Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis  
User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Late Friday night a 965th AACS Tinker AFB E-3 at Nellis for Red Flag had a nose gear collapse during landing. Fire started and crew of 32 evac'd safely. Plane could be a write off. Only the second USAF E-3 loss after the Yukla bird in Alaska (and only 3rd ever after the NATO "overrun" loss)

I'm working on finding the tail number. Pictures are all over Facebook.


“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

forgot a picture:

http://www.vaq34.com/junk/nellisawacs001.jpg


http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=920290



“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

With that much fire damage I'd guess it was a broken hydraulic line in the nose wheel well is what prevented the nose gear from locking/delpoying... The fluid is what burned. I've seen nose gear landings before and you won't see that kind of damage


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1933 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 32767 times:

Looks like 0556, but I can't tell from the pic (God I hope it's 0009, that jet is the bane of my existence). My roommate from OTS was on that jet (I'm in another squadron), I'll see what all he can tell me without compromising the investigation.
Obviously, there's gonna be a LOT of inquiries going on here...I would ask that the hearsay and speculation be kept to a minimum...as my job MIGHT possibly depend on the outcome of this mishap investigation.


User currently offlineCross757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 3):
as my job MIGHT possibly depend on the outcome of this mishap investigation.

How is that, exactly? Seems like it was a mechanical malfunction. There might possibly be some pilot error involved if a checklist was not followed properly (i.e. they knew of a possible malfunction prior to landing). Let's not over-sensationalize this, please.

The most important thing is that all of the crew seem to be safe...worrying about losing any jobs at this stage is pointless and may I respectfully say somewhat irresponsible.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 32767 times:

I'm hearing from Crew Chief buds it was 83-0008, It will take alot to write it off, I can imagine they are thinking about taking a old 707 nose piece at the 360 production break and mate it with the E-3 then rewire and replumb.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Cross757 (Reply 4):
How is that, exactly? Seems like it was a mechanical malfunction. There might possibly be some pilot error involved if a checklist was not followed properly (i.e. they knew of a possible malfunction prior to landing). Let's not over-sensationalize this, please.

According to the grapevine it was the pilot flaring late or not at all and landing on the nose gear first blowing the nose tires and sending the main gear through the wing. Being a mx troop I would call that a hard landing. But never believe the first reports they are usally wrong.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineCross757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 6):
Being a mx troop I would call that a hard landing.

I agree...that would be a case of PILOT error. IF that is indeed what happened, then I would say that the PILOT flying that approach and landing might possibly have their job at stake and/or their job might depend on the outcome of the investigation. However, I don't understand why someone, who was not part of the crew, who wasn't even there, who based on their profile is NOT a pilot, would suggest that THEIR job "might possibly depend on the outcome of the investigation". I would like to understand how that might be the case.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 6):
According to the grapevine it was the pilot flaring late or not at all and landing on the nose gear first blowing the nose tires and sending the main gear through the wing. Being a mx troop I would call that a hard landing. But never believe the first reports they are usally wrong.

Correct, please don't put much faith in these early assumptions, as they are often wrong. A late landing flair could also be for wind related reasons, or caused by an unexpected wind gust as the pilot attempted to flair.

Did the MLG break into the wing? If so, that would be a write-off in most cases. But, looking at the pictures, it does not seem like that happened, at least not in a major damage way as the AWACS is sitting on in a "normal" atitidude for no NLG. I guess the E-3s have enough nose ballest to keep the tail up if the NLG fails, as that frisby weighs a lot.

In the KC-135Q, we had about 850 lbs of nose ballest as we could off-load all foreward and aft body fuel tanks (if carrying JP-7) to the SR-71s. In the KC-135A, we kept 3000 lbs to 5000 lbs of fuel in the forward body tank for weight and balance as the KC-135 was natuerally tail heavy.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Did the MLG break into the wing? If so, that would be a write-off in most cases. But, looking at the pictures, it does not seem like that happened, at least not in a major damage way as the AWACS is sitting on in a "normal" atitidude for no NLG. I guess the E-3s have enough nose ballest to keep the tail up if the NLG fails, as that frisby weighs a lot.

