Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10564 posts, RR: 21 Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13497 times:
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13425 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 2): Are these all-new airframes or are they rebuilds?
All new airframes! While on the outside they may look like like the E-2C on the inside its a completly new airplane. The brochures DEVILFISH posted links to has some good interior views.
RaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 372 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13393 times:
Interesting, I had no idea they were still building this 'ole thing! It's nice to see a major revamp of the design.
Two questions:
1) Other than increased transit speed and increased (unsupported) loiter time, what advantages or additional capabilities does the USAF's E-3 offer vs. the E-2D?
2) What's next for AWACS aircraft? While I'm sure both the E-2 and E-3 have years of service left, what can we expect 20+ years from now? Advancements in radar technology (AESA)? Airframes (unmanned, possibly?)
dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1161 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13258 times:
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13246 times:
Quoting RaginMav (Reply 4): Interesting, I had no idea they were still building this 'ole thing! It's nice to see a major revamp of the design.
Except for the brief period of time when they moved the production line from Calverton to St. Augustine its been in production since day one.
Quoting RaginMav (Reply 4): Other than increased transit speed and increased (unsupported) loiter time, what advantages or additional capabilities does the USAF's E-3 offer vs. the E-2D?
It's kind of hard to compare the two in the sense that one is designed for carrier ops and the other is not. Of course the the E-3 has a bigger dish and more people operating the system. On the other hand the E-2D has newer electronics which usually means it will be easier to maintain.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10564 posts, RR: 21 Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 12914 times:
Quoting RaginMav (Reply 4): 2) What's next for AWACS aircraft? While I'm sure both the E-2 and E-3 have years of service left, what can we expect 20+ years from now? Advancements in radar technology (AESA)? Airframes (unmanned, possibly?)
Quote:
The E-2D features an entirely new avionics suite, including the new APY-9 radar, radio suite, mission computer, integrated satellite communications capability, flight management system, improved turboprop engines, a new "glass cockpit", and the added capability for air-to-air refueling. The APY-9 radar features an Active Electronically Scanned Array, which adds electronic scanning to the mechanical rotation of the radar in its radome. The E-2D will include provisions for either one of the pilots to act as a Tactical 4th Operator, who will have access to the full range of the mission's acquired data.
Quote:
The AN/APY-9 radar has a solid-state silicon carbide-based transmitter with higher power for extended range, and digital receivers to increase sensitivity. The surveillance envelope of the UHF radar is about 250 percent larger than the E-2C's and can ‘see’ smaller targets and more of them at a greater range.
Quote:
The AN/APY-9 is a "hybrid" radar, with the antenna rotating to scan the sky, but featuring a high-resolution passive phased array / electronically steered subsystem to focus on specific targets. The AN/APY-9 has improved processing and greater sensitivity, allowing it to observe a volume of airspace three times greater than that of the E-2C's AN/APS-145 radar. One of its significant new features is "space-time adaptive processing (STAP)" software to allow the radar to pick up targets in rough terrain and urban sprawl -- reflecting the more varied operational environments faced by the US Navy in the 21st century. The radar is complemented by an advanced digital ESM and an infrared imager, with the operational avionics system performing "sensor fusion" to produce a single annotated "map" of the airspace environment.
The operational avionics system features a new glass cockpit and three workstations with three 43 centimeter (17 inch) color flat-panel displays. Although the E-3D leverages heavily off of Hawkeye 2000 software, about two million lines of code have been added, providing much greater integration of the pilot, copilot, and three systems operators. The improved integration allows the pilot or copilot to lend a hand as a systems operator. The E-2D is fitted with uprated Rolls-Royce T56-A-427 engines to deal with higher takeoff weight.
Upgrades are already in planning, such as an improved CEC capability and a capability to intrude into adversary radio communications networks. Regular software updates are scheduled, for example to add improved target identification, more systems automation, and improved datalink access -- with one goal ultimately to permit remote operators at ground or shipboard stations to act as additional E-2D crew members. The E-2D also has a "open architecture" to permit relatively easy upgrades of hardware. There is interest in adding a midair refueling capability and fuel tank outboard of the wing fold to increase endurance, and an E-2C has been fitted with a refueling probe above the cockpit for trials.
