Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nato E3 Awacs At Boeing  
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7089 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 5522 times:

Hi, just came across this picture:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Luxem...NATO/Boeing-E-3A-Sentry/2348231/L/

Can anybody tell me what the Nato E3s doing at Boeing ? Are they receiving an update ?

Thanks in advance


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 18 hours ago) and read 5508 times:

The US have/is getting the 40/45 upgrade. I wonder if NATO is getting the same thing.

At first I thought it was part of Nato Mid-Term. But that contract is done.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2337 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 5265 times:

Europe still lets those old Pratts prattle around? I assume the big military jets are exempt but you don't see those very much anymore hanging on USAF 707s, at least not the airports I frequent.

User currently offlinerc135x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 5233 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 2):
but you don't see those very much anymore hanging on USAF 707s

I believe you will find that all USAF 707s (E-3 and E-8) still have those old Pratts. Only the USN E-6 has the CFM-56 engines. I think that accounts for all 707s in US government/military service.


User currently offlinefsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 5209 times:

Don't know if it is the same aircraft but it reminded me of this Youtube video. Would not have wanted to be in the backend of that aircraft

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcLiAAVeYhk


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4780 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 5 hours ago) and read 5192 times:

I don't think military aircraft have to comply with civilian noise rules.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 5116 times:

IIRC it was planned once to refit the Nato 707s with new engines but Nato got hold on a huge amount of spares and spare engines that they decided that it is not worth it to replace the engines.

But still no idea what the E3 is doing at its birthplace ?



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5013 times:

The E3 will receive a for a flight-deck and avionics upgrade:

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/113504/...eattle-major-upgrade#ixzz2lGhyXo3T



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3763 posts, RR: 29
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4713 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 2):
Europe still lets those old Pratts prattle around? I assume the big military jets are exempt but you don't see those very much anymore hanging on USAF 707s, at least not the airports I frequent.

Yes. Actually, Geilenkirchen Airbase population was complaining about that for many years. IMHO it is nothing less than a scandal.


User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1979 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4667 times:

It's getting a mod that gets rid of my position (NAV) on the flight deck...basically going all glass cockpit.

User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2337 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4659 times:

I must be seeing Navy version at West Coast airports then.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 8):
Yes. Actually, Geilenkirchen Airbase population was complaining about that for many years. IMHO it is nothing less than a scandal.

I love the sound of those old gals, but maybe day after day it would wear thin.


User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1979 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4645 times:

It's mostly the folks across the Dutch border in Schinveld...they even put out flyers that accuse us of chem-trailing. It's pretty laughable.

User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4506 times:

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 9):
It's getting a mod that gets rid of my position (NAV) on the flight deck...basically going all glass cockpit.

USAF should have also but the nav mafia got one guy at the puzzle palace who managed to change the project, sad and impressive all at once.

For all the complaints at GK the local population is not happy numbers have been drawn down a bit, both on the Canadian and US fronts as they lose money.



“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, 1979 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4371 times:

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 12):
USAF should have also but the nav mafia got one guy at the puzzle palace who managed to change the project, sad and impressive all at once.

For all the complaints at GK the local population is not happy numbers have been drawn down a bit, both on the Canadian and US fronts as they lose money.

Yep...when I was at TIK, we were hearing that we'd get DRAGON done before NATO did...now it sounds like they're not even bothering anymore. That's what happens when you're at the bottom of the funding barrel.

I haven't heard about us cutting our flying personnel back at GK...just the support ones. Of course, our Canuck brethren will all be gone (and sorely missed) in a few more months. One crazy rumor I was hearing was that the Brits would come in and replace them.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3763 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4166 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 10):
I love the sound of those old gals, but maybe day after day it would wear thin.

Me too, dont get me wrong. The population of Geilenkirchen is also pro-Nato, but they still want new engines. I think using un-hushkitted TF-33s in 2013 in such a densely populated area is totally unneccessary.


User currently offlineU271437 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4007 times:

The NATO E-3As already received some sort of cockpit update earlier, as it looks to me! These instruments are not the original 707 ones, or have those planes already been fittet out like that during the production? Here's the view: http://youtu.be/LcxlQKP3Lx4

[Edited 2013-11-26 09:02:41]

User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1979 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3974 times:

The problem with re-engining either the US or NATO birds at this point is that you'd have to completely redo both the landing gear and wing-spars due to the thrust and clearance of the new engines...and since everyone's economy is in the toilet at this point, they only see the $$'s up front, not what the $$ savings are in the long-term. Sorry, but I think you'll bee seeing our old, smoking engines for a long time to come.

