Telegraph - "MoD to 'Anglicise' Boeing Wedgetail jets after £2bn deal with US firm.."

[Davef68]

Anglicise - add tea urn. Job done

[tucumseh]

...to modernise (obsolescence) and upgrade computing power and radar processing to increase performance and capability ... foresight the UK was sadly lacking with the E-3D.

To be fair to those involved, this was all recognised at the time. But given the RAF had just embarked on a policy to run down the process which manages such things, and MoD was in the throes of successive moratoria which effectively froze many programmes for up to five years, there was no way the Gods would admit such things were necessary, or even possible.

As for modifying UK variants, this is often necessary for at least two reasons (although the degree varies depending on role of aircraft). First, the Home Office dictates use of certain kit. This is mandated upon MoD. Second, political industrial strategy. For example, certain technologies are (or were) required to be indigenous. In my day, one was acoustic processing in Nimrod MR and Sea King. It mattered not a jot that CD(C)'s devices ran rings round Marconi's.

[sandiego89]

Originally Posted by Wensleydale

Just before the result of the competition between the E-3 and the Nimrod AEW3 was announced, GEC Marconi took out full page "adverts" in the newspapers to push their product. Sadly, they used the tagline of "Nimrod will be the Mainstay of UK Air Defence". Many wags at Waddington noted that Mainstay didn't work as well.

I just stumbled across such an advertisement thumbing through an old Air International! Quite a gem....



Given the high profile history of removing perfectly good gear and having BAE replace it with local gear....oh my.

[Pure Pursuit]

Originally Posted by betty swallox

I do wish peeps would stop referring to the P-8 as a “converted” 737. It most certainly is not. It’s built from the first river to the last tyre to be a P-8A.

Modified 737-800ERX. They start life as such and are converted part way through production.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by Harley Quinn

If it's so wonderful why are the Australians spending 'large amounts of money upgrading'?

Consider that the reason the UK E-3D's are being replaced rather than upgraded as the NATO and US E-3s are being upgraded is because they failed to keep up with upgrades over the years so that it's now cheaper to replace them than upgrade them. Electronic systems have a short life span in terms of obsolescence and the original Wedgetails use technology that is now over a decade old. Obsolescence, lessons learned from actual operations, and changing requirements/threats drive constant upgrades.

[andrewn]

It's interesting how the debate gets framed in the Torygraph, e.g with reference to a "worn out" fleets of E-3D's. Given these were brand spanking new in the early 90's and the USAF (and ourselves) are happily flying '135's that are a good 25-30yrs older, and that they've hardly been flogged to death then I'd describe them as anything but worn out!

That said, doesnt necessarily mean it isn't, or couldnt be made to appear, cheaper to replace than refurb. I can see the operating economics of a combined P-8/E-7 fleet, but can't quite get my head round how purchasing a new fleet of (say 6) expensive high tech aircraft is cheaper than a MLU on E-3D? Assuming that E-7 was based at Waddington you've then got setup costs there, with no doubt quite a lot of new E-7 specific support/maintenance kit + training.

Call me a cynic, but I suspect the Boeing salesmen know full well that the headline costs of E-7 purchase vs E-3D MLU only tell part of the story and that actual costs to get E-7 into service and supportable will be upto a 100% uplift.

[tdracer]

The airframe component of the cost is tiny compared to the electronics on something like an AWACS. The original 707 based USAF AWACS back in the late 1970s were going for ~$100 million, when you could buy a brand spanking new 707 for a bit over $10 million.
Furthermore, the biggest portion of the electronics is not the actual electronic equipment, it's the integration - making all the different systems interface correctly and play nice with each other. Heck, just basic stuff like ElectroMagnetic Interference (EMI) is a massive problem on something like an AWACS aircraft.
I don't know how much of the avionics will be changed to 'Anglicise', but if it's extensive, the integration will be horrendous and could easily turn into a trainwreck.
I suspect the poster who wrote that the UK will end up spending more for something that doesn't work as well is dead on.

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by tdracer

I suspect the poster who wrote that the UK will end up spending more for something that doesn't work as well is dead on.

Well that's what we do best

[Lima Juliet]

Anglicise? I hear they want one of these to keep all the unruly Goats down the back in order?

[Wensleydale]

Given these were brand spanking new in the early 90's and the USAF (and ourselves) are happily flying '135's that are a good 25-30yrs older, and that they've hardly been flogged to death then I'd describe them as anything but worn out!

