Its odd that although the requirement is supposedly urgent, the contract is not expected to be signed before 2023 and the first prototype is not expected before 2027 and be followed by a second prototype which suggested that some significant changes from the current baseline are planned . Unless they change the airframe these changes are most likely to be updates and additions to the mission system.. An airframe change would require a complete aircraft re certification/qualification even if the mission system is not substantially changed. But 4 years between contract placement and first 'prototype' does not align with the UK build program for the first in service aircraft so something must be changing Some of the extra time could be down to setting up a proper conversion line for about 15 aircraft rather than the ad hoc approach needed for just 3 UK aircraft.. Also the US E3s may have certain US only equipment which will need to be added to the baseline if still required. Its difficult to see the US programme impacting the 3 UK E7s except for possible updates in about 10 years time. For the UK its difficult to see where the budget would come from for additional aircraft and the RAF will not want to support 2 extra aircraft at a different standard. But of course the same view was taken when we bought the E3 and it was assumed that the RAF would keep its fleet of E3Ds up to date with the US/NATO E3s. It could have happened but MOD managed to kill it off and our E3s struggled with availability in the end.

More on it here, I just hope the programme runs better than the 767 tanker one.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ace-aging-e-3s

Had the pleasure of working with the Aussie Wedgetail whilst on Shader. Great platform.

One change from the E7A seems to be the introduction of an Open architecture software to the Mission System . I guess the existing system architecture is propriety. That will require extensive thread testing to ensure nothing has changed - much of this could be done by automatic test programmes but it will take time particularly requireing combination of threads to be tested to ensure correct behaviour. This may be the first upgrade which the RAF E7 will be looking for to take advantage of future system updates..

The Wedgetail and P8 are built on a dedicated production line in Renton - separate from the MAX production lines (originally done for ITAR purposes). So final production slots are not a concern. There are long lead items (up to two years for some) and since there are meaningful airframe differences between the NG and the MAX that will tend to dictate the production schedule. The fuselage is built in Wichita and shipped to Renton as a largely finished assembly - while there are naturally differences between the -700 and -800 fuselage, they are built on the same tooling. So the fact that the -700 isn't currently in production is not a significant issue.

The bid deal with an AWACS type airplane is the electronics system integration - not just getting all the systems to work seamlessly together - preventing ElectroMagnetic Interference (EMI) between systems is a big challenge.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023...-e-7-aircraft/

US Air Force awards Boeing first contract for fleet of 26 E-7 aircraft

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has awarded Boeing a contract worth up to $1.2 billion to start work on the first E-7A battle management and command-and-control aircraft, with plans to field a fleet of 26 in total, the service said Tuesday…

The contract award paves the way for production on the first rapid prototype E-7 to begin in FY25, and for the Air Force to field it two years later. The service said it plans to procure 24 more E-7 aircraft by FY32, on its way to acquiring a total fleet of 26.…

I wonder how much gold plating and other changes from a basically good and successful platform the USAF is demanded for the E-7A.
If it's minimal, then it should be a good, successful program.
Otherwise, it's apt to turn into another multi-billion dollar cluster:mad:.

They are getting the A version. I look at it as, there is going to be more money in the pot. For updates with AU and UK.

Four years minim um to field a copy............................... as Tdracer says that looks liek a lot of gold plating

I think he is very generous to refer to the 3 the UK has on order as a “fleet”….

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023...o-get-the-e-7/

‘The ability to stare’: Why the US Air Force is eager to get the E-7

…..The U.S. version of the E-7 will be similar to the three Boeing is now building for the U.K., particularly in terms of the air frame, sensor and mission equipment, though the U.S. Air Force made unique requests Boeing declined to specify.

Boeing wants the E-7 fleet to be largely interoperable so it’s easier and cheaper to upgrade different nations’ fleets…..

But Boeing officials reiterated the Air Force’s statements that not much can be done to rapidly accelerate the process of acquiring new E-7s. While the U.K. purchased used planes to convert into its E-7s, Meranda said there’s not many more used airframes available to adapt into additional E-7s…

Can’t order off the shelf - has to be bespoke….

I can understand Boeing playing hardball, they’ve lost a fortune on all their recent fixed price contracts, and this is a sellers’ market…..

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024...-negotiations/

Tricky E-7 adaptations complicate U.S. Air Force, Boeing negotiations

DENVER, Colo. — The Air Force’s desired adaptations to Boeing’s E-7A battlefield management aircraft are proving to be harderthan expected and complicating price negotiations, top service officials said Tuesday.

“We’re having a hard time with [the E-7 program], getting price agreement with Boeing,” Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told reporters in a roundtable at the Air and Space Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium here. “We’re still in negotiations with them, and that’s not been finalized yet.”…..

Andrew Hunter, the Air Force’s assistant secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said in another roundtable the sticky negotiations center on the E-7′s first two rapid prototype aircraft.

The level of engineering work needed to adapt the E-7 to the Air Force’s specifications was “above and beyond what we anticipated,” Hunter said.

“The big surprise there was an unexpected amount and degree of non-recurring engineering required to meet the requirement that the Air Force specified, which we thought was very close to what the U.K. is currently procuring from Boeing,” Hunter said. “Those discussions have been challenging.”….

As I posted earlier, messing with the avionics - especially on something as electrically complicated as an AWACS type aircraft - is a minefield. Getting everything to talk to each other - and do it without any interference to other systems - is really hard with tons of uncertainty.
With all the losses Boeing has taken recently, perhaps they had a heart-to-heart talk with the contracts people about how much 'minor' changes can cost.
Many years ago, we had a nightmare on the 767/CF6-80C2 when sales gave a guarantee to some small operator that their fancy new 767s could take off from a particular island runway with a full load on a hot day. Simple - thrust bump, right? Except 'thrust bumps' for sea level are a nightmare - because if you exceed the max SL thrust of the engine listed in the TCDS, they need to recertify the entire engine to that new thrust level - mega bucks (probably 9 figures).:eek:
After looking at a number of options, it was concluded that the cheapest, easiest, and fastest solution was for Boeing pay to have the runway extended...:ugh:

I wonder if the NAEW&C Force is expected to get an identical model to the US one or is the reference to E-7A generic? Or one on the same common development pathway as the RAAF and RAF? Not doing one or he other would seem insane.

In either case presumably they will be expected to bear some of the development costs.

Given AUKUS, I would say it would be a common pathway.

I had forgotten this https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Disp...ational-air-t/ . Andrew Hunter's statement suggests the USAF and the DoD were naïve in their understanding of the divergence 'U.S. satellite communication, military GPS and cybersecurity and program protection requirements' et al implied, before the agreement on 'cooperation relating to Wedgetail capability development, evaluation and testing, interoperability, sustainment, operations, training, and safety.' was finalized..