The E-3 with no fuel onboard is tail heavy and requires a 5000 lb ballast weight tethered to its nose jack pad to tow it. If just parked and not being towed the acft will sit on its nose gear fine. Before the 30/35 mod you always had to have the ballast on the nose or at least 6000 lbs of fuel in center wing to keep forward CG. If this was just another -135 yes I would agree with you that would be a write off but there has been just as bad damage in recent history of landing incidents to 2 C-17s at Bagram and a B-1 at Diego. These acft have been repaired or still in the process. Having had practical knowledge of performing E-3 mx at Nellis which is strictly a fighter base you are looking at a logistical nightmare to get everything there to repair this acft for 1 time flight back to Tinker or a Boeing facility for a complete repair. Everytime we had a acft with gear problems at LSV we always had to safety wire the landing gear pins in for a geardown flight back to Tinker. If the Keal beams and the wing spars are undamaged I say repair it.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 3):
Looks like 0556, but I can't tell from the pic (God I hope it's 0009, that jet is the bane of my existence). My roommate from OTS was on that jet (I'm in another squadron), I'll see what all he can tell me without compromising the investigation.
Obviously, there's gonna be a LOT of inquiries going on here...I would ask that the hearsay and speculation be kept to a minimum...as my job MIGHT possibly depend on the outcome of this mishap investigation.

As we discussed once in COMM AV I was a Senior Director on the E-3 for several years, and for the life of me cannot fathom how the outcome of this investigation could affect your carrer (not being flipant, I am truly curious) or any other crew members except the 5 in the cockpit for landing (seat 5 would have been occupied during this landing), and even then just the PIC at the time most of all.

As for Balls 8, it was a POS-almost as bad as Balls 9. It was funny how the two "newest" E-3s were some of the worst whereas the oldest mods were great.

That must have been some hard landing since the E-3 was designed to land with almost no flair to begin with.



“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 9):
Everytime we had a acft with gear problems at LSV we always had to safety wire the landing gear pins in for a geardown flight back to Tinker. If the Keal beams and the wing spars are undamaged I say repair it.

Normally correct. You are also right about the B-1B and two C-17As, but all of them were all gear up landings, and usually produce less damage than one with no NLG, or one where the NLG collapses during the landing. Recently an AA B-767-300ER in maintenance at the AA maintenance hub in TUL had the NLG collapse during maintenance work, no jet taxiing,or anything, but she broke her keel beam. Yes, I know the drop is a lot higher on a B-767 than a B-707.

My concern is the fire, even though it was extinguished quicly, all that sheet metal and the stringers, and possibly that portion of the keel beam will need to be replaced just from the heat stress, let alone the damage from falling and sliding on the runway.

Do we know how far the AWACS slid on the runway before coming to a stop? The accident investigators will measure that based on the scars on the runway.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Normally correct. You are also right about the B-1B and two C-17As, but all of them were all gear up landings, and usually produce less damage than one with no NLG, or one where the NLG collapses during the landing. Recently an AA B-767-300ER in maintenance at the AA maintenance hub in TUL had the NLG collapse during maintenance work, no jet taxiing,or anything, but she broke her keel beam. Yes, I know the drop is a lot higher on a B-767 than a B-707.

My concern is the fire, even though it was extinguished quicly, all that sheet metal and the stringers, and possibly that portion of the keel beam will need to be replaced just from the heat stress, let alone the damage from falling and sliding on the runway.

Do we know how far the AWACS slid on the runway before coming to a stop? The accident investigators will measure that based on the scars on the runway.

I believe one of them C-17's totally went off the runway and had main and nose gears ripped off. If the fire has damaged structure it is possible to graft a whole new nose section fwd from the 360 production break from a doner acft at KDMA. But would like to see up close pictures to better understand extent of damage. I imagine the first thing that will be done after it is moved it will be jacked and cribbed and a total -6 hard landing checklist will be performed going hand in hand with NDI after the investigators are through with it. After that inspection then a determination will be done to procede with repairs. I believe there is a magic number of cost if it excedes that number it will be scraped even if repair is possible.
I will be hooked to my grapevine tonight to see if anything else has surfaced.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Recently an AA B-767-300ER in maintenance at the AA maintenance hub in TUL had the NLG collapse during maintenance work,

I thought this occured at Alliance - AFW


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 12):
I believe there is a magic number of cost if it excedes that number it will be scraped even if repair is possible.

Yes, there is a "not to exceed dollar amount, or write it off". But with the high value of the E-3C (or has 83-0008 been brought up to the E-3G standard?), and the fact there are only 32 of them, after the loss of 77-0354 in Alaska.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 13):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Recently an AA B-767-300ER in maintenance at the AA maintenance hub in TUL had the NLG collapse during maintenance work,

I thought this occured at Alliance - AFW

Maybe I got the maintenance facility wrong?


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 9):
If the Keal beams and the wing spars are undamaged I say repair it.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
NLG collapse during maintenance work, no jet taxiing,or anything, but she broke her keel beam.

