Does anybody know how the E-7 compares to the G550 CAEW as used by the Italian Air Force and I believe the Israeli and Singapore Air Forces?
Are they comparable on capabilities or is the E-7 a much more capable platform?
Thank you

Kiwirob wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

I wish Norway would buy some ....

Why does Norway need them? I think we would be better off with some more P8’s.

With the inclusion of Sweden in to NATO, and their robust AEWC assets, Norway needs an E-7A even less. If NATO decides to follow the US and recapitalize their E-3s as well, then there will be plenty of E-7s over the skies of Europe

bt

bikerthai wrote:

They will not use a P-8 frame which is based on a -800. The E-7 is based on a -700. Where the P-8A bombay is now, the E-7 has electronic hardware relating to the Radar.

The engineering required to put the E-7 radar on a P-8 frame would not allow you to build the first one by the time they are needed. Predicted 2025 when China will have the capability ro invade Taiwan.

The time line is also another reason to avoid a competitive bid. They already know how much it should cost thru the UK contract.

I see this study is strictly how to incorporate some unique US electronic systems - is there enough room in the equipment racks, where to place any additional antennas (crown space is a premium on the E-7), will there be enough power and cooling . . .

bt

The E-7 is quite a bit shorter than the E-3, and it obviously has a different radar. Is using the P-8 frame not an option? It seems the P-8 has been a huge success in terms of integration, why not keep that production line open by producing the Wedgetails based on that frame. It would keep the line open for further P-8 purchases down the road.

STT757 wrote:

Is using the P-8 frame not an option? It seems the P-8 has been a huge success in terms of integration, why not keep that production line open by producing the Wedgetails based on that frame. It would keep the line open for further P-8 purchases down the road.

Besides what was already written, using a P-8 size frame would require an extensive re-flight test program. That in itself would be detrimental to the production schedule.

In so far as BCA production is concerned, they will threat the P-8 and E-7 as the same as opposed to say the MAX.

Using the existing design (instead of taking time to design for the longer P-8 frame) Boeing will be able to run the NG line (both P-8 and E-7) at an efficient rate and allow cost competitive bid for the potential Canadian P-8s. Both the Canadian P-8A and the US E-7 program depends on each other for timing and production rate to provide an affordable airframe for both countries.

bt

I notice the Boeing website (https://www.boeing.com/defense/e-7-airborne-early-warning-and-control/) now uses the E-7 Wedgetail name rather than the previous “737 AEW&C”. Although the E-7 was originally just an RAAF branding thing, presumably now that the majority of operators (RAF, RAAF and USAF it seems) will be using it Boeing will quietly drop the previous name.

Elshad wrote:

I notice the Boeing website (https://www.boeing.com/defense/e-7-airborne-early-warning-and-control/) now uses the E-7 Wedgetail name rather than the previous “737 AEW&C”. Although the E-7 was originally just an RAAF branding thing, presumably now that the majority of operators (RAF, RAAF and USAF it seems) will be using it Boeing will quietly drop the previous name.

These nomenclature have different meanings.

AEW&C is a more generic term that includes systems built by other companies.

E-7 is the 737 family line of AEW&C.

Wedgetail is the Austrailian name for the E-7. Turkey's is Peace Eagle. Korea is Peace Eye. Wedgetail "sounds" better than the other two in English. But my guess is the other two may sound better in their native tongue.

When the UK and the US gets their first frame, they may designate new name for theirs as well.

If the US's final configuration (3rd frame) is much different than the UK configuration (first two US frames), they may call it E-7B.


bt

What are the two variants?

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=131217

STT757 wrote:

What are the two variants?

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=131217

I believe that the wrong word was chosen by the news outlet. 2 airplanes is the term used by Boeing. Internally they might be different, 1 empty one for stress and loads testing, one for systems testing and development. P8 used 8 airframes at the height of Developmental Testing and Evaluation phase. All the same variant but all very different from the others.

eskimotail wrote:

I believe that the wrong word was chosen by the news outlet. 2 airplanes is the term used by Boeing. Internally they might be different, 1 empty one for stress and loads testing, one for systems testing and development.

The wording is cryptic. But, no, there will not be an empty one for a stress test. In order to accerlate the program to sync with the final production runs of the P-8, they will just update the mission system and not do much with the airframe.

Indeed, there would be two frames initially (the two that was dropped when the UK went from 5 to 3).

The follow on order of 20 odd frames may have a different mission system architecture than the initial two.

