Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf Awacs  
User currently offlineAFC_ajax00 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 775 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4065 times:

LT. AWACS, Why has the USAF not reengined their 707s with the CFMs like France and the UK, are they planning to, and is NATO planning to? thanks in advance.


Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward; for there you long to return
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline727pfe From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4033 times:

Although I'm not LT.AWACS, and he may have more current INFO, here is at least a partial answer. The France and UK E-3's are not "re-engined", they were built with the CFM 56 engines. The original 707 was not designed to accept the CFM engines without extensive wing and rudder modification. So, it would not be cost effective to re-engine with CFM's. Also as LT.AWACS has previously posted, the AF wants to replace the E-3, E-8, and EC-135 with a multi-sensor platform based on a 767 or other wide body. From news reports there is a 707RE project on going with Omega Air to test re-enginning with JT-8D engines. The aircraft can use most of the existing structure and get a more reliable, higher thrust engine. From the news reports the AF and NATO are both interested in the project. Just as a side note the E-3 had TF33-PW100 engines that put out about 20K of thrust verses the 16.5k of the JT-3D equipped E-8 and EC-135.

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4010 times:

Another reason is the same reason the B-52s are not reengined. There are heaps (almost literally) of spare engines sitting in storage around the USA. As the aircraft don't need more power reengining would just be an expensive luxury until those spares run out.

The tankerforce could make good use of the extra power to either haul more fuel or be able to refuel at higher airspeed (thus making the operation easier on the jetjocks).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineLt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4023 times:

Gee I'm gone for a day and half and miss everything.

Well both those guys hit the nail on the head really. The Brits were built with CFMs

while "There are heaps (almost literally) of spare engines sitting in storage around the USA. "

Some argue more power is needed. And sometimes I agree when we can't t/o with over 110k on fuel but I digress.

The planes work now and there is no plan to fix us anytime soon.

There is small talk the US might by the 5 Saudi birds, but if we did that we would actually 're' engine them back to the TF33s.

Basically the guys above got it all. THere is no plane anytime soon to re-engine.

however the RSIP program is going strong and should be done by 2005 (about 10 birds are RSIP now) while the even further 40/45 block upgrade (all are 30/35 now) could happen by 2008 with a windows based system on the scopes  Smile and maybe a glass cockpit

Ciao and Hook 'em Horns,
Lt-AWACS



User currently offlineKiwi dave From New Zealand, joined Aug 2000, 895 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3945 times:

the US could buy some wedgetails and use them for homeland duties could that help in some small way?

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3936 times:

If the US where to buy those saudi birds, what would be the point of reengining them.

The E-6 Tamco aircraft allready are powered by the same plants. I know it's Navy but common.

Besides is there really that many differences between a CFM on a KC-135 and one of an E-3 or E-6?

Of course know the way my tax dollars are spent....It wouldn't surprise me if downgrading to TF-33's would happen.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineLt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3942 times:

as a sidenote the E-6 is called TACAMO which means literally 'Take Charge and move out' They are also based here at Tinker with the VQ-3 and 4

The USAF does not want two engine types for the E-3 that would require seperate flight deck folks (AC, CO and Eng) for those. THat would require too much training and maintainers problems. Thus re-engine those 5. We have so many TF-33 s sitting in coffins in base storage that they will last for years to come.

We don't have money or need really for the wedgetail as we have E-3s up in the US all the time.

Ciao and Hook 'em Horns,
Lt-AWACS


User currently offlineSouthflite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3924 times:

Re. the name issue ...

The E-6 is called the "Mercury", just as the E-3 is called the "Sentry".

TACAMO is the role that the E-6 Mercury performs, just as AWACS is the role that the E-3 Sentry performs. The E-2 Hawkeye is also an AWACS aircraft.

Southflite
Corrections Editor / official Airliners.net wiseguy  Wink/being sarcastic


User currently offlineLt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3910 times:

Yes -and if you say 'Mercury' you will be laughed at and made fun off-especially in the O 'Club. I advise against it, kind of like calling a B-1B a 'Lancer' and not the 'Bone' and technically the E-2 is AEW , control is now a secondary function, where as on the E-3 it is now a Primary Function  Smile


Another wiseguy  Smile

Ciao and Hook 'em Horns,
Lt-AWACS


User currently offlineKiwi dave From New Zealand, joined Aug 2000, 895 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3892 times:

Sorry bout the idea of the USAF buying wedgetails, I'm a new Zealander and we don't get these new planes.

User currently offlineLt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

a little off topic but since you guys did (NZ) did away with your Combat arm, will you get more P-3s or maritime surveillance???


Just Curious

Ciao and Hook 'em Horns,
Lt-AWACS


User currently offlineKiwi dave From New Zealand, joined Aug 2000, 895 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3878 times:

There has been no word on increased numbers but they are getting a "limited" upgrade.
With the NZ budget there is no money spare for buying P-3s even second hand.


User currently offlineTT737FO From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 472 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3851 times:

When is the 767 AWACs coming on line?

User currently offlineLt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3849 times:

The Japanese Self Defense force has had their 4 E-767s for several years now. As I said above the Radar and console systems themselves are the same as the E-3. The biggest problem is the E-767 has less generated power from its two engines.

