AWACS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AWACS
According to Flight Global the Saudis are negotiating an upgrade for their AWACS. Nato is apparently doing the same. There was an article a while ago saying that the UK Awacs are getting behind the drag curve with respect to upgrades.
How bad is the UK situation? Has "Call me Dave" and his mates let a valuable asset deteriorate?
How bad is the UK situation? Has "Call me Dave" and his mates let a valuable asset deteriorate?
Last edited by beerdrinker; 16th Aug 2014 at 07:38.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Deepest darkest London
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A contract for the upgrade of 13 of the 17 NATO E-3As was announced by Boeing at Farnborough it seems
Not sure what they are doing with the other 4
As for the RAF fleet, I'm sure one is proving rather useful?
V1
Not sure what they are doing with the other 4
As for the RAF fleet, I'm sure one is proving rather useful?
V1
AW&ST 04 August 4th 2014. Page 28
In the middle of a two page article entitled "Britain could move soon to acquire ASW aircraft" there was this gem -
This could be the OPs "article a while ago."
VP wrote
Is this a unique British out of service date or are NATO, Saudi and USAF on the same 2025 game plan ? Have we decided an AWACS capability will no longer be needed or is the replacement already well down the development pipeline ?
Withering on the vine is all very well for fine wines, but for war machines it seems more like ignorant or deliberate neglect.
LFH
In the middle of a two page article entitled "Britain could move soon to acquire ASW aircraft" there was this gem -
"In June, Boeing executives in Seattle noted that the RAF's E-3D AWACS fleet had fallen behind the upgrade programs funded by all other Awacs operators and will become increasingly difficult and costly to sustain."
VP wrote
"... to its 2025 out of service date ..."
Withering on the vine is all very well for fine wines, but for war machines it seems more like ignorant or deliberate neglect.
LFH
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
2025 is the current date that Sentry has "planned funding" for (subject to Government whim of course) - obviously, more money will have to be found if it is to be taken past that date, which is perfectly possible within the life of the aircraft. The upgrade of the different AWACS fleets has been the subject of debate for many years, and different operators have tried different solutions with different companies for the mid-life upgrade of the mission system. During my period with Sentry many of these were subject to Commercial in Confidence caveat and I certainly do not intend to discuss the current situations of the fleets - just in case. Nor is it wise to start to compare capabilities and operational matters concerning mid-life updates. I would leave things rest.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lordflasheart
Withering on the vine is all very well for fine wines, but for war machines it seems more like ignorant or deliberate neglect.
-RP
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will Sentry be interoperable and able to FULLY support F35? I suspect it may become even more of a weak link if something is not done to ensure our carrier, new AD destroyers and new fighters are not on the same page.
Wouldn't it be great if we had an authority that could deliver intergration?
Wouldn't it be great if we had an authority that could deliver intergration?
While I don't know, specifically, what you're talking about, the last 2 posts interest me.
1. Integration Authority. If you're talking about MoD as a whole, I thought we had an IA, headed by a 2 Star. Whether or not they've worked out what integration is yet (having only been funded to do this in 2001) is another matter. Meanwhile, those who did it for fun carried on regardless....
If you're talking about AWACS itself, and assuming there is a Aircraft Co-Ordinating Design Authority (as mandated), then he will be your IA. The same company would usually be responsible for e.g. the whole aircraft safety case. Even if the appointment has been made by MoD, they usually forget one minor thing. You also need a funded contract. (This is the failure at the root of Nimrod XV230, leading to Haddon-Cave. H-C criticised the Safety Case, but failed to point out that no contract had existed for many years).
2. STANAGS - There is an "Order of Preference or Hierarchy for the Selection of Standards for MoD Acquisition"
There are 9 (nine) levels. STANAGS come 5th, behind (e.g.) European (including British Standards), International, National (e.g. BRs not implementing Euro standards), Commercial standards recognised by industry.... then STANAGS...... then MoD Defence Standards (except those mandated by Secy of State, like 00-970, which are obviously called up anyway), MoD Departmental standards and specifications, other Nations' standards (Mil Specs etc) and finally Recognised Company Standards (e.g. Panavia, Airbus).
There are a number of problems with this (apart from the sheer number of standards to choose from), primarily;
a. The STANAG committees take FOREVER. If a decent STANAG doesn't exist, you simply cannot afford to wait. You usually find a better alternative among the others anyway. You may hit problems with interoperability between NATO countires, but (bizarrely) that is not Government policy anyway (and even more bizarrely, nor is interoperability between UK forces). You often find yourself calling up a STANAG, then falling foul of scrutineers who won't approve funding because it can't be reconciled with the endorsed requirement .
b. MoD staffs have, for approaching 20 years, been taught that none of the above is mandated or even necessary, and you can just let a contact and tell the company to do what they want. This particularly applies to the mandated Def Stans, like 00-970 and the 05-series, which are routinely waived. In fact, there are numerous formal rulings governing procurement that state this. As ever, this means your typical project manager doesn't know if he's full-bored or countersunk, with all and sundry being permitted to overrule him.
I think you may find a partial answer to your problem in the latter.
1. Integration Authority. If you're talking about MoD as a whole, I thought we had an IA, headed by a 2 Star. Whether or not they've worked out what integration is yet (having only been funded to do this in 2001) is another matter. Meanwhile, those who did it for fun carried on regardless....
If you're talking about AWACS itself, and assuming there is a Aircraft Co-Ordinating Design Authority (as mandated), then he will be your IA. The same company would usually be responsible for e.g. the whole aircraft safety case. Even if the appointment has been made by MoD, they usually forget one minor thing. You also need a funded contract. (This is the failure at the root of Nimrod XV230, leading to Haddon-Cave. H-C criticised the Safety Case, but failed to point out that no contract had existed for many years).
2. STANAGS - There is an "Order of Preference or Hierarchy for the Selection of Standards for MoD Acquisition"
There are 9 (nine) levels. STANAGS come 5th, behind (e.g.) European (including British Standards), International, National (e.g. BRs not implementing Euro standards), Commercial standards recognised by industry.... then STANAGS...... then MoD Defence Standards (except those mandated by Secy of State, like 00-970, which are obviously called up anyway), MoD Departmental standards and specifications, other Nations' standards (Mil Specs etc) and finally Recognised Company Standards (e.g. Panavia, Airbus).
There are a number of problems with this (apart from the sheer number of standards to choose from), primarily;
a. The STANAG committees take FOREVER. If a decent STANAG doesn't exist, you simply cannot afford to wait. You usually find a better alternative among the others anyway. You may hit problems with interoperability between NATO countires, but (bizarrely) that is not Government policy anyway (and even more bizarrely, nor is interoperability between UK forces). You often find yourself calling up a STANAG, then falling foul of scrutineers who won't approve funding because it can't be reconciled with the endorsed requirement .
b. MoD staffs have, for approaching 20 years, been taught that none of the above is mandated or even necessary, and you can just let a contact and tell the company to do what they want. This particularly applies to the mandated Def Stans, like 00-970 and the 05-series, which are routinely waived. In fact, there are numerous formal rulings governing procurement that state this. As ever, this means your typical project manager doesn't know if he's full-bored or countersunk, with all and sundry being permitted to overrule him.
I think you may find a partial answer to your problem in the latter.