If you read some of the other articles, they mentioned open architecture. It may be that the first two have the same/similar system architecture as the UK frames (to reduce lead time) and the follow up frames will have the open architecture they are trying to develop.

bt

Looks like the USAF plans a total of 26 frames through FY2032 per Reuters.

Stitch wrote:

Looks like the USAF plans a total of 26 frames through FY2032 per Reuters.

If you match that up with the Boeing stated rate of 12 NG frame a year, and back off one year for the mod, then you get about 72 frames between 2025 and 2031.

26 US E-7, 14 P-8 for Canada leaves you with 34 frames to be distributed among future P-8 and E-7 customers.

Seems like a reasonable time line for the end of the NG line.

bt

Stitch wrote:

Looks like the USAF plans a total of 26 frames through FY2032 per Reuters.

replacing 32?

STT757 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Looks like the USAF plans a total of 26 frames through FY2032 per Reuters.

replacing 32?

Greater reliability?

The thing that always intrigues me about these types of planes is that the platform is secondary. As a layman and an enthusiast without a security clearance, it seems to me that the real capabilities are the sensors (who says it's just radar?) and more importantly, the processing behind the sensors. And the capability to upgrade those sensors and software every few years, which really means pretty much continually given the time for mods to be accomplished. It seems to me that these type of aircraft are especially an example of Moores law.

SteelChair wrote:

The thing that always intrigues me about these types of planes is that the platform is secondary. As a layman and an enthusiast without a security clearance, it seems to me that the real capabilities are the sensors (who says it's just radar?) and more importantly, the processing behind the sensors. And the capability to upgrade those sensors and software every few years, which really means pretty much continually given the time for mods to be accomplished. It seems to me that these type of aircraft are especially an example of Moores law.

Good point on all accounts. And one of the biggest changes from the E-3 to the E-7, besides a reduction in engines, is the move from a mechanically scanned radar to the electronically scanned radar. These systems keep improving in capability while shrinking in size.

How difficult is it for Boeing to build an NG on the same lines as the Max? It strikes me that after this order, there is the replacement of 17 or so NATO AWACS as well.

NameOmitted wrote:

How difficult is it for Boeing to build an NG on the same lines as the Max? It strikes me that after this order, there is the replacement of 17 or so NATO AWACS as well.

It's not really necessary since there is a dedicated NG line for the military frames in the building adjacent to the MAX FAL and I expect NATO to choose the E-7 and they would want them through the mid-2030s (same as the USAF) so Boeing should be able to accommodate both customers.

Stitch wrote:

It's not really necessary since there is a dedicated NG line for the military frames in the building adjacent to the MAX FAL and I expect NATO to choose the E-7 and they would want them through the mid-2030s (same as the USAF) so Boeing should be able to accommodate both customers.

From what understand, the dedicated line handles both NG and MAX. However because of the NG interspersed, the rate on that line is not as fast as the other lines. (Note that the NG line goes al the way to Spirit as well).

The best scenario for everyone (NATO, including Canada and UK, US, P-8 and E-7 and who knows who else out there) is to maintain a 1 per month NG rate. That would be best to keep the frame price down. So I have a feeling that all the players involved are shuffling their budgets to see if they can sync their procurement budgets with Boeing production slots.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Stitch wrote:

It's not really necessary since there is a dedicated NG line for the military frames in the building adjacent to the MAX FAL and I expect NATO to choose the E-7 and they would want them through the mid-2030s (same as the USAF) so Boeing should be able to accommodate both customers.

From what understand, the dedicated line handles both NG and MAX. However because of the NG interspersed, the rate on that line is not as fast as the other lines. (Note that the NG line goes al the way to Spirit as well).

The best scenario for everyone (NATO, including Canada and UK, US, P-8 and E-7 and who knows who else out there) is to maintain a 1 per month NG rate. That would be best to keep the frame price down. So I have a feeling that all the players involved are shuffling their budgets to see if they can sync their procurement budgets with Boeing production slots.

bt

I suppose this begs the question - how easy would it be to go from the NG to the MAX for the military frames?

At a guess a complete new certification and integration etc effort?

For the E-7, they don't even want to consider the P-8A design as it is based on the -800, staying with the -700. I suspect that a full flight test program would be required, adding years and $ to this effort. It will stay on the -700 NG platform used for the RAAF Wedgetails. It is a very reliable engine with loads of spares available 30+ years forward.

ReverseFlow wrote:

I suppose this begs the question - how easy would it be to go from the NG to the MAX for the military frames?