How would the keel beam be damaged/bent by collapses of the nose gear?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 15):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
NLG collapse during maintenance work, no jet taxiing,or anything, but she broke her keel beam.

How would the keel beam be damaged/bent by collapses of the nose gear?

I am not sure how it happened, I just read that it did.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 32767 times:

I guess it is still on the runway with a NOTAM out until Sept 4 for disabled acft at the 6000' mark on runway 21L.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 17):
I guess it is still on the runway with a NOTAM out until Sept 4 for disabled acft at the 6000' mark on runway 21L.

Yeah, they won't move it until the accident investigators finish their examination of the damage. Nellis has two runways, so it is not a big problem.


User currently offlineBoeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1029 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Recently an AA B-767-300ER in maintenance at the AA maintenance hub in TUL had the NLG collapse during maintenance work, no jet taxiing,or anything, but she broke her keel beam.

It was AFW not TUL, and no broken keel airplane is being repaired and will be back in the air by end of Oct.

David



Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Does anyone know what a "keel beam" is and where it is located?

User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 20):
Does anyone know what a "keel beam" is and where it is located?

Keel beam runs the length of the aircraft and provides its structural support, just like the keel of a ship, it runs the bottom of the aircraft.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 21):
Keel beam runs the length of the aircraft and provides its structural support, just like the keel of a ship, it runs the bottom of the aircraft.

That's what I though, most people have no Idea what a keel beam is.

It is stringers that run the length of the aircraft, providing longitudinal structure support.

I suggest reviewing the following from the Tech/Ops forums:

Keel Beams? (by TSS Aug 8 2009 in Tech Ops)

Since the keel beam/beams extend only slightly forward and aft of the wing, it is unlikely they would be bent by a collapsed nose gear.


User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 21):
Keel beam runs the length of the aircraft and provides its structural support, just like the keel of a ship, it runs the bottom of the aircraft.

Actually the Keel Beam spans the gap in the fuselage left by the center wing box and landing gear bay. It transfers the loads between the forward and aft fuselage due to the large area cut out for the wing and wheel wells.

The Keel Beam only runs the length of the unsupported gap left by the wing center section and wheel well. Once it is tied into the forward and aft fuselage structure its job is complete.

I would find it very hard to believe that a nose gear collapse could compromise the Keel Beam unless parts of the nose gear impacted the area of the Keel Beam.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 23):
I would find it very hard to believe that a nose gear collapse could compromise the Keel Beam unless parts of the nose gear impacted the area of the Keel Beam.

Is there any update on if 83-0008 is going to be repaired, or scrapped? Obviously the USAF has classified this as a "Class A" accident (damage over $1M and/or a fatality).


User currently offlineFridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1442 posts, RR: 11
Reply 25, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Could one of you tell me why "The Frisbee" could not located in a more forward position on the aircraft? Wouldn't that help with the CG?

Thanks,

F



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 26, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 25):
Could one of you tell me why "The Frisbee" could not located in a more forward position on the aircraft? Wouldn't that help with the CG?

When the two test bed aircraft (original USAF MDS was EC-137D) were being designed and wind tunnel tested, it was found that if you placed the aerodynamic radar disk (the Frisbee) further forward, or aft, it greatly effected the flight characteristics to the point of being close to unstable. Placing it where it is could always be balanced with ballast weights in the nose, removing any weight and balance issue. In the KC-135Q the 850 lbs of ballast is under the radar in the nose radome. I don't know the exact placement of ballast in the E-3s, but someone here might be able to tell you.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

[quote=KC135TopBoom,reply=26]but someone here might be able to tell you.[/quote

We don't have any ballast on a E-3, the forward lobe is crammed full of power distribution and communication gear plus in the cabin the Computer,mission consoles and Communication suite is plenty of foward ballast also consider that the 2 inboard engines are also considered foward ballast. Put a mission load of fuel usally 135K with 90k in the wings the inboard tanks are fwd CG and 45k in the center wing also fwd CG. The only time this jet is considered tail heavy is when it is at zero fuel load and must have a 5000 pound ballast weight teathered on its nose jack pad.

It has not been determined yet to salvage or repair the acft, it is still on the runway and Nellis is not the place to be with a crippled heavy. They are totally fighter centered, I do not know of a piece of concrete that is legal to jack anything bigger than a F-111 at Nellis and zero hanger space for a E-3. The mx troops at Tinker have a bunch of side bets going around if this thing will ever fly again.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 28, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 27):
I do not know of a piece of concrete that is legal to jack anything bigger than a F-111 at Nellis and zero hanger space for a E-3.

