NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5159 posts, RR: 49 Posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5105 times:
Got it from a very dependable source that the fiinal 764 on order is to go to the USAF as the E-10A (the MC2A program). It should be delivered around Nov./Dec. of this year.
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4982 times:
Is it for certain the last one? I understand there has been controversy, but the original plan was for a fleet of E-10A's. Is that plan dead now, and if so what will replace all those 707-based platforms?
ERAUgrad02 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1227 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4940 times:
That will look gorgeous. I'd hope USAF wouldnt just take 1 767 to replace the many 707's.
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5159 posts, RR: 49 Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4940 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 1): Is it for certain the last one? I understand there has been controversy, but the original plan was for a fleet of E-10A's. Is that plan dead now, and if so what will replace all those 707-based platforms?
That's unclear for the moment. I suspect that they would be using it as a protoype to wring out the systems and if the Air Force is impressed with it they could order more. I'm also wondering if Boeing would offer up the 764 for KC-X competition?
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23 Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4899 times:
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 3): I'm also wondering if Boeing would offer up the 764 for KC-X competition?
No, the tanker is definitely based on the 762. The recent RFP for the tanker made clear that the USAF is concerned about the ground footprint of the aircraft and the cost. The 762 not coincidentally fits into the 707/KC-135 footprint.
I do think the two issues are linked. If Boeing wins the tanker bid with a 767 derivative, then the line remains open and the 764/E-10A may continue to be produced in small numbers for many years to come.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4606 times:
The program was rumored to be dead, as the USAF has no funding for the program in their current Fiscal 2008 budget before the Congress.
However, last month they evidently received $256 million to continue development (not end it, as was initially reported) so I guess Boeing received the cash to finally build the 767-400ER UFO order placed in September 2004, which indeed was for the E-10A program.
However, that funding is only good through May 2007 so if Boeing is building a 767-400ER, it may not have anything to put in it when it's done... Make a nice Air Force Two, however, when compared to the current C-32.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11710 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4566 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5): The program was rumored to be dead, as the USAF has no funding for the program in their current Fiscal 2008 budget before the Congress.
That is what I thought.
So, will this "prototype" E-10 have an air refueling receptical?
Starstream707 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 174 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4563 times:
Is Lt. Awacs around?
There was big press in OKC here about the new block 40/45 upgrade that the E-3 is about to undergo out at Tinker and the 707 will be around for the next 30 years. November 29, 2006 in the Daily Oklahoman was the story. The story mentioned that the new Maintenance and Overhaul center across the street from Tinker was recently completed for that specific purpose and by the looks of those hangars, they can only fit a 707.
Also, the Navy just completed the last E-6B upgrade to FULL glass cockpit, so those 707's will be around for awhile.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5): The program was rumored to be dead, as the USAF has no funding for the program in their current Fiscal 2008 budget before the Congress.
Actually the infrastructure costs to build new hangars, redesign taxiways, and retooling the shops, etc... played a huge role in deciding not to order the 767. The Links program for the flight simulator contract also goes until 2012 I think? Those sims cost $50 million each and the are for the E-3.
Lt. Awacs would know WAAAAY more than me but I have seen NUMEROUS discussions here on the forum about the TF-33 engines on the AWACS and whether or not they'll be re-engined, and no, they won't. They will stay the way they are for awhile.
There was also a story on the forum here that the E-8 JSTARS will be around for another 25 years since Omega and P&W are going to re-engine them with
-219s.
KevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4546 times:
Quoting Starstream707 (Reply 7): TF-33 engines on the AWACS and whether or not they'll be re-engined, and no, they won't
Actually the USAF is one of the few operators of the type that haven't put the CFMs on.
On a side note, putting the CFMs on the C-135/E-3 frames makes landing in a crosswind tricky. One of the the Navy LTs here, who flew the E-6 out of Tinker, told me they had really strict crosswind limits because the nacelles were only about 1.5 feet off the ground.
Starstream707 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 174 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4542 times:
Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 8): Actually the USAF is one of the few operators of the type that haven't put the CFMs on.
On a side note, putting the CFMs on the C-135/E-3 frames makes landing in a crosswind tricky. One of the the Navy LTs here, who flew the E-6 out of Tinker, told me they had really strict crosswind limits because the nacelles were only about 1.5 feet off the ground.
In the J-Stars thread or the article, I don't remeber which one, but going along with and backing up your point is that the TF-33 engines don't interfere with the radar sweeps as well.
If more could be gleaned from them, then well and good. Might the $256M "scaled-back technology demonstration program" mean they acquired a new-build 767 for a flying prototype?
I don't think a single 764ER airframe will cost all of $256M, so the rest may well go to equipment, installation and testing, as I assume the bulk of R&D was already done and all that remains is validation, and the funding could be locked in.
Ftrguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 358 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4431 times:
Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 8): On a side note, putting the CFMs on the C-135/E-3 frames makes landing in a crosswind tricky. One of the the Navy LTs here, who flew the E-6 out of Tinker, told me they had really strict crosswind limits because the nacelles were only about 1.5 feet off the ground.
We have a limit of 5 degrees of bank on touchdown due to the low clearance of the engines. It can be pretty difficult to keep the wings level during gusty conditions and with no hydraulic flight controls. For training, we use a 737-600 and we go and find considerable crosswinds to practice. The 737 doesn't have the 5 degree restriction, but we fly it like it does...
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1601 posts, RR: 52 Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4325 times:
According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, the E-10A program is dead. The plan now is to do "technology insertion" on the E-8 JSTARS. I wonder if the prototype E-10A will actually be used or flown straight to AMARC?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11710 posts, RR: 52 Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4213 times:
Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 8): Actually the USAF is one of the few operators of the type that haven't put the CFMs on.
The NATO E-3s are also equipped with the TF-33s. I believe all other E-3 operators have the F-108 engines and they were installed when those airplane were originally built.
Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 8): On a side note, putting the CFMs on the C-135/E-3 frames makes landing in a crosswind tricky.
Not really. The crosswind componet for a J-57 equipped KC-135 and the F-108 equipped KC-135 are the same. The only thing that was reduced was the bank angle (which you shouldn't have much bank in the landing flair, anyway). The outboard F-108 engines will contact the runway at 6 degrees of bank (yes the restriction is on the outboard engines), whereas the smaller outboard J-57 engines would contact the runway at 8 degrees of bank.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11710 posts, RR: 52 Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4212 times:
BTW, there is a plan to reengine the USAF E-3B/C. It just has not been funded and is way down the USAF lists of priorities.
KevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4175 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Not really. The crosswind componet for a J-57 equipped KC-135 and the F-108 equipped KC-135 are the same.
(Tounge FRIMLY in cheek) Now listen here TopBoom. Just because you've got probably a go-zillion hours in the 135 frames, many of those combat I'm sure, doesn't mean you're an expert.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Not really. The crosswind componet for a J-57 equipped KC-135 and the F-108 equipped KC-135 are the same.
Gotcha. So while the difference between the J-57 and F-108 is relatively the same it is still a strict crosswind component when compared to other aircraft.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5159 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4429 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