The answer is multi-layered.

One of the reason why the P-8A was successful, was it built upon the experience of the original Wedgetail. So some of the engineering was already done and many who worked on Wedgetail transitioned to P-8A. A few of those are now back working on E-7.

Going to the MAX would require 100% new effort on the airframe side. Much of the interior works can be reused. But really, most the the certification efforts will be with the airframe and flight worthiness and not the interiors.

As noted in other threads, future military derivatives from commercial airline would not be as cost effective as the P-8A or KC-46 (even with all of its problems) because recent law makes it impractical to have military mod in-line.

So Boeing will unlikely invest any effort in an militarized NG. They (and the USAF) will most likely concentrate on the BWB for future applications.

bt

Question: Suppose instead of buying 26 E-7s, the USAF bought a larger number of Saab GlobalEyes. I can see both advantages and disadvantages of this. Which would you think best?

kitplane01 wrote:

Question: Suppose instead of buying 26 E-7s, the USAF bought a larger number of Saab GlobalEyes. I can see both advantages and disadvantages of this. Which would you think best?

26 E-7s. The USAF and other allies who fly the similar platform also came to the same conclusion based on the needs of their respective militaries.

kitplane01 wrote:

Question: Suppose instead of buying 26 E-7s, the USAF bought a larger number of Saab GlobalEyes. I can see both advantages and disadvantages of this. Which would you think best?

The Erieye ER radar system on the GlobalEye is quite advanced and is said to be better at detecting low-observable (stealth) and smaller objects (drones) than the one on the 737 AEW&C though it does not offer full 360-degree coverage like the 737's. However, the 737 AEW&C has more operator stations and, as noted, is used by a number of US allies. GlobalEye also has a maritime surveillance role that is already handled by the P-8 for the US.

bikerthai wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

I suppose this begs the question - how easy would it be to go from the NG to the MAX for the military frames?

The answer is multi-layered.

One of the reason why the P-8A was successful, was it built upon the experience of the original Wedgetail. So some of the engineering was already done and many who worked on Wedgetail transitioned to P-8A. A few of those are now back working on E-7.

Going to the MAX would require 100% new effort on the airframe side. Much of the interior works can be reused. But really, most the the certification efforts will be with the airframe and flight worthiness and not the interiors.

As noted in other threads, future military derivatives from commercial airline would not be as cost effective as the P-8A or KC-46 (even with all of its problems) because recent law makes it impractical to have military mod in-line.

So Boeing will unlikely invest any effort in an militarized NG. They (and the USAF) will most likely concentrate on the BWB for future applications.

bt

As noted below the E-7 is the correct aircraft for this. It, like the P-8A will have enough of a fleet size between Australia and the UK with the US frames will be almost 40 aircraft, along with the open architecture, make it a better choice than the Global Eye. Of note, is the radar could be upped to a newer version easily, provided the wetted surface of the radar unit remains the same.

This new law on not allowing mod in-line except for grandfathered programs is a bonus bone to Boeing, possibly bringing its costs per frame well lower than the competition. It may be enough that the KC-46 will be the KC-Y selection by default.

Stitch wrote:

The Erieye ER radar system on the GlobalEye is quite advanced and is said to be better at detecting low-observable (stealth) and smaller objects (drones) than the one on the 737 AEW&C though it does not offer full 360-degree coverage like the 737's.

With phased array radar, the larger the radar surface, the more elements you have the better detection range you get. A rough radar area comparison between the systems would tell you which one is better.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Of note, is the radar could be upped to a newer version easily, provided the wetted surface of the radar unit remains the same.

There is some truth to this ( it was hinted at back when the Wedgetail was developed). Not sure what became of it or if the US would outlay more money to upgrade the radar.

JayinKitsap wrote:

This new law on not allowing mod in-line except for grandfathered programs is a bonus bone to Boeing,

It's not that the law does not allow (specifically). Rather the law forces the OEM to open its book for oversight at which potential financial data could be leaked to potential rival. Commercial airframe operators will be reluctant to go into such contracts. If you operate in a pure military environment with no rival operating in the lucrative commercial environment, then the law is not as onerous.

bt

Bigger issue is how much funds the Air Force intends to invest in a platform that the original designer / user has already stated is end of life and are already looking for a replacement.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... eplacement

par13del wrote:

Bigger issue is how much funds the Air Force intends to invest in a platform that the original designer / user has already stated is end of life and are already looking for a replacement.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... eplacement

This is a recurring theme across the aviation industry. The KC46 for example, is a 1980s airframe with 1990s engines. They put 30 year old engine tech on the C5M. They're buying ancient SH that have slower cruise speed than an A400. F15EX. C130J is 25 years old. The examples go on and on. Innovation in aviation is dead. The Innovation is in the electronics.

par13del wrote:

Bigger issue is how much funds the Air Force intends to invest in a platform that the original designer / user has already stated is end of life and are already looking for a replacement.