Ciao and Hook 'em Horns,
Lt-AWACS


User currently offlineDash 80 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 309 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3839 times:

The reasons for not re-enginening the E-3s and KC-135s seem pretty apparent now, but I have one question for you. Why has the Air Force begun to re-engine some of it's RC-135s? A couple of them at Offutt got new PWs in the last few years.


...where the rubber hits the runway...
User currently offlineMidEx717 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 132 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3816 times:

I was stationed at Tinker AFB from 1990-1994 with the AWACS. I like those airplanes too. Was with the 552 LSS in the Sentry Control Point and later in the Mobility Section and than the last six months I was there I moved back to the Sentry Control Point. Now I'm in the Air Force Reserves since then with the C-130 unit in Milwaukee.

Lt-AWACS where do you work at Tinker AFB? Just wondering.


User currently offlineDash 80 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 309 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3778 times:

I also lived at Tinker from 1985-1993. My father was in the 552nd and worked in Mission Support.


...where the rubber hits the runway...
User currently offlinePeterba69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3782 times:

They definitely are re-engining 135's. Just after reading this yesterday, I read an article in "Overhaul and Maintenance" magazine (an Aviation Week pub.) regarding this. As of May, 438 KC-135's had been done by Boeing. It's called the F108 w/22,000 lbs. thrust and increased MGTOW by almost 20,000 lbs. They are also upgrading avionics to make them more compatible in modern airspace, including SATCOM, Microwave and ILS, GPS, an additional HF radio,and a VHF Data Link. They are also being made RVSM compliant with digital altimeters, altitude alerters,and a new Digital Air Data Computer. They expect to keep these bird in service until 2040.

User currently offlineSouthflite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 3 months 4 days ago) and read 3835 times:

Just remember that the KC-135/RC-135/EC-135/WC-135/OC-135/VC-135/C-135 family are a different airframe (the original Boeing 717) to that of the E-3/E-6/E-8/C-18/C-137 family (Boeing 707), and the construction methodology and materials used for the two different designs are quite different. It doesn't follow, therefore, that if the C-135 types are being re-engined with CFM56s that the C-137 types will be as well.


User currently offlinePeterba69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

"the construction methodology and materials used for the two different designs are quite different." Please explain how they are different. If you can back that up, I'll eat my hat.
 Smokin cool


User currently offlineSouthflite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (12 years 3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3776 times:

From Air International, Nov 1980 p.221:

Although both the KC-135 family (Boeing Model 717) and the commercial 707/720 family have a common origin in the Dash 80 prototype, it is wrong to regard the tanker as a military variant of the commercial transport; the 707 was developed from the prototype in a parallel program - making its first flight some 18 months after the first KC-135A, on 20 December 1957 - and the two types share little but their overall configuration and the basic wing box. The 707 differs, notably, in having a slightly larger fuselage diameter with a double lobe cross section, which meant that Boeing could not build the two types in common fuselage jogs. This difference was emphasised when the USAF later bought some commercial 707s off-the-shelf for VIP (and Presidential) use and designated them as C-137s rather than C-135s.
To achieve a better strength-to-weight ratio, the -135 structures were designed to a "safe-life" philosophy, whereas the 707/720 structures are "fail-safe", as required to meet FAA regulations. In material terms, the tanker utilises a 7178 aluminium alloy while the commercial model is largely fabricated in the 2024 alloy.


Methodology: safe-life vs. fail-safe
Materials: 7178 alloy vs. 2024 alloy

Be sure to tell us how that hat tasted ... Big grin


User currently offlinePeterba69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3723 times:

Thanks alot man. Nuts Tasted like $&!+. Now that I read that, I remember reading that same material somewhere years ago. Fog and spider webs at such a young age.
 Smokin cool
Peter


User currently offlineLt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3712 times:

"Lt-AWACS where do you work at Tinker AFB? Just wondering."

the 964th AACS (airborne air control sqd) 'Bandsaw' also known as 'Phoenix pride'  Smile

all though I am back in Texas on some leave right now.

Ciao and Hook 'em Horns,
Lt-AWACS

THE Texas Longhorns, 2002 NCAA Baseball National Champions


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Usaf Awacs
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...
Huge Usaf Cargo Proptransports posted Fri Nov 24 2006 17:43:23 by Reedyreed
Usaf SAR Helo Selection posted Thu Nov 9 2006 23:14:06 by Lumberton
Usaf Settles With N.J. Elementary School posted Sat Nov 4 2006 17:52:06 by GrandTheftAero
What Is A Usaf U-60 posted Thu Nov 2 2006 16:25:19 by Wannabe
Usaf Memorial Dedicated Today (Oct 14) posted Sat Oct 14 2006 17:22:39 by TaxPilot
Flyover Today At Usaf Memorial posted Fri Oct 13 2006 14:13:01 by Contrails
Congress Agrees To 10 More C-17's For Usaf posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:23:45 by B747
Congress To USAF-Plan To Keep The 144th At Fresno posted Sat Oct 7 2006 07:34:33 by FATFlyer
Updated: USAF's Next Tanker posted Fri Sep 29 2006 04:05:32 by AislepathLight
Changes The Usaf Make To The KC-135E TF-33 posted Fri Sep 15 2006 02:03:34 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format