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 23rd Mar 2019, 14:47
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,574
Who would we dump the existing frames on- I thought that the europeans wanted a tanker with both systems.
Having spoken to AirTanker on the subject they tell me it is not a major undertaking to fit booms to the Voyager. That said, we might want additional tankers to cover the additional receivers, perhaps.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 15:23
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 371
mw-dont know who you spoke to but another individual told me we had missed the boat for that part of the contract change. We should n't need additional tankers since the numbers were based on a much larger no of receivers anyway. As for keeping some ac grey only-what affect does/would that have on ac rotation throughout the contract period ?

Easy-cant see why the Dutch would want a 2 pt probe and drogue tanker since their FJ fleet is boom. The one nation that I did hear spoken about was Spain but that seems to have gone quiet. From what I gather it is all too late without a lot of dosh being spent (contact renewal, mods etc, additional training etc) and I cant see that happening anytime soon.

Bottom line as far as I can see is that we are stuck in our present situation and no government is going to auth the extra dosh to rectify things (except comrade Jeremy who has promised to bring PFI's back into public ownership).
vascodegama is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 22:06
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 397
E-7A designation origin

Originally Posted by El Bunto View Post
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 E-7 designation for Wedgetail was nothing to do with Boeing, but came about from ideas and research within 2SQN RAAF. The original E-7 aircraft was a one-off experimental aircraft that never went into operational service, and hence, E-7 seemed a good choice. Approval was sought and gained from the US to use the designation officially, but by the time that approval was granted, we had bought 2000 Squadron Prints with the E-7A designation on it, and the name was in common use!

Y_G

Yeller_Gait is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2019, 00:08
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Uk
Posts: 5
Excellent news.

Sadly the demise of the E-3D fleet commenced a long time ago, poor decisions over many years and under investment meant that the only option was to buy new.
Wedgetail seems to be the ideal solution, let's just hope there aren't significant delays with it entering service with the RAF.
BLURC2 is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2019, 04:52
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: au
Posts: 40
I haven't read your procurement process. I assume you looked at everything else available. You have had embedded or exchange crew on the E-7a for 6 months. You are going in with your eyes open. Although I think our pie warmer was the deciding factor.
golder is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2019, 08:03
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Uk
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by golder View Post
I haven't read your procurement process. I assume you looked at everything else available. You have had embedded or exchange crew on the E-7a for 6 months. You are going in with your eyes open. Although I think our pie warmer was the deciding factor.
There has been a lot of work done over the past 2 years or so ensuring wedgetail is right for the RAF. Going to open-market sometimes isn't the right option and with it, inevitably comes delays.
I know Saab were a bit, let's just say, less than happy with the way they went about the procurement but when money like this is involved someone is always going to end up feeling hard done by.
Given the state of the government in the UK at the moment, the treasury must 100%on side as getting them to part with ~$2 billion must have been a challenge!
BLURC2 is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2019, 10:10
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 465
What are benefits of co-locating the E-7 and P-8? As both are based on the 737NG, I can think of the following:
  • Single pool of flight crew.
  • Same flight simulator,
  • Maintenance commonality.
Perhaps this factor will create enough space at Waddington to have a bearing on the RAFAT basing?
Brain Potter is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2019, 11:26
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 598
[QUOTE][/QUOTE]I thought the usual UK method was to rip out all the perfectly good equipment, give loads of money to BAE to integrate an untested, questionable, mix of gear to get it to the proper level of UK content....



I understand the flight deck is being extended to fit in a navigator and flight engineer. Helps to give the bus drivers extra SA and capacity and keeps the TD in check when he suggests some absolutely stupid operation of the aircraft! ;-)

Last edited by Party Animal; 24th Mar 2019 at 11:28. Reason: quote marks not working
Party Animal is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2019, 12:41
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 15,938
Buy American.....Buy Boeing!


Love it!


