RAF Start Talks on E-3D Replacement
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
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.
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 doesn’t have an AAR ‘take’ facility as far as I know) but that patently isn’t the case for a FJ which is always fuel-limited.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commonality.
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.
Wrt NATO AEW&C component, all they care about is having a sensor in the required location at a prescribed time. If it’s an E7, they won’t care.
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 doesn’t have an AAR ‘take’ facility as far as I know) but that patently isn’t the case for a FJ which is always fuel-limited.
MRTT does have receiver capability.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
The commonality with NATO platforms is irrelevant
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that’s it’s 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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
RAAF E7s regularly boom tank with a recent mission hitting 19 hours.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
I’m quite confident that the sensors on an E7 could cover any tasking that NATO require of its AEW component.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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, I’m quite sure that it’s link architecture would embed without any problems.
More importantly, the E-7 has very comfortable seats, unlike the E-3 back destroyer!
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, I’m quite sure that it’s link architecture would embed without any problems.
More importantly, the E-7 has very comfortable seats, unlike the E-3 back destroyer!
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Never had an issue with E-3D seats, but then I never flew 15+ hr missions in them
Who’s going to refuel it on these long missions. Not the RAF, no boom on our Tankers!