Could this be a job for the Boeing AOG repair team? I know the TIK MX troops and Depot guys are experts on the B-707 airframe now, maybe some of the best B-707 people in the world, but, the Boeing team has a great reputation of getting things done at a bear base situation. The thin ramp at Nellis is not a real problem as they can shore it up with steel and wooden mats to place the jacks on. Hanger space might, or might not be a problem. A tempoary shed can be built over the aircraft.

In 1983, A B-52G wing was blown off the airplane at Mather AFB, CA, Boeing did the repair work, using a wing from the Griffiss AFB, NY antenna placement non-flyable B-52G test bed(which always sat up side down). A C-5 flew the wing from NY to CA, then the Boeing team completely refurbished it and later attached it to the bomber. IIRC, it took over 6 months to repair it enough to fly it to depot for perminate repairs.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
Could this be a job for the Boeing AOG repair team? I know the TIK MX troops and Depot guys are experts on the B-707 airframe now, maybe some of the best B-707 people in the world, but, the Boeing team has a great reputation of getting things done at a bear base situation. The thin ramp at Nellis is not a real problem as they can shore it up with steel and wooden mats to place the jacks on. Hanger space might, or might not be a problem. A tempoary shed can be built over the aircraft.

Boeing AOG team would be the right answer, I know the 552 mx guys they sent but they have zero experiance with this type of job. I have no doubt they will figure it out. The E-3 is too valuable just to write off if it was like a C-130 or T-38. I just wondering when they start digging into it how many worms they will find into that bucket. Plus getting Boeing involved is way above my pay grade, those guys don't work cheap.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 30, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 29):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
Could this be a job for the Boeing AOG repair team? I know the TIK MX troops and Depot guys are experts on the B-707 airframe now, maybe some of the best B-707 people in the world, but, the Boeing team has a great reputation of getting things done at a bear base situation. The thin ramp at Nellis is not a real problem as they can shore it up with steel and wooden mats to place the jacks on. Hanger space might, or might not be a problem. A tempoary shed can be built over the aircraft.

Boeing AOG team would be the right answer, I know the 552 mx guys they sent but they have zero experiance with this type of job. I have no doubt they will figure it out. The E-3 is too valuable just to write off if it was like a C-130 or T-38. I just wondering when they start digging into it how many worms they will find into that bucket. Plus getting Boeing involved is way above my pay grade, those guys don't work cheap.

Well, the first step that anyone is going to have to do is recover the airplane and move it somewhere on the ramp where tempoary work can begin. The USAF has excellent knowledge and capability of recovering and moving the wreckage.

I am sure preliminary work on assessing the scope of work is completed by now, next would be the recovery and moving of the airplane. Then a more detailed assessment will be done before any decision is made, or a phone call made to Boeing.

I'll bet a lot of people at Boeing and the OKC-Depot at TIK are looking at line drawings and modification drawings done on 83-0008 to get an idea of what they are in for. My guess is there have probibly been over 100 meetings of OPS, LGS, Bean Counters (the guys with the money)and MX people already. That does not even count the accident investigation board and their work.


User currently offlineTaxPilot From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 99 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 30015 times:

It has been over two months since the last post. Anyone have an update?

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 32, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 29836 times:



Quoting TaxPilot (Reply 31):
It has been over two months since the last post. Anyone have an update?

Good reminder, I had almost forgotten about this accident. I have not heard anything. The AWACS folks are a pretty quite group normally. Hopefully someone will post something soon.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 29801 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
Good reminder, I had almost forgotten about this accident. I have not heard anything. The AWACS folks are a pretty quite group normally. Hopefully someone will post something soon.

Still going through the investigation, so far it is determined it was not a mx issue, patience grasshopper.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 34, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 29759 times:

Did they get it off the runway at least, or can I look forward to seeing there the next time the "Google Earth" satillite makes a pass?


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently onlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2349 posts, RR: 10
Reply 35, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 27252 times:

The Air Force has released the report on the crash, citing pilot error as the cause...


From the Air Force Times:

Quote:
Pilot mistakes led to the $100 million crash landing of an E-3 AWACS on Aug. 29, an investigation conducted by 12th Air Force found.

The report, released Tuesday to Air Force Times, concluded that the E-3’s pilot and co-pilot allowed the jet’s nose wheel to hit the runway at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., so hard that it broke the nose landing gear. The jet skidded down the runway for 4,500 feet before coming to a stop.

