Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Not A B-736 For The Army's Sigint?  
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4794 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4549 times:

The DoD must, by now, be concluding their study for the future SIGINT platform, after the failure of the Army/Navy E-145 Aerial Common Sensor project. It is believed that during budget hearing sessions later this year, the USAF and USN would be forced to decide whether their airborne SIGINT should be merged in one program. The Army, which needs to have a replacement fielded the soonest, is being marginalized, as its operational concept of using smaller aircraft in conjuction with UAVs is at loggerheads with the other services' requirements for bigger and longer platforms. So far, the Navy is leading the way with the proposed medium P-8A MMA SIGINT variant, while the Air Force is budget (unsure) limited to one demonstration aircraft for the RC-135 Rivet Joint replacement.

While a notional special ops E-27J could be a rugged in-theater operator, and the Global Express or G550 might be a good fit for the Army having already proven their capability as ASTOR and Nachshon base respectively, the B-736 may have an edge in commonality, given that the Navy is acquiring 108 P-8A MMAs and might also order its SIGINT variant. It might also help that its structure is already overspecified for its size and therefore wouldn't need much strenghtening. The cabin volume advantage over the Global Express and G550 would address the deficiency of the E-145 and allow for future growth. The lower cargo hold could carry additional fuel to increase range and time on station while a projected ability to deploy MAVs and operate at higher FL and farther distances in concert with UAVs might mitigate susceptibility/survivability issues. And the proposed reduced depth radar may solve the ground clearance problem.

Commercial based platforms are abhorred by some sectors but in this era of budget cuts, those are the likeliest to see the light of day.


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4511 times:

A B-737-600 could work as an ELINT platform, but chances are, the airplane would really end up being based on the B-737-800, like the P-8 is. Stuffing additional fuel cells in the cargo holds is not really needed, even the P-8 is going to be boom air refuelable. So the cargo holds could become additional equipment bays or bays for additional sensors.

Most likely, the USAF, USN, and US Army will end up with one common platform with mission speicalists from all of the service branches, much like the E-18B/C J-STARS operates today with USAF/Army crews.


User currently offline57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2550 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4375 times:

Don't forget that the Army is weight restricted under their interservice agreement with the USAF-the Navy isn't. The Army can get exemptions from the weight limit but that's generally on a case by case basis.


"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4374 times:

Makes sense to me to base it on the P8A.

Congress may need to knock some heads together.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4794 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4281 times:

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 2):
Don't forget that the Army is weight restricted under their interservice agreement with the USAF-the Navy isn't. The Army can get exemptions from the weight limit but that's generally on a case by case basis.

What's the weight limit on fixed-wings the Army can fly? The Aircraft Data on this site for the B737-600 airliner are as follows:

OEW: - 37,104 kg (81,800 lb)
MTOW: - 56,245 kg (124,000 lb)
HGW-MTOW: -65,090 kg (143,000 lb)

Range:@MTOW 2480 km (1340 nm) Engines: 2 - 86.7 kN CFM56-7B18
@HGW-MTOW 5648 km (3050 nm) 2 - 101 kN CFM56-7B22

If the 736 is very much over the limit, given the P-8A based proposal, it's unlikely that a separate exemption would be granted. This could mean that the Guardrails will have to soldier on some more and the Army restricted to just new UAVs - unless they would be allowed something like LockMart's previous TP proposal, or like the compact AWAC a/c.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4794 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4202 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 4):
If the 736 is very much over the limit,..... it's unlikely that a separate exemption would be granted..... - unless they would be allowed something like LockMart's previous TP proposal,

In hindsight, instead of the E-145, LockMart could have just acquired the FD728 program and prototype (most likely at a much less expensive price than other similar-sized platforms then available) and not have had the problems with the former, considering the 728 was already being studied in the AWACS role. Or would that have introduced new complications and headaches and still be over the restriction?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Not A B-736 For The Army's Sigint?
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...
Why Not Airbus For US Tanker Requirement: Answered posted Thu Jan 20 2005 22:24:16 by DL021
Why Not A Dedicated Tanker Design For The Usaf? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 04:20:46 by Dandy_don
Why So Long For A KC-135R To Get Into The Air? posted Sun Sep 10 2006 02:01:28 by 747400sp
Why No Military Name For The JT8-D? posted Wed Aug 2 2006 01:37:35 by 747400sp
Is The F-22 Necessary, Why Not Newer F-15? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 06:15:08 by ERAUMcDlover
Now Why The Hell Doesn't The Army Do This? posted Sun May 16 2004 16:43:40 by L-188
Why No US Planes For The IAF posted Tue Feb 10 2004 09:57:01 by HAWK21M
Why Not Keep The F-14 As A Full Time Bomber? posted Fri Mar 7 2003 06:20:01 by CX747
Why Not Keep The F-14? posted Mon May 20 2002 21:42:55 by CX747
Looking For The Red Flag Accident Video posted Fri Oct 20 2006 21:35:14 by RichardPrice

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format