RAF Start Talks on E-3D Replacement
The role of the 3rd seat crewmember should have been far more than that! But the 2-pilot mafia at Airbus wanted the pilots to do everything. So the workload allocation is as you see it today....
I have no criticism of the actual crews, just of the design and ConOps.
I have no criticism of the actual crews, just of the design and ConOps.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle - that pass was sold decades ago................
As for the replacement if we go back to the OP quoting Janes " replacing rather than upgrading them might be the most cost-effective option" - note the MIGHT.
I suspect a straight request to upgrade would be throttled at birth by the Treasury so we start by building a campaign that the current airframes are very expensive to maintain (altho everyone else seems to manage OK), then we have to spec & cost a replacement
Oh My GOD!! The Co$t!!!!!!
but we can upgrade them for , well....... almost washers TBH... I mean - reluctantly, we'll accept second best in the National Interest etc etc etc
As for the replacement if we go back to the OP quoting Janes " replacing rather than upgrading them might be the most cost-effective option" - note the MIGHT.
I suspect a straight request to upgrade would be throttled at birth by the Treasury so we start by building a campaign that the current airframes are very expensive to maintain (altho everyone else seems to manage OK), then we have to spec & cost a replacement
Oh My GOD!! The Co$t!!!!!!
but we can upgrade them for , well....... almost washers TBH... I mean - reluctantly, we'll accept second best in the National Interest etc etc etc
Wasn't £2bn mentioned as the likely budget for the required upgrade? From what I've seen publicly on Wedgetail costs, we could have half a dozen for that price or close to it - brand new and with nicely matured systems, the Aussies having spent the last few years ironing the bugs out for us.
Yes, authorised and used and for the US cleared on all UAARSI equipped -135 variants too. We (the UK) did not clear it for UK RJ as part of the initial RTS (this may have changed now), but the USAF clearance remained in place. The details of what pumps can be used and the rest of the procedures are all in the aircrew manual.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't £2bn mentioned as the likely budget for the required upgrade? From what I've seen publicly on Wedgetail costs, we could have half a dozen for that price or close to it - brand new and with nicely matured systems, the Aussies having spent the last few years ironing the bugs out for us.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the service’s ageing and unreliable fleet of Boeing E-3D Sentry...
Blacksheep,
The B707 and the E-3D are quite different beasts, especially when it comes to complexity. The basic E-3D airframe would probably still achieve high-90s reliability rates but it is all the add-ons that hurt. When the B707 was in full airline service there were no restriction or difficulties with things like the toxic insulation on Kapton wiring, multiple aerial fixings, the small matter of a rather large radome, klystrons, IFF interrogators, data links, EW kit, refuelling systems, etc.. Supply chains were full, whereas now most 707 spares are need specialist procurement from diminishing manufacturing sources. The biggest issue will be airworthiness, as policy, practices and attitudes have changed markedly since the 2006 Nimrod accident, and the Design Authority is no longer Boeing for the RAF fleet.
A like-for-like comparison doesn't work.
The B707 and the E-3D are quite different beasts, especially when it comes to complexity. The basic E-3D airframe would probably still achieve high-90s reliability rates but it is all the add-ons that hurt. When the B707 was in full airline service there were no restriction or difficulties with things like the toxic insulation on Kapton wiring, multiple aerial fixings, the small matter of a rather large radome, klystrons, IFF interrogators, data links, EW kit, refuelling systems, etc.. Supply chains were full, whereas now most 707 spares are need specialist procurement from diminishing manufacturing sources. The biggest issue will be airworthiness, as policy, practices and attitudes have changed markedly since the 2006 Nimrod accident, and the Design Authority is no longer Boeing for the RAF fleet.
A like-for-like comparison doesn't work.
What was the damage to ZH105?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle - that pass was sold decades ago................
As for the replacement if we go back to the OP quoting Janes " replacing rather than upgrading them might be the most cost-effective option" - note the MIGHT.
