a modelling section that contains build sequences of plastic, resin and wood models and a Gallery of my completed models.
Another section relays the latest news and developments of AEW&C platforms around the world. Finally there is a Book section that lists the top ten books written on the subject.
Come along and have a look at AEW World - Home
There’s something there for everyone who is interested in the subject.
Cheers
Ian Shaw
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HS,
Have you met the term "Force Multiplier"? No E-3/AEW is expensive in pointy jets!!
Have you met the term "Force Multiplier"? No E-3/AEW is expensive in pointy jets!!
We binned MPAs having operated them without a break since the mid nineteen thirties. The history of AEW in the RAF is whole lot less consistent than that!
Trust me, there ain't no sacred cows no more (well, maybe one...wonder where they will put it if AS gets his way??)