Investigators believe that about 100 feet above the runway, in calm weather, the pilots lost track of the plane’s altitude. The co-pilot, who was handling the landing, put the aircraft into a steeper than normal approach. With the jet 50 feet high, the pilot called for the co-pilot to bring up the nose, but it was too late to prevent the hard landing.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 36, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 27128 times:

Quoting moose135 (Reply 35):
The Air Force has released the report on the crash, citing pilot error as the cause...


From the Air Force Times:

Since the AFT story sites a $100M damage price to the airplane, that might mean the USAF is repairing the jet. Can anyone confirm that?


User currently offlinevenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 27076 times:

Can go only on rumors that Boeing is doing the work and they are going to graft a 707-300 forward fuslage on it from AMARC doner acft.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlinevenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 27036 times:

Reading Mooses link I was shocked at the lack of hours these guys had, both of them should have been copilots. I got spoiled by my time in the 89th with high time pilots who were the best at what they do. When I retired in 03 I was in the 552 ACW and we had alot of experiance mx and op sides but I guess that is not the case anymore.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 39, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 27084 times:

Quoting venus6971 (Reply 37):
Can go only on rumors that Boeing is doing the work and they are going to graft a 707-300 forward fuslage on it from AMARC doner acft.

That could happen as there are still several B-707s still there. A KC-135A/E forward fuslage will not work as it is a different shape, and about 4" narrower.


User currently offlinesentrymechanic From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 17780 times:

The airframe is being written off... salvage ops are underway at this time.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 17233 times:

That's too bad, I was hoping she would be repaired. I think this makes 4 W/Os for the worldwide E-3 fleet, two USAF E-3B/C, a NATO E-3A, and a RAF E-3D.

User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3546 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 17085 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
RAF E-3D.

Was the RAF frame actually scrapped or is it some sort of super can bird?



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinebucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 43, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 16822 times:

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 10):
That must have been some hard landing since the E-3 was designed to land with almost no flair to begin with.

I'm curious how being a SD qualifies you to comment on how to land a E-3?


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 722 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 16792 times:

Quoting bucky707 (Reply 43):
I'm curious how being a SD qualifies you to comment on how to land a E-3?

Am I to interpret this as disagreement with his comment? Might as well just disagree in that case. I'm not sure how an E-3 could land with "flair" anyways. Maybe some colorful streamers on the radome.


User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1933 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 16374 times:

Ok guys...here's the long and short:
-0008 is now sitting at the northeast end of the ramp at KLSV...no engines, no tail, no rear stabilizers (at least as of last month when I was out there for Red Flag)...all pieces of aircraft forward of front weapons scope bank are unuseable as spare parts. I know there have been a few interior maintenace components pulled from it from time to time...but not too many parts so far.

For us flight deck peeps, we have to undergo lots of extra training due to it...not fun! All because of one moron...

[Edited 2012-08-29 09:09:01]

User currently offlinebucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 46, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 16013 times:

Quoting bucky707 (Reply 43):
I'm curious how being a SD qualifies you to comment on how to land a E-3?

Yes, I disagree with him.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 45):
For us flight deck peeps, we have to undergo lots of extra training due to it...not fun!

What kind of training? Going out and practicing.......landings!?!


User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1933 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16028 times:

Quoting bucky707 (Reply 46):
What kind of training? Going out and practicing.......landings!?!

Oh believe me...that's not the half of it...can't go into detail, but we now have to be certified as an aircrew before we go TDY to Nellis.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 48, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15846 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 42):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):RAF E-3D.
Was the RAF frame actually scrapped or is it some sort of super can bird?

I believe its status is currently listed as 'stored', but she has been stripped, including her rotodome. IIRC, the tail number is ZH-105, "Sneezy" and last I read she was at GXW. The 7 RAF E-3D/AEW-1, when originally were named after Snow White's 7 Dwarfs. As I understand it, Sneezy will never fly again. She was cut from the fleet due to budget cuts, and with the lastest round of MOD cuts, I just don't think the RAF can afford to every put her back together again.

But she should have been considered to be bought by the USAF and used to replace 83-0008.


User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 15819 times:

Balls 8 was a hanger queen anyway so no big loss...

as for Bucky, what exactly do you disagree with?
The landing specs for the E-3 are not a secret. It was designed to take one hell of a beating and has over the years.
And I know more about the landing procedures than you presume it seems...



“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1933 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15731 times:

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 49):
Balls 8 was a hanger queen anyway so no big loss...

