Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

RAF Start Talks on E-3D Replacement

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

RAF Start Talks on E-3D Replacement

Old 20th Jun 2018, 19:33
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,595
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.
tdracer is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 11:34
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South of the North
Posts: 104
Looks like any announcement at Farnborough has used been cancelled.

UK must compete future surveillance aircraft procurement, parliament states
Sook is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 12:34
  #83 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,193
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.
ORAC is online now  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 13:52
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,265
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' ?
Davef68 is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 15:11
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 29
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-...ce-the-sentry/
LincsFM is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2018, 15:19
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: moraira,spain
Age: 77
Posts: 313
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.
esa-aardvark is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2018, 13:32
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 260
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!
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2018, 15:58
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 49
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by Davef68 View Post
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
DCThumb is online now  
Old 5th Jul 2018, 16:44
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: the heathen lands
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by DCThumb View Post
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....
cokecan is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2018, 17:24
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 49
Posts: 156
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!


DCThumb is online now  
Old 5th Jul 2018, 19:48
  #91 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,193
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.
ORAC is online now  
Old 5th Jul 2018, 21:37
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 856
Originally Posted by DCThumb View Post
Saab Globaleye?

Proven mission system - tick

Commonality with Sentinel - tick

Multi-role - tick

UK jobs (built by marshalls) - tick
Number of work stations/consoles?

rjtjrt is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2018, 23:05
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: SOUTH OF EGQS
Posts: 71
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.
caped crusader is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2018, 23:48
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by DCThumb View Post
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 is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2018, 23:56
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by DCThumb View Post
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.
gelert1234 is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2018, 08:04
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 49
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by caped crusader View Post
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 is online now  
Old 6th Jul 2018, 08:09
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 49
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by gelert1234 View Post

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 is online now  
Old 6th Jul 2018, 08:12
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 49
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by gelert1234 View Post



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!
DCThumb is online now  
Old 6th Jul 2018, 08:18
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,549
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'.
BEagle is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2018, 08:37
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 49
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
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.......
DCThumb is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.