User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:23 am

The first flight for the re-engined E-8C J-STARS is scheduled for 17 Dec., from the NG facility in Melbourne, FL. NG is the prime contractor for this re-engine program. The new engine will be the JT-8D-219 engine, used on the commerical MD-88 airliner. The USAF will give this engine a military designation later. The test aircraft is E-8C T-3, which was originally the E-8B orignal J-STARS test aircraft. There were two E-8A test aircraft, also, later brought up to the E-8B and finally the E-8C configueration. The test engines, reversers and Seven-Q-Seven (SQS) pylons (called the propulsion pod system) were removed from the privately owned B-707-SQS aircraft, which already has completed FAA supplemential test certification.

Should these flight tests be a success, this may be an answer to the USAF tanker problem, as it would be easy for NG to up-grade the KC-135E aircraft with this SQS propulsion pod system.

http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123126470

A similar subject was also discussed here on a.net back in August 2001.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/2940/
 
Max Q
Posts: 5644
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:29 am

I must be missing something, why are they re-engining with the JT8D rather than the more powerful and efficient CFM56 ?

Is the up front savings worthwhile or is there a performance factor I' m overlooking.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:39 am

Since military aircraft are generally exempt from noise restrictions, going with the JT8D-219s is consideraly cheaper than re-engining with the CFM-56-2B engines.

But, I agree the CFM-56s (USAF designation F-108) would make more sense as it is a more advanced engine, and already has full maintenance support within the USAF. The F-108 engines are on KC/RC-135s and C-40B/Cs, as well as USN E-6Bs and C-40A (the USAF provides depot level maintenance for both the E-6 airframe and the F-108 engines on them).
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3178
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:00 pm

The old story is that the CFM-56, since it has a much larger diameter than the TF-33s, actually blocks some of the sensor's line of sight. The JT8D-219 is very close to the original TF-33 external dimensions, so avoids those problems (and the subsequent long electronics retesting process).

Performance and efficiency will be improved regardless.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:02 pm

One reason why the USAF is looking at using a JT8D-219 variant is the large number of MD-80 planes now hitting retirement, which means a large number of surplus JT8D-219 engines will be available. They will find new life not only for the E-8 JSTARS, but possibly replace the TF33's on the E-3 AWACS fleet and re-engining the KC-135E fleet.
 
MD88Captain
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 9:50 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:35 pm

21k per engine probably is plenty of trust. It is a better engine in a FOD rich environment. They are cheap, reliable, and plentiful. It will be really hard to scrap a pod on landing. No FADEC capability but then the E8 is a steam gauge type jet. It may be a sound choice given the mission.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:07 pm



Quoting Max Q (Reply 1):
I must be missing something, why are they re-engining with the JT8D rather than the more powerful and efficient CFM56 ?

The 7q7 struts will bolt up to the existing 707-300 wing attachment the same as the jt3d struts saving tons in refurb costs , the CFM56 struts are a whole new fabrication and mod to the existing wing, the JT8D is a more reiable engine than the JT3d dog the E-8's have now, don't know if the E-3 will go to this the TF-33 P 100a is a powerful engine but it does problems of going places that don't like the noise it produces.
Does anybody know the cost per 7Q7 strut compared to the old 707/KC-135E strut which is over a 1mil a piece for a new replacement?
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:18 pm

Spacepope is correct - the decision was an operational one. The CFM's interferred with the operational requirements of the airplane. (Of course they will not say what the problems are.)

All of the fit issues were resolved on the 135's, and the USAF would have preferred one engine type for spares and mx reasons.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:18 pm

Looking at the picture on the link provided the one thing that concerns me is keeping the oil in the Constand speed drive on the generator cool enough. I know it worked on the standard 707 but it is not running a high energy consuming surveilance radar on the belly along with a huge computer and communication suite plus does the E-8 fly at lower altitudes than a high flying E-3 which means less cooling going across its forced air fans and oil coolers.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
Max Q
Posts: 5644
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:36 am

Very interesting, thanks for the information.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:55 am



Quoting MD88Captain (Reply 5):
21k per engine probably is plenty of trust. It is a better engine in a FOD rich environment. They are cheap, reliable, and plentiful. It will be really hard to scrap a pod on landing. No FADEC capability but then the E8 is a steam gauge type jet. It may be a sound choice given the mission.