Not really...it was a champ for us doing the CDO missions three years ago...I loved flying on that jet...now -0009, that jet is the bane of my existance!


User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 15717 times:

Balls 9 was the biggest hanger queen of all for sure (many of the "newer" jets were actually problem children) but 0008 got scrapped in the desert for months on multple rotations and was basically a spares bird. now of course it could have been cleared up with a recent depot level rebuild in the last few years. IIRC Balls 2 was also a bit of a DNIF bird


“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1933 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 15937 times:

-0002 is a flying champ...

User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 15929 times:

I remember a Red Flag I had with 0008, blew a tire when landing at KLSV from KTIK. It was still a 20/25 mod back then. In my day the best flying E-3 was 0007, my favorite was 1408 because I started and ended my Crew Chiefing career with that jet. 1408 was one of the protoypes and she was different from the rest of the fleet, 1407 was the other. Plus 1408 was a good flier when I had it.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlinebucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 54, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 15868 times:

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 47):
but we now have to be certified as an aircrew before we go TDY to Nellis.

Been there.

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 49):
as for Bucky, what exactly do you disagree with?
The landing specs for the E-3 are not a secret. It was designed to take one hell of a beating and has over the years.

Designed to take a beating, yes. Designed to be landed without a flare, wrong.

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 49):
And I know more about the landing procedures than you presume it seems...

Maybe you do. But how many times have you actually landed an E-3?

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 53):
In my day the best flying E-3 was 0007,

0007 was my favorite E-3. It had my name on it for almost two years.


User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 15846 times:

Quoting bucky707 (Reply 54):
Designed to be landed without a flare, wrong

Who said anything about landing WITHOUT a flare? It wasn't your quote from me, maybe you need to go re-read it?

Balls 0002 was crap in theatre. 1407 was our champ, sounds like times have changed.



“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlinebucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 56, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 15796 times:

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 10):
That must have been some hard landing since the E-3 was designed to land with almost no flair to begin with.

Ok, you almost no flair (should be flare). And it is still wrong.

Still wondering how many times you have landed an E-3? (or a 707)


User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1933 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 15788 times:

Weren't 1408 and 1407 refurbed airliners?

User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 15772 times:

Quoting bucky707 (Reply 56):
Ok, you almost no flair (should be flare). And it is still wrong.

Still wondering how many times you have landed an E-3? (or a 707)



I make no apologies for typos, you know what I meant. (And focusing on typos shows your lack of focus on the point being discussed) Also the grammar in your post above is wrong "you almost no flair" so lets not throw spears from the glass house...

and in fact I am not wrong. (If you think so feel free to prove it). Remember I didn't talk about what training teaches to normally do; I am talking about what Boeing designed it to do. It is not the same as a commercial 707.

As a commercial rated PIC I have 1,648 hours as of my last log check, none in the 707 (the closest I can get is many, many in a Falcon 50 trijet, no quads) However, I am not quite sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China or this topic.

I am talking about the E-3 not a commercial 707. Boeing did in fact design the E-3 to take a massive amount of abuse and to land with very little flare. I'm sorry that bothers you. To be able to break one in the fashion that happened to Balls 8 takes a foul up of epic proportions.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 57):
Weren't 1408 and 1407 refurbed airliners?


IIRC, they were originally delivered as EC-137Ds. The E-8s are all rebuilds

1408 used to "oilcan" so bad some people took a video of it from the back and posted it online, though it has since been removed if you can find it somewhere it is funny viewing.

[Edited 2012-08-30 21:30:01]


“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 59, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15500 times:

The E-3 is designed to land at a much higher landing weight at all times compared to the B-707, which would land ay high weights only occasionally. Even though the landing gear is vastly different, the E-3 could land at weights well over 200,000 lbs, just like the KC-135. Other than that, the two designs were vastly different, and two completely different airplanes.

People forget that after Boeing won the EC-135D contract, in 1970, to new build the two EC-137Ds, the airplane was originally configuered to have 8 X TF-35 engines mounted in 4 twin engine pods, like the B-52. Each TF-34 was to deliver about 10,000 lbs of take-off rated thrust. The original livery was also a Vietnam War camoflarge scheme. It was later decided to fit only 4 X TF-33-PW-100s rated at 21,000 lbs of thrust, instead of the 8 X TF-34 engines as a cost saving measure. Boeing was later awarded a contract (1973?) for 3 pre-production airplanes to be designated the E-3A.

One EC-137D tested the Westinghouse radar, and the other tested the Hughes radar before the Westinghouse was selected.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 15187 times:

Quoting bucky707 (Reply 54):
0007 was my favorite E-3. It had my name on it for almost two years.

