|
RAF Start Talks on E-3D Replacement
RAF starts talks on E-3D AWACS replacement | Jane's 360 Key Points
According to senior UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) sources close to the project, the MoD’s Modernising Defence Programme (MDP) review is now considering the E-3D replacement issue. |
This will be interesting, given the state of the UK defence budget!
Would the RAF be prepared to downsize to the C-295 AEW: Or consider another Boeing such as the E-767 used by Japan or the 737-based Wedgetail, favoured by quite a few nationsl? Does the US have a plan for replacing its own E-3 fleet? Or NATOOTAN? |
|
Doesn't Add Up!
If the E-3D is 'oh so last century' and increasingly difficult to maintain, why have the USAF, French and NATO committed to the Block 40/45 upgrade? Doesn't add up. What I sense is someone wants a shiny new aeroplane.
There's a fair bit of doubtful information around about vulnerability to AWACS killer missiles and inability of the 'old technology' to detect hypersonic missiles. To the former I say get into airborne bistatic radar capability - perfectly practical now as when first proposed back in the 80s - and separate transmitter from receiver by as many miles as you like. That means the ARMs will target the (cheap and sacrificial) transmitter in something like a UAV. And to the latter, there's no single, wide area surveillance scanning radar capable of detecting and tracking a hypersonic missile at long enough range to do anything about it, and a new AESA antenna won't solve the problem - but airborne bistatic operation might, because the missile is likely to be an ARM (see first point). What daftness there is around. |
The UK E-3D was left to wither on the vine, with all too frequent cost-cutting and risk-taking leaving the aircraft so far behind in airworthiness, technology and sustainment that it's hard to see a way back for the youngest E-3 fleet. Chopping-up an expensive aircraft as a fun project was equally questionable. Cutting our losses and starting again is probably better and hopefully some lessons are learned by those who killed it with a thousand cuts. |
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
(Post 10151100)
The UK E-3D was left to wither on the vine, with all too frequent cost-cutting and risk-taking leaving the aircraft so far behind in airworthiness, technology and sustainment that it's hard to see a way back for the youngest E-3 fleet. Chopping-up an expensive aircraft as a fun project was equally questionable. Cutting our losses and starting again is probably better and hopefully some lessons are learned by those who killed it with a thousand cuts. |
Not Past It Yet
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
(Post 10151100)
The UK E-3D was left to wither on the vine, with all too frequent cost-cutting and risk-taking leaving the aircraft so far behind in airworthiness, technology and sustainment that it's hard to see a way back for the youngest E-3 fleet. Chopping-up an expensive aircraft as a fun project was equally questionable. Cutting our losses and starting again is probably better and hopefully some lessons are learned by those who killed it with a thousand cuts. That aircraft cost around £150m when it arrived in 1993. How anyone came to the conclusion it was better as scrap after minor damage than be fixed and returned to service is beyond comprehension. I'm amazed it hasn't been raised by the Defence Select Committee as a point of egregious, shocking waste for which someone should be held accountable. As for the fleet being, perhaps, too far gone; I doubt it. If we can bring 50+ year old Airseeker airframes back from the boneyard to airworthy condition, and that the 6 remaining E-3Ds are still flying, there's not much that can't be fixed. Certainly the Block 40/45 upgrade would rejuvenate the fleet for another 20-30 years - and would also do as we said we would at the outset: keep our aircraft aligned with the global fleet and so save on development and upgrade costs. Someone forgot that bit by the look of it when they cancelled our Project Eagle (40/45 upgrade). Crackers! |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10151016)
the service’s ageing and unreliable fleet Things just don't last as long as they used to. |
The Rivet Joint weren't from the bone yard, they were all active KC-135 airframes up until they arrived at Greenville for conversion and were the "newest" KC airframes available. The problem with the E3D isn't just the airframe, the mission system has also been allowed to fall behind in capability.
|
The RJs were not boneyard aircraft - they were in-service KC-135s. Their airworthiness (or otherwise), sustainment and upgrade cycle is managed by the USAF and not an intellectually bereft DE&S senior leadership team.
The failure to keep the E-3D in the wider E-3 fleet block upgrade program was a major mistake. Trying to keep the E-3D ticking with in-house resources was to the considerable credit to those directly involved but overly optimistic and manpower intensive. Having a new clueless DE&S senior leadership team wondering why the (UK specific) support team was so massive when compared to other PTs, before promptly offering them up as a saving measure, was just barking mad. This left the UK not just on its own with a unique fleet, with no economies of scale, but suddenly with no UK-specific team to keep the platform going. The switch of support contractors and single track maintenance did the rest. |
Over on the Royal Air Force forum on ARRSE there is a thread about this.
Replacement AWACS See the input of a certain well known RAF PPRuNer who is seldom seen in these parts due to trolling and whataboutery. |
I do wonder whether a replacement for the E-3D needs to be in its image, or even crewed to the same extent (or in the same way).
