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

UK orders Boeing E7...

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.

UK orders Boeing E7...

Old 22nd Mar 2019, 22:25
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,102
I wonder what they will do with the AWAC, sell them on?

i take it they will need to modified to hose and drogue for RAF Service.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2019, 23:05
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 558
Originally Posted by Brewster Buffalo View Post
Why no orders from the USAF?
Because their E-3 fleet is up to date having had full investment?
camelspyyder is online now  
Old 22nd Mar 2019, 23:43
  #23 (permalink)  

Evertonian
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 9,837
It'd be hard to operate 'closely' with the Ozmates if they were to 'customise' it's capability.
Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2019, 23:57
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW UK
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by Buster Hyman View Post
It'd be hard to operate 'closely' with the Ozmates if they were to 'customise' it's capability.
737 lacks the range to operate with the Aussies closely regardless of capability!
​​​​​​
switch_on_lofty is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 01:05
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Canberra
Posts: 4
I think what we are getting at here is that the RAF and RAAF will operate closely in Coalition type Ops (read ME) and given membership of the Five Eyes community, information sharing will be ongoing.
HK144 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 01:59
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
What is more important is buying into the continuous upgrades... share the cost between the RAF/RAAF and avoid having the sustainment problem the E3D became.
flighthappens is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 02:53
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,418
Originally Posted by weemonkey View Post
Isn't the ng line closed??
No, it's not. And there are no current plans to shut down the NG line - there are still commercial NG deliveries scheduled, and the NG will remain the basis for the P-7 and P-8 indefinitely.

tdracer is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 06:25
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by camelspyyder View Post
Because their E-3 fleet is up to date having had full investment?
USAF’s E-3C/G fleet is managing a very similar serviceability rate as the RAF jets. They have not been fully invested in at all in terms of the airframe.

There’s absolutely no point installing block 40/45 if you’re not going to do something about extending the life of the airframe. Bad times at Tinker.
Pure Pursuit is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 07:10
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 377

i take it they will need to modified to hose and drogue for RAF Service.

NL

That is not the plan with the P8 so why this ac? Pity we chose PFI convenience over STANAG compliance.
vascodegama is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 09:27
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Norfolk swamps
Age: 52
Posts: 155
Aren't AWACS short lived these days - not like the last one we had
JagRigger is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 09:37
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: au
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by Saintsman View Post
I wonder how much we are going to change the design so that it meets UK requirementto it.s?...
Probably not a lot, It should come with a pie warmer as a standard fit. We were not big on the US Foreman grill. Hopefully the MOU has been written up properly and we can get a percent on FMS sales. To recover some of our developmental investment. We sunk a lot of money into it to fix it. It was a problematic programme.

The good news is that the yanks really liked it when it was deployed to the ME

Last edited by golder; 23rd Mar 2019 at 10:03.
golder is online now  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 09:50
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 728
I am a bit out of touch but assuming the E7 is purchased how many RAF aircraft will require a Boom for AAR?

But the MOD considers Air Tanker fit for purpose and the people whose promotions floated on Air Tanker are now comfortably retired and working as non execs somewhere in the MIC?
Bigpants is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 09:51
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,011
Originally Posted by vascodegama View Post

i take it they will need to modified to hose and drogue for RAF Service.

NL

That is not the plan with the P8 so why this ac? Pity we chose PFI convenience over STANAG compliance.
we could swap out a few of those hose and drogues for boomers....

P8, C17, E7, Rivet Joint plus interoperability with the USA would mean it makes sense.
VinRouge is online now  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 10:05
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 377
Originally Posted by VinRouge View Post

we could swap out a few of those hose and drogues for boomers....

P8, C17, E7, Rivet Joint plus interoperability with the USA would mean it makes sense.
Making sense is one thing , just how do we think the contract change would go?
vascodegama is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 10:10
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,200
Originally Posted by vascodegama View Post
Making sense is one thing , just how do we think the contract change would go?
Offload some drogue-only airframes to a consortium of European nations looking to increase AAR capacity and replace with new-build boom-equipped variants was the rough plan, I thought...
Easy Street is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 11:21
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,012
From a pedantic spotter PoV the "E-7" marketing name is annoying. The next in the official MDS sequence is actually E-12, but no US service has applied for that since none use this derivative.

Boeing should really have known that since the original E-7 was a 707 derivative, later redesignated EC-18B.

The MoD is actually contracting for five 737-7ES, which of course have a different airframe than the 737-8FV ( Poseidon ).

Spotting mode off.
El Bunto is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 12:06
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 264
As I've posted elsewhere, this strikes me as unalloyed good news. The Australians have spent a lot of time and effort over the last few years ironing out all the bugs and maturing the E7 into what by all accounts is a superb capability. Building on that, the aircraft is also currently being put through an A$580m upgrade programme, all the phases of which are due to be fully rolled out by mid 2022. Perfect timing. Unusually, we have (and are taking) the opportunity to step in at precisely the right time and benefit from all these hard yards having been done. It will deliver a huge uplift in capability - great outcome. Assuming of course that we don't b*gger it up by insisting on UK customisation (pie warmer aside), but I think that lesson has finally been learned (witness C17 and P8) and I doubt we'll have that problem here.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 13:54
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 377
Easy

So do we go for the MRTT -the only boom version at the moment ? What would that do for the contract? Not my PFI but I suspect that would complicate the 3PR side of things somewhat, hence would be a very expensive contract change.

Do we go for boom addition to a Voyager-this would be a new version so who pays for the development?

Who would we dump the existing frames on- I thought that the europeans wanted a tanker with both systems.

Just remind me what PFI stands for!
vascodegama is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 15:00
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,475
Just remind me what PFI stands for!
As the Australian who'd been working on FSTA with the civil serpents at Shabby Wood allegedly remarked upon her return to Oz: "PFI? Poms are F*****g Idiots!",

BEagle is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 15:02
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,200
Originally Posted by vascodegama View Post
Easy

So do we go for the MRTT -the only boom version at the moment ? What would that do for the contract? Not my PFI but I suspect that would complicate the 3PR side of things somewhat, hence would be a very expensive contract change.

Do we go for boom addition to a Voyager-this would be a new version so who pays for the development?

Who would we dump the existing frames on- I thought that the europeans wanted a tanker with both systems.

Just remind me what PFI stands for!
Not sure why you draw a distinction between Voyager and (A330) MRTT - the former is a subset of the latter. A boom-equipped variant is already in service with the RAAF. My understanding was that it would be a small number of frames and they would stay permanently in the ‘grey’ fleet to avoid the 3PR issue. As to customers for the drogue Voyagers, I thought there was a consortium involving the Dutch and others who intended to push all the capacity into the EATC/MCCE (or whatever!) to trade against airlift requirements....?
Easy Street 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.