I was 0007's Crew Chief from 94 to 97.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 57):

Those 2 were originally built as airliners but but never flew that way. EC-137D's were what they were called and had the original JT3D's with thrust reversers installed going through testing. Compared to the rest of the E-3's they are more or less 707's with a rotodome stuck on them. One of them is a little bit shorter and the other is longer than the rest of the E-3's. I believe that 1408 was shorter because it was a bear to get out the AR shroud out when I had to repair the IFR system.

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 58):
1408 used to "oilcan" so bad some people took a video of it from the back and posted it online, though it has since been removed if you can find it somewhere it is funny viewing.

That was caused by 8 stringers that were located under the last set of scopes were the AST's sat, they had close tolerance bushings when worn out , you almost thought the tail was going to come off.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 61, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 15162 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 60):
EC-137D's were what they were called and had the original JT3D's with thrust reversers installed going through testing. Compared to the rest of the E-3's they are more or less 707's with a rotodome stuck on them. One of them is a little bit shorter and the other is longer than the rest of the E-3's.

Since they were both B-707-320Bs, was the lenght changed because each one had a different mission radar, frisbee, struts, etc.?


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 14548 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):

Dont have any info on that, but 1408 and 1407 were both modified to E-3 standard with the Westinghouse radar and delievered to the 552nd after all the 75 models were. Boeing and AFMC still have 73-1674 at Seattle for testing. Its last PDM was done at Tinker.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineIRISH251 From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 978 posts, RR: 4
Reply 63, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14356 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48):
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 42):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):RAF E-3D.
Was the RAF frame actually scrapped or is it some sort of super can bird?

I believe its status is currently listed as 'stored', but she has been stripped, including her rotodome. IIRC, the tail number is ZH-105, "Sneezy" and last I read she was at GXW. The 7 RAF E-3D/AEW-1, when originally were named after Snow White's 7 Dwarfs. As I understand it, Sneezy will never fly again. She was cut from the fleet due to budget cuts, and with the lastest round of MOD cuts, I just don't think the RAF can afford to every put her back together again.

But she should have been considered to be bought by the USAF and used to replace 83-0008.

A somewhat distant view of ZH105 as it was in June of this year:

ZH105 Sentry AEW.1 by Irish251, on Flickr


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 64, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 14247 times:

If there are no airframe airworthy issues with ZH-105, I don't understand why the USAF doesn't buy or lease her from the RAF. My guess is there is almost nothing left inside her. She could be refitted with the equipment from 83-0008, although the work to make her flyable again would have to be done in the UK, then fly her to the US for the installation of the mission equipment.

User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 14256 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 64):

If there are no airframe airworthy issues with ZH-105, I don't understand why the USAF doesn't buy or lease her from the RAF

Would the USAF operate a CFM powered E-3? Convert it back to TF-33? Convert the whole fleet over to JT8D-200s?

In any case, even the first 2 options would be a whole lot of work, and probably end up as yet another expensive boondoggle.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1933 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14066 times:

Quoting IRISH251 (Reply 63):
A somewhat distant view of ZH105 as it was in June of this year:

8-ball looks the same...


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 67, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13990 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 65):
Would the USAF operate a CFM powered E-3? Convert it back to TF-33? Convert the whole fleet over to JT8D-200s?

My guess is the USAF has already recovered the TF-33 engines and struts from 0008, so that is what they could put on ZH-105 if they bought/leased that airframe.

The USAF has said it has no plans (and no money) to reengine the E-3 fleet with any other engine, incliding the JT-8D-200 series. That is why they have yet to go ahead with the reengining of the E-8Cs. For the AWACS, putting the F-108 engine on it makes the most sense, it woul;d be more in common with most of the world's E-3s, the RSAF KE-3s, and the USAF KC/RC-135.


User currently offlinebigbird From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 13832 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I thought that the E-8C re-engine program was a go. Has it been stopped and the only one that was done was the test ship?


bigbird from georgia
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 69, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 13747 times:

IIRC, the funding for the E-8C reengine program is on hold.

User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1933 posts, RR: 1
Reply 70, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13662 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):
The USAF has said it has no plans (and no money) to reengine the E-3 fleet with any other engine, incliding the JT-8D-200 series.

Not true...beginning to hear rumors to the contrary. Lots of upgrade items on the drawing board...new engines are one of them.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 71, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13616 times:

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 70):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):The USAF has said it has no plans (and no money) to reengine the E-3 fleet with any other engine, incliding the JT-8D-200 series.
Not true...beginning to hear rumors to the contrary. Lots of upgrade items on the drawing board...new engines are one of them.