It would be naive to think that the RAAF and the USAF are not coordinating the E-7 effort.

Just look at the stated time line by both organizations and see how nicely they mesh.

Let's say the US completes the design upgrade with improved capabilities. Would the RAAF want to pay money for the Engineering to retrofit their existing fleet to the new capabilities? How tired are those frames? Is it not better to sell off that fleet as a down payment for a new fleet of E-7. If not the E-7, then who is out there to fund such a huge project? Not Boeing like they did last time and lost lots of money for it.

The two countries who may be caught in the lurch would be Turkey and Korea. Will they want to upgrade their fleet as well? Or plunk down money to buy new frames?

The UK will have three fresh frames that may be worth while to upgrade to match the rest of the fleet that they plan to buy once the US completes the development.

As for the USAF, it does not have time to try something new and wait for 2030 to come around. It needs frames now as the latest news on the E-3 shown, they are already setting up the justification for the E-7 buy. They will not back off from it.

bt

Well the RAAF review also includes the possibility of a new frame, so if Airbus and Europeans who do not want to be dependent on US equipment....also the French still need to be compensated for the loss of the nuclear sub program, so in terms of investment, I think the stars could be in alignment.

"At that point the programme “is designed to begin scoping and risk reduction studies, informing potential platform replacement and technology options for the E-7A [Wedgetail]."

par13del wrote:

Airbus and Europeans who do not want to be dependent on US equipment..

NATO is already looking at E-7 to replace their E-3. Will Aibus/Europe have enough money to work both the A320 MMA and an E-7 competitor? Seems like the A320 MMA may have a better chance as that time line kicks in when the P-8/E-7 line shuts down.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

par13del wrote:

Airbus and Europeans who do not want to be dependent on US equipment..

Will Aibus/Europe have enough money to work both the A320 MMA and an E-7 competitor?
bt

If the priority is to not be reliant on the USA, then money is not an object, we have already seen this with a number of projects, so no need to think this would / could be any different.

ReverseFlow wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Stitch wrote:

It's not really necessary since there is a dedicated NG line for the military frames in the building adjacent to the MAX FAL and I expect NATO to choose the E-7 and they would want them through the mid-2030s (same as the USAF) so Boeing should be able to accommodate both customers.

From what understand, the dedicated line handles both NG and MAX. However because of the NG interspersed, the rate on that line is not as fast as the other lines. (Note that the NG line goes al the way to Spirit as well).

The best scenario for everyone (NATO, including Canada and UK, US, P-8 and E-7 and who knows who else out there) is to maintain a 1 per month NG rate. That would be best to keep the frame price down. So I have a feeling that all the players involved are shuffling their budgets to see if they can sync their procurement budgets with Boeing production slots.

bt

I suppose this begs the question - how easy would it be to go from the NG to the MAX for the military frames?

At a guess a complete new certification and integration etc effort?

I remember reading that the JSTARS 707 never upgraded their power plants to the CFM 56 as that larger engine would have partially blocked the radar signal, despite the significant increase in performance, particularly altitude and time on station available with the newer engine



I’d imagine there would be a similar issue with using the Max airframe and it’s bigger power plants

par13del wrote:

we have already seen this with a number of projects, so no need to think this would / could be any different.

With post-Ukrainian war putting so much pressure to stock up on hardware, it would not be a surprise to me that Europe would forgo developing overlaping capabilities and concentrate on items that they already are adept at.

If you say budget is another an issue, then we just have to agree to disagree.

bt

par13del wrote:

Well the RAAF review also includes the possibility of a new frame, so if Airbus and Europeans who do not want to be dependent on US equipment....also the French still need to be compensated for the loss of the nuclear sub program, so in terms of investment, I think the stars could be in alignment.

"At that point the programme “is designed to begin scoping and risk reduction studies, informing potential platform replacement and technology options for the E-7A [Wedgetail]."

The French have been compensated in cash.

The R.A.A.F. is not going to go to another aircraft type to replace the E-7, it would be a waste of money and they will lose commonality with the P-8 fleet. They will either buy new E-7's or just update the radar.