I suspect a straight request to upgrade would be throttled at birth by the Treasury so we start by building a campaign that the current airframes are very expensive to maintain (altho everyone else seems to manage OK), then we have to spec & cost a replacement
Oh My GOD!! The Co$t!!!!!!
but we can upgrade them for , well....... almost washers TBH... I mean - reluctantly, we'll accept second best in the National Interest etc etc etc
As for the replacement if we go back to the OP quoting Janes " replacing rather than upgrading them might be the most cost-effective option" - note the MIGHT.
I suspect a straight request to upgrade would be throttled at birth by the Treasury so we start by building a campaign that the current airframes are very expensive to maintain (altho everyone else seems to manage OK), then we have to spec & cost a replacement
Oh My GOD!! The Co$t!!!!!!
but we can upgrade them for , well....... almost washers TBH... I mean - reluctantly, we'll accept second best in the National Interest etc etc etc
USAF have the same issues with all of their E-3 variants, slightly disguised by the fact that they have a few more than the RAF does. FAF struggle too so, it’s actually a fleet wide issue.
NATO fair rather better with a superior spares and support package.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...jets-deal-raf/
Don't freeze UK defence sector out of Sentry contract, ministers warned
A battle is brewing between defence companies and government over upgrading or replacing the RAF’s fleet of airborne early warning “Sentry” jets.
The E-3D Awacs aircraft are used to detect enemy aircraft and guide fighters to intercept them. The ones currently in service were built by Boeing and first began protecting Britain’s skies in the Nineties. With the heavy demands placed on them the RAF’s Sentries are worn out, with maintenance on the ageing aircraft becoming prohibitively expensive. It has been argued that rather than spend an estimated £2bn on upgrades, it would be cheaper to replace them in the long term.
However, fears are growing that a contract for new aircraft will be handed to US defence giant Boeing without a competitive process, freezing out companies in the UK. This could be the latest in a series of multi-billion arms contracts handed to US and other foreign manufacturers at the expensive of companies in the UK. Recent examples include the MoD’s agreements with Boeing to buy P-8 Poseidon maritime spyplanes and Apache attack helicopters. Last month MPs heard the MoD had awarded a £4.4bn deal to a German-led consortium for new armoured vehicles for the Army without a full competition.
MP Madeleine Moon, a member of the defence select committee, has called for any Sentry contract to be bid for in an “open and transparent” way. She said: “Buying from Boeing forgets the importance of British defence jobs and maintaining this country’s defence industry’s capabilities. By buying off the shelf without an open competition how will we know we will be getting not only the best deal but also the best equipment?”
The MP also claimed Boeing has a "poor record" in the UK for “offsetting” defence deals. Offsetting is the process where companies agree to build or maintain equipment in the country which is buying it, keeping some of the value of a defence order within the economy making the purchases.
Defence industry insiders say that UK and European companies - and even US groups with a UK footprint - are preparing for battle with Whitehall to have an open competition held over renewing the Sentry fleet. “It’s looking like the P-8 Poseidon all over again,” said one industry source. “We’re ready to fight to have a chance to take part.”
Companies likely to offer their version of the Sentry include Airbus, using a design based on it A330 airliner whose wings are made in company’s factory in North Wales. Sweden’s SAAB could also be a contender. Rival bids are likely to pledge to offset as much work in the UK with subcontractors as they can to secure the deal.
Answering parliamentary questions on Sentry, Guto Bebb, defence procurement minister, said: “No decision has been made with regard to the future delivery of the UK’s airborne warning and control capabilities, although a range of options are being explored.”
Don't freeze UK defence sector out of Sentry contract, ministers warned
A battle is brewing between defence companies and government over upgrading or replacing the RAF’s fleet of airborne early warning “Sentry” jets.
The E-3D Awacs aircraft are used to detect enemy aircraft and guide fighters to intercept them. The ones currently in service were built by Boeing and first began protecting Britain’s skies in the Nineties. With the heavy demands placed on them the RAF’s Sentries are worn out, with maintenance on the ageing aircraft becoming prohibitively expensive. It has been argued that rather than spend an estimated £2bn on upgrades, it would be cheaper to replace them in the long term.