Sounds like an awesome system!
It's funny how these successful upgrade programs are so low profile...
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3410 posts, RR: 50 Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 12849 times:
Quoting RaginMav (Reply 4): 1) Other than increased transit speed and increased (unsupported) loiter time, what advantages or additional capabilities does the USAF's E-3 offer vs. the E-2D?
A "national asset" (meaning "political") presence. An E-3 deployment gets media attention. An E-2 deployment gets no media attention.
Quoting RaginMav (Reply 4): 2) What's next for AWACS aircraft? While I'm sure both the E-2 and E-3 have years of service left, what can we expect 20+ years from now? Advancements in radar technology (AESA)? Airframes (unmanned, possibly?)
Both are and have been receiving continious system upgrades. Unmanned is the most logical next "big" step.
Quoting yanqui67 (Reply 5): In the brochue it mentions that they will add inflight refueling for a future upgrade. Cool!
NOT cool. The Hawkeye's single biggest limiting factor has never been endurance, but rather crew fatigue. 3 crew doing what an AWACS' 13 member crew does for 7 hours straight is more than a bit draining. Nice to see they've finally adopted my 1983 recommendation: add mission capability to cockpit (replace co-pilot with an "operator"). The CV's would love IFR [launch one day, recover the next day] but the crew will be drained after 6-7 hours anyway. No way to in-flight replace them.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12773 times:
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 9): Nice to see they've finally adopted my 1983 recommendation: add mission capability to cockpit (replace co-pilot with an "operator"). The CV's would love IFR [launch one day, recover the next day] but the crew will be drained after 6-7 hours anyway. No way to in-flight replace them.
I wonder how much time will be added to the training syllabus for pilots to help operate the system from the right seat.
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3410 posts, RR: 50 Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12628 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 10): I wonder how much time will be added to the training syllabus for pilots to help operate the system from the right seat.
The quicker/easier/cheaper option is to train a "mole" to perform the co-pilot functions --you can't land on CV from right seat anyway. We tried that for a few months in '83 (USN short on E2 pilots) and it worked. Only problem was that there was essentially nothing for the "mole" to do most of the flight since we had no access to the weapon systems from the front seats at that time. The other problem was that "moles" like the dark and were uncomfortable actually seeing not only what a CV landing looked like, but what it took in the way of acft control in order to land aboard a ship at sea. Best description: "I want to sit in the back, look out my porthole and see water-water-water-steel-crash." The trial program ended with no further action.... for obvious reasons. OTOH, if USN teaches them from the start, perhaps there would be a different result.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2530 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12536 times:
Sounds to me like the senior pilot will be sitting in the right seat, commanding the aircraft, while the junior pilot actually flies the plane. And as if the British needed further support for making their carrier like the US and the French, as opposed to just for VSTOL aircraft. Why even have a carrier if you can't get an E-2D to be your eyes and ears?!
nutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 336 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks ago) and read 12390 times:
Quoting dragon6172 (Reply 6):
Still no APU in the damn thing.
It has been an option since E-2B days, but USN has never purchased that option.
So when there is "power on", does the aircraft have to be hooked up to air for equipment cooling or are there ventilation systems that handle that using the applied power....I only ask because GSE is a pain in the A#$.
US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12260 times:
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 11): The quicker/easier/cheaper option is to train a "mole" to perform the co-pilot functions --you can't land on CV from right seat anyway. We tried that for a few months in '83 (USN short on E2 pilots) and it worked. Only problem was that there was essentially nothing for the "mole" to do most of the flight since we had no access to the weapon systems from the front seats at that time. The other problem was that "moles" like the dark and were uncomfortable actually seeing not only what a CV landing looked like, but what it took in the way of acft control in order to land aboard a ship at sea. Best description: "I want to sit in the back, look out my porthole and see water-water-water-steel-crash." The trial program ended with no further action.... for obvious reasons. OTOH, if USN teaches them from the start, perhaps there would be a different result.