How many years can these engines be supported via the logistics chain?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:55 am



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 8):
Looking at the picture on the link provided the one thing that concerns me is keeping the oil in the Constand speed drive on the generator cool enough. I know it worked on the standard 707 but it is not running a high energy consuming surveilance radar on the belly along with a huge computer and communication suite plus does the E-8 fly at lower altitudes than a high flying E-3 which means less cooling going across its forced air fans and oil coolers.

I would guess the CSD oil cooler is cooled with bleed air directly from the engine. I believe that is how the airlines keep the CSD cooled on the MD-80 series and B-737-200/ADVs.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 10):
How many years can these engines be supported via the logistics chain?

The US military has a way of being able to support engines and equipment long after the production lines end. Just look at the B-52H and EA-6B engines, as well as the KC-135, C-130E/H, B-52H, and EA-6B airframes.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:22 am

Here is another link that goes into depth why the JT8D was chosen , goes a little more in depth
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Re-engining-the-E-8-JSTARS-04891/
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:48 am

According to the USAF, the current plans are to keep the E-8 J-STARS for another 50 years. But, all these B-707-320B/C airframes were bought used, including two CC-137s from the RCAF. I know they were completely refurbished when converted to the E-8 standards, but can they actually last that long? If thaey can last that long, then why can't the KC-135s last that long?
 
LMP737
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:57 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
I would guess the CSD oil cooler is cooled with bleed air directly from the engine. I believe that is how the airlines keep the CSD cooled on the MD-80 series and B-737-200/ADVs.

On the JT8D the CSD oil cooler is located in the fan bypass at about the six o'clock position. I've only had to change the cooler once, the CSD overheated. Typically it's the generator portion of the CSD/GEN that goes bad.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:57 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
According to the USAF, the current plans are to keep the E-8 J-STARS for another 50 years. But, all these B-707-320B/C airframes were bought used, including two CC-137s from the RCAF. I know they were completely refurbished when converted to the E-8 standards, but can they actually last that long? If thaey can last that long, then why can't the KC-135s last that long?

If they do last that long I can gaurantee you that all the t6 aluminum on the fuselage will not be the original metal that came off the assembly line back in Renton and Boeing will be manufacturing wing spars again for the 707 which is usall suspect when a 707 is sent to her death.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:13 pm



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 15):
On the JT8D the CSD oil cooler is located in the fan bypass at about the six o'clock position. I've only had to change the cooler once, the CSD overheated. Typically it's the generator portion of the CSD/GEN that goes bad.

What is the usaul KVA rating for a standard JT8D installed generator, to put this perspective a E-3 has 8 generators 2 per engine at if I remember 65 KVA per generator to run a radar system that takes 114 volts 400HZ and steps it up to 20000 volts, don't know the power requrements of a E-8 but imagine it is close to a E-3. I can't imagine a standard Generator for a 727 or MD80 could handle that load.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
LMP737
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:35 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 16):
What is the usaul KVA rating for a standard JT8D installed generator, to put this perspective a E-3 has 8 generators 2 per engine at if I remember 65 KVA per generator to run a radar system that takes 114 volts 400HZ and steps it up to 20000 volts, don't know the power requrements of a E-8 but imagine it is close to a E-3. I can't imagine a standard Generator for a 727 or MD80 could handle that load.

On the MD-80 the the CSD/GEN puts out 40kva. Of course the MD-80 does not have the power requirments of a JSTARS or AWACS.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:53 am



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 15):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
I would guess the CSD oil cooler is cooled with bleed air directly from the engine. I believe that is how the airlines keep the CSD cooled on the MD-80 series and B-737-200/ADVs.

On the JT8D the CSD oil cooler is located in the fan bypass at about the six o'clock position. I've only had to change the cooler once, the CSD overheated. Typically it's the generator portion of the CSD/GEN that goes bad.

Thanks, I was only guessing.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:05 pm



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 17):
On the MD-80 the the CSD/GEN puts out 40kva. Of course the MD-80 does not have the power requirments of a JSTARS or AWACS

Maybe the MD -80 could load up the generators if ever decided to use the galleys and serve real food again  Smile
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:22 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
I know they were completely refurbished when converted to the E-8 standards, but can they actually last that long? If thaey can last that long, then why can't the KC-135s last that long?