However, fears are growing that a contract for new aircraft will be handed to US defence giant Boeing without a competitive process, freezing out companies in the UK. This could be the latest in a series of multi-billion arms contracts handed to US and other foreign manufacturers at the expensive of companies in the UK. Recent examples include the MoD’s agreements with Boeing to buy P-8 Poseidon maritime spyplanes and Apache attack helicopters. Last month MPs heard the MoD had awarded a £4.4bn deal to a German-led consortium for new armoured vehicles for the Army without a full competition.
MP Madeleine Moon, a member of the defence select committee, has called for any Sentry contract to be bid for in an “open and transparent” way. She said: “Buying from Boeing forgets the importance of British defence jobs and maintaining this country’s defence industry’s capabilities. By buying off the shelf without an open competition how will we know we will be getting not only the best deal but also the best equipment?”
The MP also claimed Boeing has a "poor record" in the UK for “offsetting” defence deals. Offsetting is the process where companies agree to build or maintain equipment in the country which is buying it, keeping some of the value of a defence order within the economy making the purchases.
Defence industry insiders say that UK and European companies - and even US groups with a UK footprint - are preparing for battle with Whitehall to have an open competition held over renewing the Sentry fleet. “It’s looking like the P-8 Poseidon all over again,” said one industry source. “We’re ready to fight to have a chance to take part.”
Companies likely to offer their version of the Sentry include Airbus, using a design based on it A330 airliner whose wings are made in company’s factory in North Wales. Sweden’s SAAB could also be a contender. Rival bids are likely to pledge to offset as much work in the UK with subcontractors as they can to secure the deal.
Answering parliamentary questions on Sentry, Guto Bebb, defence procurement minister, said: “No decision has been made with regard to the future delivery of the UK’s airborne warning and control capabilities, although a range of options are being explored.”
And she's seriously part of the Defence Select Committee??
Have a (surviving for now) BAE plant in her constituency, does she?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...tion-36b2drlhm
RAF risks row over £3bn US Boeing deal without a competition
Britain is to announce plans to replace a fleet of ailing surveillance aircraft in a move that could cause a political row for Theresa May and an outcry from industry if a US model is selected without a competition, The Times understands.
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. The aircraft will take over the specialist role of running air operations from the sky, according to industry sources. A decision could be made in time for the international air show in Farnborough next month and after a trip to the UK by President Trump in an attempt to signal strong UK-US relations on defence and trade, they said.
An announcement on the general plan to replace the six Sentry E-3D airborne warning and control system aircraft will form part of the headline conclusions of a defence review that will be released by early next month. This is a change from a 2015 defence review, which had signalled that the aircraft would be upgraded to stretch out their lifetime until 2035. A decision by the RAF to save money by not investing in support and maintenance for the Sentry fleet over the past ten to fifteen years meant that the aircraft were in a poor state of readiness, with only one or two available for operations at any one time, defence sources said.
The potential choice of Boeing’s E-7 Wedgetail as a replacement would receive a cool reception from the Democratic Unionist Party, which is propping up Mrs May’s government. The US aerospace company was accused last year of endangering 4,000 jobs at the Belfast plant of Bombardier, a smaller Canadian aerospace competitor, amid a row over subsidies that also pitched the UK government against the Trump administration. Gavin Robinson, the DUP’s defence spokesman and a member of the Commons defence select committee, said that he would hold the government to its pledge that the American company would face consequences for its actions over Bombardier. “I can’t speak for the rest of the defence select committee, but to proceed [with the purchase] in the absence of a competition would be a grave error,” Mr Robinson said.
Airbus, which has a strong presence in the UK, would also be infuriated at a move to select Boeing without a competition, a second defence source said.
A Boeing spokesman said: “We would welcome any opportunity to work hand-in-hand with the government and our UK industry partners to provide this critical capability to the Royal Air Force.”
An MoD spokesman said of the plans: “This is pure speculation.”