There is plenty of evidence, even at Waddington itself, of remote operations, keeping pink bodies in the UK. The back end operators could stay on the ground and be available to operate alongside the desperately undermanned teams in the CRCs - and with the right comms in place, they could operate from the CRCs themselves. Awaits incoming. |
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
(Post 10151150)
The RJs were not boneyard aircraft - they were in-service KC-135s. Their airworthiness (or otherwise), sustainment and upgrade cycle is managed by the USAF and not an intellectually bereft DE&S senior leadership team.
The failure to keep the E-3D in the wider E-3 fleet block upgrade program was a major mistake. Trying to keep the E-3D ticking with in-house resources was to the considerable credit to those directly involved but overly optimistic and manpower intensive. Having a new clueless DE&S senior leadership team wondering why the (UK specific) support team was so massive when compared to other PTs, before promptly offering them up as a saving measure, was just barking mad. This left the UK not just on its own with a unique fleet, with no economies of scale, but suddenly with no UK-specific team to keep the platform going. The switch of support contractors and single track maintenance did the rest. |
Originally Posted by SirToppamHat
(Post 10151227)
I do wonder whether a replacement for the E-3D needs to be in its image, or even crewed to the same extent (or in the same way).
There is plenty of evidence, even at Waddington itself, of remote operations, keeping pink bodies in the UK. The back end operators could stay on the ground and be available to operate alongside the desperately undermanned teams in the CRCs - and with the right comms in place, they could operate from the CRCs themselves. Awaits incoming. |
"Back end operators"? Ooh ello Mr Horne... It actually looks like things are headed in a good direction. And AEW is not Joint STARS. Some stand-off is possible. |
Wedgetail looks to have been maturing nicely in Australian hands, with some fairly major early teething troubles now apparently ironed out and the system reportedly working well, having achieved FOC in 2015. It's currently undergoing a major programme of further upgrades, due to be completed in 2022. What I don't know is how closely what the Wedgetail offers compares with what the UK would want, but on the face of it the timing could be propitious and the degree of commonality with P8 advantageous too. As to cost, Turkey paid $US 1.6 bn for its 4 examples and Australia probably something comparable for its initial 4 - although subsequently exercising its option for 2 more apparently cost less than $US 300m. Worth a close look as one of the options, I'd have thought.
|
ZH105 was probably retired for a reason…. It was subsequent used for NDT airframe testing and its now used for Evac training IIRC
And at least 2 others may have benefitted from its retirement as well, one of them being the one that took a hit from the towing trainer The French do rather well looking after a country bigger than ours with only 4. |
NATO have lost one E3A in an accident. Two have been removed from service, and another one is going to the boneyard next year, these three have been sacrificed to save money on what we used to call Major servicing.
|
The NE-3A Component received its first ac in 1980. All 7 E-3Ds were delivered by early 1992.
|
Big savings on the crew as well - almost half that of the E3D. The Wedgetail uses 2 pilots and between 6-10 mission crew. It would possibly see a change in the numbers and type of rear crew we need as well. Would it be the catalyst to finally take the Airborne Fighter Controllers into the aircrew fold rather than the ridiculous set up where none of them want to be promoted to Sqn Ldr as they will take a pay cut!!! Also, that would be the end of the Air Engineer and the final aircraft to operate with a Air Navigator, in a true navigation role, would be the RJ. Also, with the Sentinel OSD looming then there will be no more Airborne Imagery Analysts (IAs). it’s time to rationalise the Branch again into a much tidier Pilot/WSO/WSOp cadre and get rid of the “non-aircrew” fudges (FC, IA and AT) - if you operate the aircraft and the capabilities within in it then you should be called Aircrew as either a Pilot, WSO or WSOp. If you don’t then you aren’t Aircrew - it really is that simple! |
The first NATO E-3 was delivered in January 1982, the remainder by the end of 1985 after fitting out at Oberpfaffenhofen.
|
Apologies, I stand corrected..
|
Easy enough mistake to make, especially as the NAEWF was established with the status of an HQ in 1980.
|
Wedgetail is coming back to RIAT for 2nd time in a row
https://www.airtattoo.com/airshow/ai...irmed-aircraft |
With all the comments about whether ground branch personnel are or are not aircrew.... it is interesting to read Wg Cdr Jefford's excellent book about rear crew training through the ages. It seems that flying badges should be submitted to the Palace for approval by the Sovereign, but the last flying badge to be so approved was the "AE" flying badge in 1957. Flying badges since then have not gone through the correct approval and a state of confusion now exists as to whether the QM, LM, FC, and AT badges are indeed authorised for wear on uniform. This progresses further to the WSO/WSOp flying badge which also has not been correctly authorised. Indeed, at the time of the first award of the FC Brevet at Lossiemouth, responsibility for awarding flying badges was held by Air Officer Training at HQ Support Command and his feathers were ruffled when it was learned that AOC 11 Gp had been pinning an unknown variety of badge on chests at Lossiemouth. (As said by a reporter at the first FC badge award ceremony..."Is this FC Brevet an Italian football team?"). Jefford also states that when the RPAS "pilot wings" were considered, it would seem that having neglected to follow correct procedure since the 1960s, the RAF no longer had any idea of how to go about this. Even after the College of Arms became involved, a procedure was just made up by Air Command. A FOI request to the RAF stated that the "paperwork authorising the flying badges does not exist". At the end of the day, the RAF High Command stated that the badge was to be worn without the required approval. It is still all as clear as mud as evidenced by the two sides of A4 that Jefford uses to describe the total confusion and (in some cases) pig headedness) as to who authorises the badges and indeed if they are official at all.
