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 16th Nov 2018, 17:17
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Originally Posted by frodo_monkey View Post
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.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2018, 18:41
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 63
Posts: 3,823
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.
Wensleydale is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2018, 18:45
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there
Age: 36
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by melmothtw View Post
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 doesnít have an AAR Ďtakeí facility as far as I know) but that patently isnít the case for a FJ which is always fuel-limited.
frodo_monkey is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2018, 19:14
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 1
Commonality.

Originally Posted by Wensleydale View Post
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. Itís all about capability and weíve 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 itís an E7, they wonít care.
Pure Pursuit is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2018, 19:43
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Originally Posted by frodo_monkey View Post


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 doesnít have an AAR Ďtakeí facility as far as I know) but that patently isnít 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.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2018, 22:09
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 63
Posts: 3,823
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).
Wensleydale is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2018, 06:42
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,105
I know thatís itís 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.

orca is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2018, 11:24
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Age: 63
Posts: 290
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.
Fortissimo is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2018, 14:34
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 1

Originally Posted by Wensleydale View Post
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).
Iím 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.
Pure Pursuit is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2018, 05:59
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 63
Posts: 3,823
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).
Wensleydale is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2018, 19:23
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,012
Originally Posted by sandiego89 View Post
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.
El Bunto is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2018, 20:19
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 215
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.
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2018, 21:00
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 63
Posts: 3,823
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.
Wensleydale is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2018, 21:49
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 1
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, Iím quite sure that itís link architecture would embed without any problems.

More importantly, the E-7 has very comfortable seats, unlike the E-3 back destroyer!
Pure Pursuit is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2018, 21:51
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 215
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.
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2018, 11:18
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,213
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.
Davef68 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2018, 12:10
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 397
Originally Posted by Pure Pursuit View Post
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
Yeller_Gait is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2018, 19:19
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 63
Posts: 3,823
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?
Wensleydale is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2018, 20:13
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 894
Whoís going to refuel it on these long missions. Not the RAF, no boom on our Tankers!
cessnapete is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2018, 07:13
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Whoís 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...
melmothtw is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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