User currently offlinerc135x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 16):
you'd have to completely redo both the landing gear and wing-spars due to the thrust and clearance of the new engines

I don't believe this is necessarily true. The -135R conversions (on KCs, TCs, and RCs) did not involve changes to the landing gear beyond addition of 5-rotor brakes for improved stopping capability on heavy-weight takeoff aborts. The engine struts accounted for the required engine ground clearance (if they can do it on a 737 they can do it on a 707). I also presume you refer to these struts rather than the actual wing spars.

Recall that the Boeing 707-CFM56 demonstrator (N707QT) showed that these engines could easily be installed on a 707 with minimal modification. The airplane was eventually demodified and handed over, I believe, to the Moroccan government. The Boeing E-6, UK and French E-3s, and Saudi E-3s and KE-3s also have the CFM56 engines and did not require substantial modification to the landing gear or height above ground.

You are indeed correct about the lack of $$$ and resolve to support the restart of the BMAC re-engining process, which returned from dormancy long enough to pop out a few engine sets for the RAF RC-135Ws. This narrow-minded vision really hurts the lifetime of the E-3, unless someone in DoD is secretly planning to procure 737 AWACS for USAF or, even more unlikely, request an AWACS version of the KC-46 such as Japan's.

This is equally problematic for the RC-135 community. Airplanes such as 62-4139 have amassed nearly 50,000 hours on an airframe originally designed for 19,000 and later extended to 33,000. When these fail they will do so utterly and there is no replacement on the immediate horizon.

Edit: typo correction

[Edited 2013-11-26 14:01:58]

User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3889 times:

Quoting rc135x (Reply 17):

You are indeed correct about the lack of $$$ and resolve to support the restart of the BMAC re-engining process, which returned from dormancy long enough to pop out a few engine sets for the RAF RC-135Ws. This narrow-minded vision really hurts the lifetime of the E-3, unless someone in DoD is secretly planning to procure 737 AWACS for USAF or, even more unlikely, request an AWACS version of the KC-46 such as Japan's.

That would be my guess long-term is that you will see the P-8 line basically convert to making AWACS replacements and replacing almost all the specialist aircraft out there. I don't think there is any need for the 767 sized airframe going forward for most specialist missions that need to be replaced.

P-8 line would be largely open by 2020 which is not a bad time frame to start squeezing out an AWACS replacement.


User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3855 times:

The next AWACS will be a UAS on something "Global Hawk-esq" with the Air Battle Managers and Air Surveillance Officers in Ground TACS like boxes well behind the FEBA/FLOT.


“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3836 times:

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 19):
The next AWACS will be a UAS on something "Global Hawk-esq" with the Air Battle Managers and Air Surveillance Officers in Ground TACS like boxes well behind the FEBA/FLOT.

I doubt it. Having the pilots and operators in the plane is a marginal expense really and makes it much more robust against electronic attack. There is just not much to be gained and a lot to be risked by taking the UAS route for something like this.


User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3824 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 20):
I doubt it. Having the pilots and operators in the plane is a marginal expense really and makes it much more robust against electronic attack. There is just not much to be gained and a lot to be risked by taking the UAS route for something like this.

"nonsense"

I have over 1,000 hours on the plane and I have family with nearly 3,000 hours on the plane. I am aware of how it works and can tell you the expense of the crew is enormous as is what Boeing charges for 707 repair let alone the age and the cost to forward deploy crews for 24/7 coverage.

I was also on several of the NATO/AF strat teams that were guiding policy papers on it...the USAF wants to make it a UAS.



“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3821 times:

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 21):

I was also on several of the NATO/AF strat teams that were guiding policy papers on it...the USAF wants to make it a UAS.

I am sure they want to but I think the loss of the drone to Iran sobered people up just a bit.