Although built at the end of the 80s, the mission system was designed at the end of the 1970s, and the current E-3D still uses the same computer etc. Bearing in mind that this is contemporary with the Spectrum 16 and the BBC B then you can see why it is getting difficult to find spares. Buying COTS instead of original designed equipment leads to a huge flight testing effort - the mission system is not only for the aircraft but has to give an appropriate service to other users and has safety implications for them as well. Despite its age, the Sentry is a marvellous piece of kit but unfortunately keeping it flying and finding appropriate 30 year old mission system spares etc is a bit of a headache - unless you can find a manufacturer with the capability of building antique computer equipment at a reasonable cost.

[NutLoose]

Originally Posted by Davef68

Anglicise - add tea urn. Job done

Surely it's remove the cockpit clock and ashtrays, the first being done as Pilots are issued with watches, think it was the Neptune or Washington wasn't it?

[NutLoose]

RAF mock up of the Anglicised Wedgetail


Shackleton-5 by Tony Taylor, on Flickr

[PPRuNeUser0139]

Originally Posted by Wensleydale

Although built at the end of the 80s, the mission system was designed at the end of the 1970s,

The mission system was actually designed in the late 60s. Westinghouse successfully demonstrated their airborne radar tracking capability in '72.
The sorry tale of the E-3D programme is an object lesson in how to mismanage a valuable capability.

[andrewn]

Originally Posted by Wensleydale

Although built at the end of the 80s, the mission system was designed at the end of the 1970s, and the current E-3D still uses the same computer etc. Bearing in mind that this is contemporary with the Spectrum 16 and the BBC B then you can see why it is getting difficult to find spares. Buying COTS instead of original designed equipment leads to a huge flight testing effort - the mission system is not only for the aircraft but has to give an appropriate service to other users and has safety implications for them as well. Despite its age, the Sentry is a marvellous piece of kit but unfortunately keeping it flying and finding appropriate 30 year old mission system spares etc is a bit of a headache - unless you can find a manufacturer with the capability of building antique computer equipment at a reasonable cost.

Agreed, and we all know why we are where we are with E-3D obsolesence issues. But, my point is that, surely a MLU, inc replacement of mission kit should be less expensive than a complete new purchase, of a different type with its own new mission system, bespoke support requirement/training and its own obsolesence issues (as per RAAF example above)? But maybe in this disposable age the sensible answer is buy new E-7's. Way above my knowledge level to be authoritative, just puzzles me that the default answer is so often to buy new and shiney...

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by andrewn

Agreed, and we all know why we are where we are with E-3D obsolesence issues. But, my point is that, surely a MLU, inc replacement of mission kit should be less expensive than a complete new purchase, of a different type with its own new mission system, bespoke support requirement/training and its own obsolesence issues (as per RAAF example above)?

You're missing the elephant in the room. It's not the price of the equipment - it's the cost of developing and integrating all the systems so that they work together seamlessly. Those with long memories will recall that the original Wedgetail aircraft developed for Australia delivered late and over budget - due entirely to the difficulties of doing all that integration of the various systems.
The benefit of buying an off the shelf solution is that all that development has already been done and paid for. Further, with a fleet of Wedgetail aircraft flying for several countries, the development costs of keeping all that kit up to date can be shared.
Of course, nearly all those benefits go away if they 'Anglicise' the Wedgetail - unless it's just a few token changes to make the politicians happy...

[RandomBlah]

Originally Posted by Pure Pursuit

Modified 737-800ERX. They start life as such and are converted part way through production.

Sorry Pure Persuit, but you are not correct.

The P-8A is intended to be just that from the start. The 737-800 fuselage is utilised with the 737-900 ER Wing, albeit with modified wingtips/winglets due to icing considerations. The whole lot is also significant strengthened due to the nature of the P-8As task. This is in contrast to the E-7 which utilises a 737-700 which is then converted. This can be seen by simply noting the sides of the fuselages on both aircraft, The E-7 demonstrates blanked passenger windows that illudes to its 700 series origins, while the P-8A is smooth with no evidence of converted windows that shows it is not a conversion.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

That capacious weapon bay must be a great asset.

[Wensleydale]

That capacious weapon bay must be a great asset.

You need somewhere to carry all of the BBQs after a deployment!

[Pontius Navigator]

I guess it will need a probe.

[Wensleydale]

I guess it will need a probe.

Not necessarily. The Boom was the preferred method on the Sentry and the training task of keeping flight decks double qualified on both boom and drogue was considerable and difficult at times.