Yes, the one test bed airplane still has the new engines. But, IIRC, those engines are leased from someone and the struts belong to the Q-707 program.


User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1933 posts, RR: 1
Reply 72, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 13435 times:

Not talking JT8's...the rumors are that they're investigating us getting the CFM's. Now that would entail re-working the wing spars and landing gear...so I don't see how feasible that will be for us. But these jets still have a lot of airframe life left in them.

User currently offlinesentrymechanic From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (11 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6372 times:

73-1674 is now at AMARG, 0008 only exists as a few spare parts now. We won't be getting re-engined...ever. And there is also talk of sending as many as 7 of the oldest airframes to AMARG due to sequestration. I doubt that the E-3 is in service much longer, due to parts availability, increasing cost to operate and decreasing need for its services.

User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1933 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5554 times:

Really? Since they've come out and said they're planning on keeping the jets operational til at least 2025? Granted the fleet will shrink, but the demand is still there...Libya was PERFECT for what that jet was designed for.

User currently offlinesentrymechanic From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4932 times:

Yeah they said that about the KC-10 too and look where it's most likely headed... I'm not bashing the jet, especially since I've been working on it for 7 years but they aren't in good shape and every time they come back to PDM, we find more and more issues, have more and more problems finding parts and the parts that we do get (even the brand new ones) are DOA half the time. You can't keep an operation going like that forever and 2025 isn't that far away.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 76, posted (10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4668 times:

Japan has the E-767. An AWACS version of the now in production KC-46 would make a good E-3 replacement.

User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1933 posts, RR: 1
Reply 77, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4169 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 76):

We've been offered the E-10 and the Wedgetail...but in today's USAF, it's all about the over-budget JSF. So we truck along with the broken oldies...


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 78, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3902 times:

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 77):
We've been offered the E-10 and the Wedgetail...but in today's USAF, it's all about the over-budget JSF. So we truck along with the broken oldies...

Yeah, I know what you mean. The F-35 is a budgetary black hole sucking needed dollars from the USAF, USN, and USMC just so some Flag Officers can have a cushy post retirement job with LM.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
RAF Helicopter Door Falls Off At Airshow posted Sun Jun 24 2007 23:50:33 by Opso1
Agressor Squadron At Nellis AFB Questions. posted Mon Sep 5 2005 20:31:02 by CX747
F-16 Crash At Nellis Friday, Pilot Ejected Safely posted Sat Mar 19 2005 07:47:42 by KDTWFlyer
F-22 Raptor Crashes At Nellis AFB posted Tue Dec 21 2004 05:14:16 by Wmupilot
RAF Tornado Off Runway At Egnt posted Tue Aug 5 2008 11:58:58 by Gkirk
Awacs 707 At YYZ July 12 posted Fri Jul 13 2007 04:52:28 by Captaingomes
B1 Lifted Off Runway At Diego Garcia (Pics) posted Thu Jul 13 2006 15:47:39 by Spruit
B-17 At PAE Today posted Wed Aug 19 2009 12:49:22 by Cessna172RG
Russian AF Orders 64 Sukhois At MAKS-09 posted Tue Aug 18 2009 14:37:24 by GreenMOW
ID Of Air Force One 707 Replica At Williamsburg posted Sun Aug 16 2009 11:51:02 by Fanofjets
Awacs 707 At YYZ July 12 posted Fri Jul 13 2007 04:52:28 by Captaingomes
RAF Helicopter Door Falls Off At Airshow posted Sun Jun 24 2007 23:50:33 by Opso1
Agressor Squadron At Nellis AFB Questions. posted Mon Sep 5 2005 20:31:02 by CX747
F-16 Crash At Nellis Friday, Pilot Ejected Safely posted Sat Mar 19 2005 07:47:42 by KDTWFlyer
F-22 Raptor Crashes At Nellis AFB posted Tue Dec 21 2004 05:14:16 by Wmupilot
Going To Vegas Soon, Is Possible To Visit Nellis? posted Tue Apr 17 2012 01:39:47 by 4tet
FJ4 Runs Off Runway At Oshkosh Too! Video Inside posted Fri Jul 29 2011 16:30:10 by HaveBlue
RAF Tornado Off Runway At Egnt posted Tue Aug 5 2008 11:58:58 by Gkirk
Awacs 707 At YYZ July 12 posted Fri Jul 13 2007 04:52:28 by Captaingomes

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format