RAF risks row over £3bn US Boeing deal without a competition
Britain is to announce plans to replace a fleet of ailing surveillance aircraft in a move that could cause a political row for Theresa May and an outcry from industry if a US model is selected without a competition, The Times understands.
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. The aircraft will take over the specialist role of running air operations from the sky, according to industry sources. A decision could be made in time for the international air show in Farnborough next month and after a trip to the UK by President Trump in an attempt to signal strong UK-US relations on defence and trade, they said.
An announcement on the general plan to replace the six Sentry E-3D airborne warning and control system aircraft will form part of the headline conclusions of a defence review that will be released by early next month. This is a change from a 2015 defence review, which had signalled that the aircraft would be upgraded to stretch out their lifetime until 2035. A decision by the RAF to save money by not investing in support and maintenance for the Sentry fleet over the past ten to fifteen years meant that the aircraft were in a poor state of readiness, with only one or two available for operations at any one time, defence sources said.
The potential choice of Boeing’s E-7 Wedgetail as a replacement would receive a cool reception from the Democratic Unionist Party, which is propping up Mrs May’s government. The US aerospace company was accused last year of endangering 4,000 jobs at the Belfast plant of Bombardier, a smaller Canadian aerospace competitor, amid a row over subsidies that also pitched the UK government against the Trump administration. Gavin Robinson, the DUP’s defence spokesman and a member of the Commons defence select committee, said that he would hold the government to its pledge that the American company would face consequences for its actions over Bombardier. “I can’t speak for the rest of the defence select committee, but to proceed [with the purchase] in the absence of a competition would be a grave error,” Mr Robinson said.
Airbus, which has a strong presence in the UK, would also be infuriated at a move to select Boeing without a competition, a second defence source said.
A Boeing spokesman said: “We would welcome any opportunity to work hand-in-hand with the government and our UK industry partners to provide this critical capability to the Royal Air Force.”
An MoD spokesman said of the plans: “This is pure speculation.”
Bear with me on this, I have an idea.
The outdated concept of having a huge rotating dish mounted astride the airframe results in considerable aerodynamic penalties.
Likewise, the rigid mounted scanner atop the airframe is all very well for minor air arms, but we are above all that and see ourselves as leaders in the field.
So, what is needed here is a new approach that embraces advances in computing technology, particularly the ability to have a networked solution, by producing a screen image formed from more than one radar array.
So, here's what we could do: Have two radars mounted at the fore and aft extremities of the airframe, in aerodynamic fairings which give a much improved drag factor, thus improving endurance. This could be achieved by adapting an existing type. It could be argued that we have managed without any long range maritime patrol capability for a long time and that nine airframes is more than we need. So, we can divert three P8s, strip the MP kit from them to sustain the remaining six and convert three to AEW.
I know this is rather unorthodox and nobody has tried anything like this before, but I believe it has potential.
Politically, this could be a welcome boost to UK industry and job creation.
What could possibly go wrong?
The outdated concept of having a huge rotating dish mounted astride the airframe results in considerable aerodynamic penalties.
Likewise, the rigid mounted scanner atop the airframe is all very well for minor air arms, but we are above all that and see ourselves as leaders in the field.
So, what is needed here is a new approach that embraces advances in computing technology, particularly the ability to have a networked solution, by producing a screen image formed from more than one radar array.
So, here's what we could do: Have two radars mounted at the fore and aft extremities of the airframe, in aerodynamic fairings which give a much improved drag factor, thus improving endurance. This could be achieved by adapting an existing type. It could be argued that we have managed without any long range maritime patrol capability for a long time and that nine airframes is more than we need. So, we can divert three P8s, strip the MP kit from them to sustain the remaining six and convert three to AEW.
I know this is rather unorthodox and nobody has tried anything like this before, but I believe it has potential.
Politically, this could be a welcome boost to UK industry and job creation.
What could possibly go wrong?
Sounds like the Nimrod AEW3
Hat, Coat, Etc...….
Hat, Coat, Etc...….
