Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07  
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5753 posts, RR: 47
Posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6268 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.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6145 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?


Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineERAUgrad02 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6103 times:

That will look gorgeous. I'd hope USAF wouldnt just take 1 767 to replace the many 707's.


Desmond MacRae in ILM
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5753 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6103 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?



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6062 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. airplane 



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30914 posts, RR: 87
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5769 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.  Smile


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5729 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?


User currently offlineStarstream707 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5726 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.

Btw... links:

Block 40/45 upgrade (one of many stories)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/e-3-40.htm

The Daily Oklahoman (go to archives)

http://www.newsok.com


User currently offlineKevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5709 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.


User currently offlineStarstream707 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5705 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.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4811 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days ago) and read 5647 times:

Here are the links to reports on the last funding action.....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...256m-to-ng-for-e10a/index.php#more
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...mages/AIR_E-10_MC2A_Concept_lg.jpg
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...throp-to-end-e-10-development.html

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.

[Edited 2007-02-03 01:16:02]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineFtrguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5594 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...


User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1608 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5488 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 9 hours ago) and read 5376 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.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 9 hours ago) and read 5375 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.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...systems/aircraft/e-3-upgrades2.htm


User currently offlineKevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 5 hours ago) and read 5338 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.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07
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...
"Orion" Said To Be Name Of NASA's CEV Program posted Fri Jul 21 2006 10:42:36 by AerospaceFan
When Will The PC-12s Be Delivered To U.S.A.F.? posted Thu Jan 26 2006 17:55:10 by CX747
Poland's First F-16s Delivered (at Last...) posted Fri Nov 10 2006 16:20:54 by L410Turbolet
Was CV-64 Suppost To Be CV-63. posted Thu Oct 19 2006 01:31:19 by 747400sp
Orion Cockpit To Be Based On 787 posted Sat Oct 7 2006 04:43:32 by N328KF
CVN-77, USS Bush, To Be Christened 10/7/06 posted Thu Oct 5 2006 07:07:21 by BladeLWS
Firefly T-3A Fleet To Be Destroyed. posted Tue Sep 12 2006 03:07:30 by BOE773
CEV Contractor To Be Announced 8/31 posted Mon Aug 28 2006 15:50:28 by DfwRevolution
End Of An Era - Canberra PR.9 Retires posted Sun Jun 25 2006 02:19:54 by GDB
Seattle PI: Boeing May Move 767 Line To LGB posted Wed Feb 15 2006 08:05:18 by N328KF

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format