If they were to throw a NFO into the right seat how would that affect the E-2 pilot community? It would seem that while the right seater might not have a lot to do flying wise there is always the value of the more senior pilot showing the junior guy the ropes in an operational squadron.
garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5251 posts, RR: 55 Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 12195 times:
Awesome news for the Hawkeye community. It's amazing to realize that the E-2 made its first flight 50 years ago and is still going strong. One question I've always had that's a bit off topic is what the purpose of the intakes on the dorsal and starboard sides of the fuselage are - are they for equipment cooling?
2) What's next for AWACS aircraft? While I'm sure both the E-2 and E-3 have years of service left, what can we expect 20+ years from now? Advancements in radar technology (AESA)? Airframes (unmanned, possibly?)
It's a good question and I'm not sure who has the answers to it. A decade ago the roadmap was clearer, especially with the "airframes" portion of the question being easily answered. The plan was for the USAF going with the 764-derived E-10 and the USN adopting the Common Support Aircraft which would have had variants taking care of the AEW, ASW, EW, ES, COD, and IFR roles once held by the E-2, S-3, ES-3, EA-6B, C-2, and KA-6. With the cancellation of those two programs though, I think your guess is as good as mine for what the future holds. That being said I wouldn't be surprised if 20 years from now we're seeing the AEW role handled by re-engined E-3s along with the E-2.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3410 posts, RR: 50 Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 12053 times:
Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Reply 13): So when there is "power on", does the aircraft have to be hooked up to air for equipment cooling or are there ventilation systems that handle that using the applied power....I only ask because GSE is a pain in the A#$.
There is no provision for external cooling air. There are provisions for two external power sources: one for general aircraft power the other for the equipment cooling ("vapor cycle") system. With 6+ TONS of avionics, there is simply too much electrical demand for a single source to handle if you need to turn on everything.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 14): If they were to throw a NFO into the right seat how would that affect the E-2 pilot community? It would seem that while the right seater might not have a lot to do flying wise there is always the value of the more senior pilot showing the junior guy the ropes in an operational squadron.
Most tactical aircraft are single-pilot so I have never understood the need for two pilots in the "Hummer." Yes, it is quite exhausting (mentally) trying to fly within +/- 1 degree of pitch/roll for 6+ hours, but it can and is done regularly (few autopilot systems can handle the unstable airframe for more than a few weeks at sea without complete failure).
IMHO, seniority (read: experience) is significantly overrated, especially in a community where the entire mission is completely dominated by the NFOs. E-2 pilots in general have an ego problem unless/until they learn to grasp that the mission is entirely about getting the sensor platform (and operators) in the right spot (NFO decision), maintain that platform in the best configuration while "on-station," make safety-of-flight decisions (balanced against the NFO's mission-success decision) and also try to relieve as much non-mission critical (B.S.) "task loading" from the NFO's as possible. Bottom line is: the plane and the mission is all about the NFO's getting the job done. The pilot has a supporting role, not a primary role. The best E-2 pilots grasp that concept early and (unfortunately, on their own) learn how to operate the weapon system --at least the basics-- in order to better understand the NFO job and how they (pilots) can best to make the NFO job easier.
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 15): One question I've always had that's a bit off topic is what the purpose of the intakes on the dorsal and starboard sides of the fuselage are - are they for equipment cooling?
Heat exchangers for the equipment and radar cooling systems. 6+ TONS of electronic equipment (including a 1+ MILLION watt radar] generate a LOT of heat and like any electronic system (think: any computer), all that equipment works best in a very controlled environment.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
Quote: "The US Navy may launch a remanufacturing programme to extend the service lives of 36 Northrop Grumman C-2A Greyhounds by using tooling and components already developed for the E-2D.
[.....]
It is not clear how much additional service life the navy hopes to achieve by launching a remanufacturing programme. NAVAIR's announcement says the study will focus on remanufacturing the C-2A's fuselage.
Northrop also must analyse remanufacturing ideas that provide 'maximum use of common components and tooling with E-2D production', NAVAIR says."
Quoting Revelation (Reply 8): It's funny how these successful upgrade programs are so low profile...
Perhaps nobody wants to broadcast that lower-cost options exist and work?