LTEN11 wrote:

par13del wrote:

Well the RAAF review also includes the possibility of a new frame, so if Airbus and Europeans who do not want to be dependent on US equipment....also the French still need to be compensated for the loss of the nuclear sub program, so in terms of investment, I think the stars could be in alignment.

"At that point the programme “is designed to begin scoping and risk reduction studies, informing potential platform replacement and technology options for the E-7A [Wedgetail]."

The French have been compensated in cash.

Why do you think this is true?

bikerthai wrote:

par13del wrote:

Airbus and Europeans who do not want to be dependent on US equipment..

NATO is already looking at E-7 to replace their E-3. Will Aibus/Europe have enough money to work both the A320 MMA and an E-7 competitor? Seems like the A320 MMA may have a better chance as that time line kicks in when the P-8/E-7 line shuts down.

bt

Using the P-8 line to build 30 some E-7's adds 3 to 5 years to when the P-8 line itself would go. If available longer the P-8 could pick up a dozen or two added orders.

Max Q wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

From what understand, the dedicated line handles both NG and MAX. However because of the NG interspersed, the rate on that line is not as fast as the other lines. (Note that the NG line goes al the way to Spirit as well).

The best scenario for everyone (NATO, including Canada and UK, US, P-8 and E-7 and who knows who else out there) is to maintain a 1 per month NG rate. That would be best to keep the frame price down. So I have a feeling that all the players involved are shuffling their budgets to see if they can sync their procurement budgets with Boeing production slots.

bt

I suppose this begs the question - how easy would it be to go from the NG to the MAX for the military frames?

At a guess a complete new certification and integration etc effort?

I remember reading that the JSTARS 707 never upgraded their power plants to the CFM 56 as that larger engine would have partially blocked the radar signal, despite the significant increase in performance, particularly altitude and time on station available with the newer engine



I’d imagine there would be a similar issue with using the Max airframe and it’s bigger power plants

The E-7 has the radar on the top, the JSTARS has it on the side of the fuselage so would slightly bigger engines be that much of an issue?
I can't see anything on the side of the fuselage on the E-7.

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/im ... 694642.jpg

kitplane01 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

par13del wrote:

Well the RAAF review also includes the possibility of a new frame, so if Airbus and Europeans who do not want to be dependent on US equipment....also the French still need to be compensated for the loss of the nuclear sub program, so in terms of investment, I think the stars could be in alignment.

"At that point the programme “is designed to begin scoping and risk reduction studies, informing potential platform replacement and technology options for the E-7A [Wedgetail]."

The French have been compensated in cash.

Why do you think this is true?

Have a look at the following link. This was settled midway through last year when the new government managed to kiss and make up with the French government.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/11/austral ... -deal.html

ReverseFlow wrote:

Max Q wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

I suppose this begs the question - how easy would it be to go from the NG to the MAX for the military frames?

At a guess a complete new certification and integration etc effort?

I remember reading that the JSTARS 707 never upgraded their power plants to the CFM 56 as that larger engine would have partially blocked the radar signal, despite the significant increase in performance, particularly altitude and time on station available with the newer engine



I’d imagine there would be a similar issue with using the Max airframe and it’s bigger power plants

The E-7 has the radar on the top, the JSTARS has it on the side of the fuselage so would slightly bigger engines be that much of an issue?
I can't see anything on the side of the fuselage on the E-7.

Since when did JSTARS have the gear on the side of the fuselage? It has always been on the cigar 'blister' underneath.

kitplane01 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

par13del wrote:

Well the RAAF review also includes the possibility of a new frame, so if Airbus and Europeans who do not want to be dependent on US equipment....also the French still need to be compensated for the loss of the nuclear sub program, so in terms of investment, I think the stars could be in alignment.

"At that point the programme “is designed to begin scoping and risk reduction studies, informing potential platform replacement and technology options for the E-7A [Wedgetail]."

The French have been compensated in cash.

Why do you think this is true?

We paid the French off last year to the tune of AUD$850M.

This is a year old, but a good summary on the thought decision on the E-7.

https://youtu.be/_EWnVciwa2Q

bt

hk144 wrote:

The E-7 has the radar on the top, the JSTARS has it on the side of the fuselage so would slightly bigger engines be that much of an issue?
I can't see anything on the side of the fuselage on the E-7.

The P-8A has an add-on option called the AAS pod.