While one side of the tanker argument was saying they needed to be replaced, there was also another side which said the current fleet could fly through 2040. So the answer isn't clear.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:44 pm



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 20):
While one side of the tanker argument was saying they needed to be replaced, there was also another side which said the current fleet could fly through 2040. So the answer isn't clear.

the current KC-135 fleet is very capable but what senior leadership fears one day they find some grounding problem that will condemn the acft and they go check the rest of the fleet and it exists on them also. That would no longer give us a global capability.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:27 am



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 21):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 20):
While one side of the tanker argument was saying they needed to be replaced, there was also another side which said the current fleet could fly through 2040. So the answer isn't clear.

the current KC-135 fleet is very capable but what senior leadership fears one day they find some grounding problem that will condemn the acft and they go check the rest of the fleet and it exists on them also. That would no longer give us a global capability.

While all that is true, it applies to B-52, E-8s, KC-135s, A-10s, C-5As, and C-130s, also.
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:14 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
While all that is true, it applies to B-52, E-8s, KC-135s, A-10s, C-5As, and C-130s, also.

Which, all of them, have been used for many many years already...

The A400M project gets bashed from all sides because of its huge delays, but somehow I thing developing something entirely new after 50 years is not the worst idea. Certanly the current US planes do the job, but they all age, and I doubt that B-52s, E8s, JC135s, A10s, C5As and C-130s can all be replaced at the same time in 40 years from now...
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:25 pm



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 23):
Certanly the current US planes do the job, but they all age, and I doubt that B-52s, E8s, JC135s, A10s, C5As and C-130s can all be replaced at the same time in 40 years from now...

Most likely they won't be replaced one-for-one. I would expect some missions to be taken over by UAVs.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
747400sp
Posts: 3850
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:28 pm

That's good! I love the way MD88 sounds at take off, so a plane with four instead of two of those great sounding JT8's is music to my ears.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:40 am



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 21):
the current KC-135 fleet is very capable but what senior leadership fears one day they find some grounding problem that will condemn the acft and they go check the rest of the fleet and it exists on them also. That would no longer give us a global capability.

While that is a possibility, it is also possible a brand new airplane, like the KC-30 could also have such a problem.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 25):
That's good! I love the way MD88 sounds at take off, so a plane with four instead of two of those great sounding JT8's is music to my ears.

You like your music very loud, don't you?

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:41 pm



Quoting Max Q (Reply 1):
I must be missing something, why are they re-engining with the JT8D rather than the more powerful and efficient CFM56 ?

Is the up front savings worthwhile or is there a performance factor I' m overlooking.

Up front savings is surely an important factor, very likely also line of sight for sensors is also an issue, as stated in earlier posts.

But there may also be a performance issue. Low bypass ratio engines lose power less steeply with altitude. That could mean that with the JT8D-219 the E-8 can cruise higher and more efficiently at very high altitude than it could with CFM56.

Maybe the JT8D isn't more efficient, but rather equally efficient. AND A LOT CHEAPER.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:31 am

Correct me if I am wrong, but the JT8D-219 actually is just shy of 22,000 lb thrust, more than the TF-33 and the same as the CFM-56's fitted to the KC-135 fleet. (P&W website)
 
747400sp
Posts: 3850
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Thu Dec 25, 2008 7:08 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):
You like your music very loud, don't you?


If it's the music of jet engines, YES Big grin


Have a Marry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Thu Dec 25, 2008 10:37 pm



Quoting 747400sp (Reply 29):
If it's the music of jet engines

I like the music of the old J-57 (JT-3C) with water injection.  bigthumbsup 
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3178
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:22 pm

SHe flew last week!

I've seen photos (not too terribly different), however has anyone found a video?
The last of the famous international playboys
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 1791
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:50 pm



Quoting RayChuang (Reply 4):
One reason why the USAF is looking at using a JT8D-219 variant is the large number of MD-80 planes now hitting retirement, which means a large number of surplus JT8D-219 engines will be available. They will find new life not only for the E-8 JSTARS, but possibly replace the TF33's on the E-3 AWACS fleet and re-engining the KC-135E fleet.

Re-engining the E-3 eh? That'll happen when they finally get rid of my job on the jet...and that's been rumored for 20 years now.

Frankly, this jet will be retired before it ever gets re-engined/de-Navigatored.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:01 pm



Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 32):
Re-engining the E-3 eh? That'll happen when they finally get rid of my job on the jet...and that's been rumored for 20 years now.

Frankly, this jet will be retired before it ever gets re-engined/de-Navigatored.

As soon as the E-3 gets the 40/45 mod which the french E-3 F's are going to get from Boeing.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:04 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 33):


Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 32):
Re-engining the E-3 eh? That'll happen when they finally get rid of my job on the jet...and that's been rumored for 20 years now.

