Probably buy them, get them stripped out and leased to Ryanair like the Air Taker 330s!
|
Why no orders from the USAF?
|
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. |
Originally Posted by Brewster Buffalo
(Post 10427105)
Why no orders from the USAF?
|
It'd be hard to operate 'closely' with the Ozmates if they were to 'customise' it's capability.
|
Originally Posted by Buster Hyman
(Post 10427182)
It'd be hard to operate 'closely' with the Ozmates if they were to 'customise' it's capability.
|
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.
|
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. |
Originally Posted by weemonkey
(Post 10427110)
Isn't the ng line closed??
|
Originally Posted by camelspyyder
(Post 10427159)
Because their E-3 fleet is up to date having had full investment?
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. |
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. |
Aren't AWACS short lived these days - not like the last one we had
|
Originally Posted by Saintsman
(Post 10426682)
I wonder how much we are going to change the design so that it meets UK requirementto it.s?...
The good news is that the yanks really liked it when it was deployed to the ME |
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? |
Originally Posted by vascodegama
(Post 10427354)
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. P8, C17, E7, Rivet Joint plus interoperability with the USA would mean it makes sense. |
Originally Posted by VinRouge
(Post 10427430)
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. |
Originally Posted by vascodegama
(Post 10427440)
Making sense is one thing , just how do we think the contract change would go? |
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. |
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.
|
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! |
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:11. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.