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 15): and the USN adopting the Common Support Aircraft which would have had variants taking care of the AEW, ASW, EW, ES, COD, and IFR roles once held by the E-2, S-3, ES-3, EA-6B, C-2, and KA-6.
If the study results were positive, then a C-2D COD platform would be a shoo-in. As for the other roles - SEAHOUND anyone?
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11899 times:
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 16): Yes, it is quite exhausting (mentally) trying to fly within /- 1 degree of pitch/roll for 6 hours, but it can and is done regularly (few autopilot systems can handle the unstable airframe for more than a few weeks at sea without complete failure).
It must have been nice moving onto the airline environment where autopilots are almost always working.
Wonder if any changes were made to the flightcontrol/autopilot on the E-2 to make more reliable.
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 16): E-2 pilots in general have an ego problem unless/until they learn to grasp that the mission is entirely about getting the sensor platform (and operators) in the right spot (NFO decision),
Same could be said, sort of, about the F-14. It was kind of pointless without the RIO there to run the weapons system.
It will be interesting to see what route the Navy takes regarding the right seat of the E-2D. Will they train an NFO to help the pilot with some tasks. Or will they stick with two pilots and just add some extra time to the training syllabus in order to train the pilots to use the system.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16311 posts, RR: 52 Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10663 times:
The V-22 could take over the C-2, E-2, ASW platform for the Navy.
BladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 386 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 10642 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 20): The V-22 could take over the C-2, E-2, ASW platform for the Navy.
and have no where near the loiter time and range the E-2/C-2 provides, and there would be no place to mount the radar, since the V-22 deck storage folding would prevent that. Now as an ASW platform for long range sonobouy, mine, dipping array, and torpedo work would be something to look at. As a battle group commander I would be very happy to have an ASW aircraft that could fly a couple hundred miles infront of me, drop a screen of sonobouy's, do some sonar dipping, and then zoom back to the carrier.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16311 posts, RR: 52 Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10610 times:
Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 21): As a battle group commander I would be very happy to have an ASW aircraft that could fly a couple hundred miles infront of me, drop a screen of sonobouy's, do some sonar dipping, and then zoom back to the carrier.
BladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 386 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10356 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 22): And it could operate from more platforms.
Really not anymore than it already does due to its size. It would be a fairly expensive conversion to make a dedicated ASW platform that could only be operated from carriers. Now if the Navy were to make addon modules like the LCS has you could so something with that. Roll on pallets with presetup computers and equipment, stick a dipping sonar onto the interior and stick it through the bottom hatch, put a single reloadable bouy launcher out one of the side doors (maybe an issue in flight mode), and have bolt on racks to carry two torpedos next to the landing gear. This way you can take a stock V-22 and convert it into a battlegroup ASW platform within a couple of hours. Would be a good supplement to the P-3/737 when the fleet is outside of land based coverage.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10564 posts, RR: 21 Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10347 times:
Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 23): Now if the Navy were to make addon modules like the LCS has you could so something with that. Roll on pallets with presetup computers and equipment, stick a dipping sonar onto the interior and stick it through the bottom hatch, put a single reloadable bouy launcher out one of the side doors (maybe an issue in flight mode), and have bolt on racks to carry two torpedos next to the landing gear.
That much weight and body drag would do miserable things to V-22's range.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
25 LMP737: I would have liked to have seen the S-3 line repopened. An S-3C model with new avionics, new engines, FBW along with a composite wing, horizontal and
27 travelavnut: Can you expand a bit on this? What makes the carrier environment so challenging for autopilots?
28 BladeLWS: ^ That along with the A-6F Super Intruder.
29 AAR90: Not so much the CV environment as the limitations the CV puts upon the maint. crews trying to troubleshoot/fix the Hawkeye A/P system. To see what th
31 LMP737: I would think the Navy would have at least updated the avionics associated with the auto pilot. Those older systems get harder and more expensive to
32 LMP737: Recently the E-2D was used in testing the new EMALS systen at Lakehurst. So much for the smell of dirty steam coming off the cats. Maybe the smell of
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4447 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Jan 2005, 505 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
){kind=link}