N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6197 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4739 times:
I don't see it happening. An AWACS aircraft is a much different prospect from an aerial refuelling tanker, and RNLAF doesn't have a need for an aircraft of this size. If it did, I suspect it would only acquire a couple of units, and development costs on any large AWACS that didn't come from Boeing would probably be prohibitive. Better to buy an E-767. Really, the ideal platform for an organization like RNLAF would be Wedgetail, though.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Sinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1504 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4626 times:
With the size reduction of electronics that have happened over the past 10-15 years I doubt that an A340 size aircraft will ever be required. The A330 would be enough possible a new modal between the -200 and -300 in length. (Is the 350 being offered in that size range)
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6197 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4588 times:
Is that so? Then why is the E-10 using a Boeing 747-400? Make the electronics smaller, and they decide to pack more in.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 675 posts, RR: 54 Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4576 times:
>> The A330 would be enough possible a new modal between the -200 and -300 in length. (Is the 350 being offered in that size range)
It would be very difficult and impractical to create a new fuselage length between the A333 and A332 for the purpose of an AWAC frame. The A332 is pleanty large as it stands.
The A350-800 is essentially the exact same size as the A332, while the A350-900 is a bit larger than the A333. Neither would be suitable for an AWAC frame.
>> Is that so? Then why is the E-10 using a Boeing 747-400? Make the electronics smaller, and they decide to pack more in.
The E-10 is based off of the 767-400ER, and it is not an AWAC aircraft. It is a battlefield management aircraft:
The E-10 MC2A [Multi-Sensor Command and Control Aircraft] will provide ground- and some airborne-moving target indication, as well as key battle management command and control and is expected to be a central element in the Air Force’s Command and Control Constellation. The C2 Constellation is a concept that envisions a fully connected array of land-, platform- and space-based sensors that use common standards and communication protocols to relay information automatically in machine-to-machine interfaces.
Lt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3830 times:
Not happening, and oh by the way-the E-10 is a 767 not 747. The Airborne laser is a 747-400F (with extended upper deck on future models).
The Current MC2A E-10 test is a 707, but the plan for the J-Stars, Rivet Joint, AWACS replacement is 767, but not until past 2025 for the E-3 (in US colours)/ NATO is basically the same, which the Dutch can use (and staff) now.
Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3610 times:
I don't see any AWACS airplane ever being built with winglets. I believe they could create some blind spots. I could be wrong here as radars can be adjusted to tune some interference out.
If the RNLAF ever got an AWACS, it would be no bigger than the E-737-700 Wedgetail. But, I just don't see them buying one or two. Didn't they get rid of all of their fighters a few years ago and only have a few C-130s and 2 B-757-200s now?
Without fighters, or at least a Navy, there is no need to monitor airspace and sea lanes, as you cannot do anything about it but call the Aussies.
Sponsor Message: 
From Belgium, joined Dec 2001, 643 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6197 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Jul 2005, 2931 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3076 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10208 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