|
The way things are going with regard to Rear Crew training, it might be that the only "aircrew" in the future will be the Pilot, with personnel filling flying duties in the other roles in the aircraft based on specialist knowledge from ground trades. Harks back to the early days of the RAF, where the chap that fired the guns was an armourer who happened to be flying that day. It'll save on pay and training costs; the Bean Counters will love it even though it will mean a drop in effectiveness.
|
Nice post Wensleydale - all except for the word “Brevet”. As you will know in Jeff Jefford’s excellent book, the use of the word “Flying Badge” is the correct term; the “brevet” is actually the certificate that goes with the Flying Badge! We’ve been getting that wrong too, for years! |
Thanks TBW. I tried to be careful but one slipped through! Perhaps though this is the RAF plan - by calling it a Brevet rather than a Flying Badge then it does not have to follow Flying Badge rules for approval?
|
Only really three options - upgrade Sentry, possibly reducing number of airframes to save costs, buy Wedgetail, or get out the AEW&C game.
Other options (e.g. RPV/UAV, CN235 etc are probably either too far in the future or too much a drop in capability) |
"Only really three options"
You forgot the fourth option which is to cancel the Sentry and join the NATO Component of the AEW&C Force by sending crews to Geilenkirchen (Which is where we were going to be in the late 70s, although the aircraft would not have been at GK). |
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
(Post 10151184)
Over on the Royal Air Force forum on ARRSE there is a thread about this.
Replacement AWACS See the input of a certain well known RAF PPRuNer who is seldom seen in these parts due to trolling and whataboutery. However our mission workloads demand a lot more......maybe the easy answer is Wedgetail based on commonality? cheers |
Originally Posted by GlosMikeP
(Post 10151133)
Cutting up ZH105 was a seriously bad decision. https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/full_si...2838-large.jpg
That aircraft cost around £150m when it arrived in 1993. How anyone came to the conclusion it was better as scrap after minor damage than be fixed and returned to service is beyond comprehension. I'm amazed it hasn't been raised by the Defence Select Committee as a point of egregious, shocking waste for which someone should be held accountable. As for the fleet being, perhaps, too far gone; I doubt it. If we can bring 50+ year old Airseeker airframes back from the boneyard to airworthy condition, and that the 6 remaining E-3Ds are still flying, there's not much that can't be fixed. Certainly the Block 40/45 upgrade would rejuvenate the fleet for another 20-30 years - and would also do as we said we would at the outset: keep our aircraft aligned with the global fleet and so save on development and upgrade costs. Someone forgot that bit by the look of it when they cancelled our Project Eagle (40/45 upgrade). Crackers! Wedgtail or bust. It’s a great capability and would take us forward with airborne C2 until 2045. |
Could the Wedgetail 737 airframe and systems be updated to also carry the AN/APS-154 the P-8 has been carrying in trials in addition to the standard fit? |
Why not use it with P8 instead?
|
Originally Posted by VinRouge
(Post 10158569)
Why not use it with P8 instead?
Far better to bite the bullet and get something off the shelf that you know works and you can get quickly Which is pretty much what we did with the E3, the Rivet Joint & the P-8 - no-one wants to risk another Nimrod fiasco.................... |
RAAF Boeing E-7A Wedgetail recently conducted the longest mission of the type in the ME Theatre. Launched for a four [4+] hour plus sortie and wound up flying with multiple IFR's for more than nineteen [19+] hours straight....
|
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.” |
It's déja vu all over again innit..
|
Wedgetail or GlobalEye. it will be yet another type that can't be aerial refuelled with the Voyager.
With the prospect of an RAF F-35A buy in the offing also, we must be close to the point where the UK has as many types that it can't refuel as it can - F-35A (maybe); Wedgetail / GlobalEye (maybe); C-17; Voyager; P-8; RC-135; and Sentinel just off the top of my head. Sure there are others to add. |
Ultimately, we have to go for an option that can be built, tested, proven and then delivered in a realistic timeframe. I can’t see the MoD going for an Airbus ‘concept’ in any way shape or form. The development costings and time in order to get it to where we would need it to be would be massive. Wedgtail works.... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:43. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.