SASless is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2019, 22:20
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,748
Originally Posted by El Bunto View Post
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

If I could persuade to go spotter mode on again - Iíve never heard of the E-7 you mention. There is obviously the E-6 TACAMO and the E-8 JOINT STARS (JSTARS), but never heard of an E-7 in this context. Have you any more detail?
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2019, 08:15
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 63
Posts: 3,731
I assume that even with a change of platform, the RAF is to continue to be a direct contributor to the NATO AEW&C Force?
Wensleydale is online now  
Old 25th Mar 2019, 17:01
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Uk
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by Brewster Buffalo View Post
Why no orders from the USAF?
Don't be so sure...
BLURC2 is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2019, 20:44
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 360
Talking about the NATO E-3s are there any plan for their replacement? Similarly the French?
Brewster Buffalo is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2019, 21:02
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 184
Originally Posted by Brewster Buffalo View Post
Talking about the NATO E-3s are there any plan for their replacement? Similarly the French?
I knew the NATO E-3s were being cycled through a MLU, seemingly to Block 40/45 standard - Nato E-3 MLU

And a little bit of Google research says the French are doing something similar - French E-3 MLU

I suspect I'm with many others in thinking that only the gross mis-management of our fleet has got us to the point where the newest E-3's in the world are the first to be scrapped...
andrewn is online now  
Old 25th Mar 2019, 21:12
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,141
Originally Posted by Brewster Buffalo View Post
Talking about the NATO E-3s are there any plan for their replacement? Similarly the French?
They'd invested in upgrades
Davef68 is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2019, 21:19
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,141
Originally Posted by Lima Juliet View Post

El Bunto

If I could persuade to go spotter mode on again - I’ve never heard of the E-7 you mention. There is obviously the E-6 TACAMO and the E-8 JOINT STARS (JSTARS), but never heard of an E-7 in this context. Have you any more detail?
E-7 was originally reserved for what became the EC-18 (Another 707 variant with a different designation - it ran through A to F subvariants.)

I wonder if there is a USAF type with as many differing designations as the 707 (C-137, E-3, C-18, E-6, E-8, CT-49)
Davef68 is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2019, 21:30
  #57 (permalink)  
XFC
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by andrewn View Post

I suspect I'm with many others in thinking that only the gross mis-management of our fleet has got us to the point where the newest E-3's in the world are the first to be scrapped...
Even taking into account the MLU the E-3 fleets are falling behind technologically. A mech scan radar on your C2 asset will only get you so far, and despite the bigger fleets of A/C/G, they are suffering the same rates of servicability. I think the RAF have been lucky rather than good here and managed to come out of a mismanaged programme with a better capability than most of our allies.
XFC is online now  
Old 26th Mar 2019, 04:51
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,811
mismanaged programme
If I may just say, there is a difference between mismanaging a well-resourced programme, and struggling to manage a poorly resourced one. When the AWACS through-life costs were bid for, this was a Service HQ responsibility. In the mid-90s, these HQ posts had long gone, and the work defaulted to whoever had the gumption to do it. Sometimes that was soemone in the HQ, more often it was a project manager in MoD(PE) (by which time it is far too late). In 1996, the Chief of Defence Procurement instructed his PE staff to cease doing this for the Services. Those few who knew how just ignored him; but by 1999, with the demise of MoD(PE), this work more or less ceased altogether. It so happens the AWACS programme had perhaps the best suited person for this, with vast experience across the Fleet Air Arm (having previously served in the RAF). If he couldn't persuade the 'system' to get it's act together, nobody could.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2019, 11:44
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 6
Unlikely that major cockpit modifications will be made.....but anything they do will be an improvement on the Sentry
onichols1 is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2019, 15:14
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 2,171
Have heard it referred to as the "surfboard" but guess that's also a bit too Aussie.

Had a chat with the Wedgetail crew at RIAT last year, who said they didn't come all that way not to spend a few days at Waddo aswell before returning home ;-)
Wycombe 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.