Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
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
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.
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.
STT757 wrote:
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.
Stitch wrote: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.
STT757 wrote:Stitch wrote:Looks like the USAF plans a total of 26 frames through FY2032 per Reuters.
replacing 32?
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.
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.
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.
bikerthai wrote:I suppose this begs the question - how easy would it be to go from the NG to the MAX for the military frames?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
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?
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
JayinKitsap wrote:This new law on not allowing mod in-line except for grandfathered programs is a bonus bone to Boeing,
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
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.
par13del wrote:Airbus and Europeans who do not want to be dependent on US equipment..
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
ReverseFlow wrote:bikerthai wrote:I suppose this begs the question - how easy would it be to go from the NG to the MAX for the military frames?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
At a guess a complete new certification and integration etc effort?
par13del wrote:we have already seen this with a number of projects, so no need to think this would / could be any different.
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]."
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.
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
Max Q wrote:ReverseFlow wrote:bikerthai wrote:I suppose this begs the question - how easy would it be to go from the NG to the MAX for the military frames?
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
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
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?
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
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?
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.
hk144 wrote:My bad. I was thinking of RC-135s.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.
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.
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
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
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...