Frankly, this jet will be retired before it ever gets re-engined/de-Navigatored.

As soon as the E-3 gets the 40/45 mod which the french E-3 F's are going to get from Boeing.

Source
http://defense-technologynews.blogsp...rade-e-3f-awacs-aircraft-with.html
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:42 pm

Here is a picture of the re-engined aircraft taking off:



http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRA...29%202008/pix122908jointstars.aspx
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:00 am



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 33):
As soon as the E-3 gets the 40/45 mod which the french E-3 F's are going to get from Boeing.

Isn't the USAF, NATO, and RAF E-3A/B/C/Ds being upgraded to the Block 50/55 configueration right now?
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3178
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:27 am



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 35):
Here is a picture of the re-engined aircraft taking off:

I love the looks of the TR buckets on that thing.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 1791
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:48 am

You guys gotta understand how things work in Air Combat Command.

The fighters get the top priority...followed by the bombers (obviously that'll change when they move to SAC mk II)...followed by the RC's and JSTARS because they're the highest priority of the RECCE aircraft needed in the GWOT.

AWACS is so far down the barrel, they're finally ready to start discussing the Block 40/45 mod that was supposed to start back in 2001. By the time they actually START the mod, it will be 2010/2011...nearly 10 years after it was supposed to begin.

The E-3 is the redheaded stepchild of the USAF...things move at the speed of smell around here.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:39 am



Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 38):
The E-3 is the redheaded stepchild of the USAF...things move at the speed of smell around here.

Now you know how it felt to be a KC-135 Tanker Toad in SAC. The bomber guys got everything, then came the SR guys and the RC guys, then the EC guys, and oh SAC had KC-135s and KC-10s, too.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:48 am



Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 38):
You guys gotta understand how things work in Air Combat Command.

The fighters get the top priority...followed by the bombers (obviously that'll change when they move to SAC mk II)...followed by the RC's and JSTARS because they're the highest priority of the RECCE aircraft needed in the GWOT.

AWACS is so far down the barrel, they're finally ready to start discussing the Block 40/45 mod that was supposed to start back in 2001. By the time they actually START the mod, it will be 2010/2011...nearly 10 years after it was supposed to begin.

The E-3 is the redheaded stepchild of the USAF...things move at the speed of smell around here.



~Steve (AWACS Nav.)



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
Now you know how it felt to be a KC-135 Tanker Toad in SAC. The bomber guys got everything, then came the SR guys and the RC guys, then the EC guys, and oh SAC had KC-135s and KC-10s, too.

I sure did not feel that way when all your E-3's and RC-135's are broke all the attention you got trying just to get one flyable during OEF,OSW,or ONW or OPC . As Production Superintendent and or Crew Chief you don't relize how popular you become with senior leadership.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 1791
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:42 pm

That's in the theater...back stateside, it's different.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:03 pm



Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 41):
That's in the theater...back stateside, it's different.

As soon as we start going against somebody that has real Air Force threat or enforcing a no fly zone AWACS will become relevent again. Surprised they havent got you guys back in Keflavik keeping tabs on Russian Tupolevs. Old Buds are telling me that 552ACW has forgot how to deploy after coming back from PSAB and Incirlik. You can go to JStars and fly a even older acft in a active duty /Guard shotgun marriage abortion. Their was a time when Mx troops were gone 9 mo's a year not including all those RON's statside and Red Flag,Maple Flag. I prefered it that way because of the buffoonry going on at Bldg 230, during those days you can see the MC rate go up the farther a E-3 and her Crew Chief was away from Tinker.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 1791
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:39 am



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 42):
As soon as we start going against somebody that has real Air Force threat or enforcing a no fly zone AWACS will become relevent again. Surprised they havent got you guys back in Keflavik keeping tabs on Russian Tupolevs.

Heh... I wish. I'd take a Keflavik assignment in a heartbeat...but I'm still gunning for Elmo.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:16 am

Gates restored the funding for the re-engining of the JSTARS.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...orthrop-programs-in-2011-plan.html

Quote:
Gates directed restoration of $285 million in 2011 and $1.843 billion overall through 2015 on the C-130 program. He also told the Air Force to restore $2.4 billion for an Internet- like radio that Lockheed Martin Corp. is building for aircraft and vessels.

In addition, he told the service to add $280 million to continue installing upgraded Pratt & Whitney engines on the Northrop Grumman Corp. Jstars surveillance plane.