You have the expense of the battle staff regardless of if they are on the plane or on the ground. The presumption that data links of the necessary capacity for that volume of radar information can be secure and reliable is pretty big. The benefit of putting the staff on the plane is that it is relatively self contained. If the radar and radios work you can do your job. If you do it via UAS you need satellites to get it back to wherever the battle staff and then the same to get that information back out the people who need it. It just adds more links that can be electronically or kinetically disrupted.

The idea of a persistent UAS feeding radar data back to some god-like command post is great in theory. I am sure everyone would like to do it because the idea in principal makes a lot of sense. But I think the question they won't be able to answer is how does this all work in an environment where all those communication links might be under some form of assault and how much does it cost you to harden those extra links against such attack rather than just put the battle staff in the airplane.


User currently offlineFlyMKG From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 188 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3819 times:

Why are there no openings for the tubrocompressors on the engine pylons?

FlyMKG



Essential Power, Operating Generator.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3709 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 18):
That would be my guess long-term is that you will see the P-8 line basically convert to making AWACS replacements

Not quite. The 737 AWACS equivalent is already available as the 737 AEW&C. Unless the Air Force decide to order 50-100 aircrafts, the 737 AEW&C would probably not be integrated in-line and will continue as a mod program.

The 737 line is converting over to the 737MAX, so frame availability will be an issue when the P-8 program completes.

The 767 line will be open until the Tanker is complete which open the possibility for a more expensive 767 AWACS. But that would be more expensive than the 737 AEW&C.

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 19):
The next AWACS will be a UAS on something "Global Hawk-esq" with the Air Battle Managers and Air Surveillance Officers in Ground

Perhaps, but with current technology, the computing requirement for integrating the RADAR, ESM, EWSP and other mission system are so intense that you require much computing power on board to reduce the bandwidth requirement of sending all the data back to a ground base control center.

The need for a human interface is very fundamental. You just can't design these cutting edge system to be reliable enough to avoid needing a human on board to trouble shoot, reboot, put-out fires, so the mission can continue even if minor incidents would occur. In order to replicate the flexibility of a manned system, you many need a small fleet of UAV's to have overlap coverage in case one or two have to go back to base for troubleshooting. Not to say that it could not be done, but it would be more complicate than it seems.

The current model is have both manned an un-manned sytem integrated in the system.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinesentrymechanic From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3604 times:

TF-33P-100s are not equipped with turbo compressors. They only have a heat exchanger with a Pressure regulating shuttoff valve under the kneecap fairing.

User currently offlineU271437 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 26, posted (1 year 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

See and hear the TF-33s here, fantastic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIiD0IwPyT8

User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1979 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3126 times:

Quoting sentrymechanic (Reply 25):
TF-33P-100s are not equipped with turbo compressors. They only have a heat exchanger with a Pressure regulating shuttoff valve under the kneecap fairing.

When I was in the 4th, we had a pilot that was dumb enough to think that the bleed air was what heated the ovens in the galley  


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4780 posts, RR: 19
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2993 times:

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 27):

When I was in the 4th, we had a pilot that was dumb enough to think that the bleed air was what heated the ovens in the galley

Or was it you that was dumb enough to believe that ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1979 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2912 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 28):

Or was it you that was dumb enough to believe that ?

How about no?


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Nato E3 Awacs At Boeing
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...
BIG Trouble At Boeing posted Sat Oct 2 2004 12:35:56 by Katanapilot
5 Nato Hawk Trainers At YKA This Weekend. posted Sun Nov 11 2001 01:55:36 by YKA
Boeing E-3 Sentry At Kiag posted Mon Sep 16 2013 04:05:21 by jagflyer
New Nato Awacs Trainers posted Sun Nov 20 2011 12:18:28 by bigbird
Boeing Workers Arrested In Drug Ring At PA Plant posted Fri Sep 30 2011 08:59:24 by acidradio
E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis posted Sun Aug 30 2009 11:09:57 by FlyingSicilian
Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough posted Thu Jul 3 2008 18:04:39 by EBJ1248650
Russian Fury At Nato 'air Attacks' posted Sun May 11 2008 03:46:41 by Mortyman
Awacs 707 At YYZ July 12 posted Fri Jul 13 2007 04:52:28 by Captaingomes
Boeing Set To Extend C-17 Production At Own Risk posted Mon Jun 18 2007 03:34:00 by T773ER

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format