That pod function similar to the JSTARS radar. It actually drop down a few inches when deployed because of the engines.

bt

The video above had a couple of interesting points.

The E-7 radar can function as maritime patrol and the E-7 has a higher operating ceiling than the E-3 which translate to better horizon coverage for pow flying targets.

bt

As for the politics of the E-7 competitor, the SAAB GlobalEye. I wonder how much effort will they put into promoting the product when SAAB has a bigger prize in the T-7 and to a lesser extent the emerging contract for the GLSBD?

bt

hk144 wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

Max Q wrote:

I remember reading that the JSTARS 707 never upgraded their power plants to the CFM 56 as that larger engine would have partially blocked the radar signal, despite the significant increase in performance, particularly altitude and time on station available with the newer engine



I’d imagine there would be a similar issue with using the Max airframe and it’s bigger power plants

The E-7 has the radar on the top, the JSTARS has it on the side of the fuselage so would slightly bigger engines be that much of an issue?
I can't see anything on the side of the fuselage on the E-7.

Since when did JSTARS have the gear on the side of the fuselage? It has always been on the cigar 'blister' underneath.

My bad. I was thinking of RC-135s.

JayinKitsap wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

par13del wrote:

Airbus and Europeans who do not want to be dependent on US equipment..

NATO is already looking at E-7 to replace their E-3. Will Aibus/Europe have enough money to work both the A320 MMA and an E-7 competitor? Seems like the A320 MMA may have a better chance as that time line kicks in when the P-8/E-7 line shuts down.

bt

Using the P-8 line to build 30 some E-7's adds 3 to 5 years to when the P-8 line itself would go. If available longer the P-8 could pick up a dozen or two added orders.

Hopefully the US Navy purchases an additional 20 P-8s, either to re-establish 2 or 3 Reserve Squadrons (Pt. Mugu, JRB New Orleans, JB MDL) or re-establish permanently based squadrons in Hawaii.

ReverseFlow wrote:

Max Q wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

I suppose this begs the question - how easy would it be to go from the NG to the MAX for the military frames?

At a guess a complete new certification and integration etc effort?

I remember reading that the JSTARS 707 never upgraded their power plants to the CFM 56 as that larger engine would have partially blocked the radar signal, despite the significant increase in performance, particularly altitude and time on station available with the newer engine



I’d imagine there would be a similar issue with using the Max airframe and it’s bigger power plants

The E-7 has the radar on the top, the JSTARS has it on the side of the fuselage so would slightly bigger engines be that much of an issue?
I can't see anything on the side of the fuselage on the E-7.

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/im ... 694642.jpg

This is true but that radar signal radiates all around the antenna, upwards, downwards, to the sides, front and rear, the less unobstructed the signal is the better

Max Q wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

Max Q wrote:

I remember reading that the JSTARS 707 never upgraded their power plants to the CFM 56 as that larger engine would have partially blocked the radar signal, despite the significant increase in performance, particularly altitude and time on station available with the newer engine



I’d imagine there would be a similar issue with using the Max airframe and it’s bigger power plants

The E-7 has the radar on the top, the JSTARS has it on the side of the fuselage so would slightly bigger engines be that much of an issue?
I can't see anything on the side of the fuselage on the E-7.

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/im ... 694642.jpg

This is true but that radar signal radiates all around the antenna, upwards, downwards, to the sides, front and rear, the less unobstructed the signal is the better

JSTARs and E-7 has different functions. While the E-7 does have some maritime capabilities, the location and nature of the radar limits it from true JSTARs function.

When they were working MC2A, they thought about putting a MESA radar on top of 767-400 as well as a belly canoe for the ground search (JSTAR function). The two radar uses different band wavelengths

bt

That should delay IOC until well after Australia has replaced their version.
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/ ... ne/385903/
Funny thing, the USAF version will be very different than the Australian version but not so different that they cannot afford to send personnel to Australia to be trained...hhhmmm...

From the KC-46 thread.

I have a feeling now that the USAF is putting money into upgrading the E-7, the Austrailian will sit back and wait for the result before refreshing their fleet.

The USAF version is different from the RAAF version in so far as the US will be getting upgraded mission computing system (more processing power) including all the new advances in cyber security and networking etc.

So the front end human factor interface would still be the same. So training is still relevant.

The US up front spending seems to not only trying to develop the mission system, which as we know could suffer developmental delays, but also to secure airframe at a rate that support steady 737 NG production until the line sunset. If there is a delay in development, they may just park the purchased frames and upgrade the electronics later.

bt