Compared to some programs, this re-engining is a bargain.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:35 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 21):
the current KC-135 fleet is very capable but what senior leadership fears one day they find some grounding problem that will condemn the acft and they go check the rest of the fleet and it exists on them also. That would no longer give us a global capability.

Something similar happened to the C-124 fleet in the early to middle 70's.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9925
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:40 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
But, I agree the CFM-56s (USAF designation F-108) would make more sense as it is a more advanced engine, and already has full maintenance support within the USAF. The F-108 engines are on KC/RC-135s and C-40B/Cs, as well as USN E-6Bs and C-40A (the USAF provides depot level maintenance for both the E-6 airframe and the F-108 engines on them).

The F-108 as on the KC-135 (CFM56-2) is not an advanced engine (it is basically not even as advanced as the CFM56-3 engine on the 737-300). It is vastly different to the P-8A engine (CFM56-7BE) in terms of technology.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 20):
While one side of the tanker argument was saying they needed to be replaced, there was also another side which said the current fleet could fly through 2040. So the answer isn't clear.

The studies I have read indicated that the TYPE may be operational until 2030/2040 depending on the report you read. That figure assumed a gradual reduction the fleet before (commencing in 2018 for the KC-135R case) and various structural upgrades, re-wiring, and new or overhauled engines (they will run out of time before 2040).

I have not read a single report that suggests that the entire KC-135 fleet could effectively be operational until 2030/2040, if you have seen different, I would love to see it.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:25 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 46):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
But, I agree the CFM-56s (USAF designation F-108) would make more sense as it is a more advanced engine, and already has full maintenance support within the USAF. The F-108 engines are on KC/RC-135s and C-40B/Cs, as well as USN E-6Bs and C-40A (the USAF provides depot level maintenance for both the E-6 airframe and the F-108 engines on them).

The F-108 as on the KC-135 (CFM56-2) is not an advanced engine (it is basically not even as advanced as the CFM56-3 engine on the 737-300). It is vastly different to the P-8A engine (CFM56-7BE) in terms of technology.

While that is true today, the F-108 engine is a more advanced engine than the JT-8D-219 engine is, and much more advanced than the KC-135's original J-57-43WB or -59W (JT-3C) engines. The F-108 (CFM-56-2B engine is an early 1980s product and essentially the originally offered CFM-56 engine for the KC-135, DC-8, E-6, E-3 and KE-3 aircraft) is still a more modern engine than any version of the JT-8D engine.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 46):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 20):
While one side of the tanker argument was saying they needed to be replaced, there was also another side which said the current fleet could fly through 2040. So the answer isn't clear.

The studies I have read indicated that the TYPE may be operational until 2030/2040 depending on the report you read. That figure assumed a gradual reduction the fleet before (commencing in 2018 for the KC-135R case) and various structural upgrades, re-wiring, and new or overhauled engines (they will run out of time before 2040).

I have not read a single report that suggests that the entire KC-135 fleet could effectively be operational until 2030/2040, if you have seen different, I would love to see it.

Yes, the KC-135 type is viaible until the 2040 time frame, they are all almost structually identical. With the exception of those stored at DM and the few "lead the fleet airplanes" they essentially have about the same number of hours and cycles on then (around 20,000-22,000 hours and 10,000-12,000 cycles). I believe the high time KC-135R now has about 28,000 hours and 15,000 cycles. Cycles for the KC-135 fleet are not the limiting factor as airplanes go as they don't have what even a 8-10 year opld A-32X or B-737NG in commericial would have, and nothing close to the B-727, B-737 Classic, and DC-9/MD-80 series generation would have.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9925
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:01 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
F-108 engine is a more advanced engine than the JT-8D-219 engine is

The JT-8D-219 was certified on February 22, 1985, the CFM56-2B June 25, 1982.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
the KC-135 type is viaible until the 2040 time frame, they are all almost structually identical.

Still seen nothing to say the entire fleet could go to 2030/2040, everything I have read suggests a gradual reduction the fleet before then to cannibalize parts to keep the others flying.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3178
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08

Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:19 am

You still can't get around the physical size of the CFM powerplant, which is one of the main reasons why the JT8D-200 engine was chosen in the first place.

I still don't know where LT-AWACS is, claiming we had a huge supply of crated new JT3Ds in storage. Have the E-3, E-8 and B-52 fleets chewed through the reserve with the increased optempo?
The last of the famous international playboys

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Stitch and 5 guests