NYC777
Topic Author
Posts: 5065
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:27 pm

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.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:16 pm

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.
 
eraugrad02
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:12 am

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:23 pm

That will look gorgeous. I'd hope USAF wouldnt just take 1 767 to replace the many 707's.
Desmond MacRae in ILM
 
NYC777
Topic Author
Posts: 5065
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:23 pm

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.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:33 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:26 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:28 am

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
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:01 pm

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:33 am

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
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:58 am

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.
Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.
 
starstream707
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:01 pm

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:03 am

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.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5179
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:53 am

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
 
ftrguy
Posts: 347
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 8:17 am

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:51 am

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
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:47 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:30 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:32 pm

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
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07

Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:51 am

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.
Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sassiciai and 6 guests