RAF wants to replace E3D

[turmo]

Barely 30 years, lol, assume you’re joking there. Let’s face it 30 years is a decent airframe life/pressurisation cycles life, it’s not dissimilar in the airline business.
Do you still drive your car from 30 years ago and daily?

Airlines hammer their aircraft, target utilisation is often 13 to 16 hours per DAY for a long-hauler. An RAF Sentry would barely achieve that in a week.

Also consider that the NATO E-3 force entered service in 1982 and will continue until 2035 ( though two have been retired ). They have invested in airframe and avionics sustainment. The Saudi E-3s have just passed 30 years in service and have no retirement in sight.

The MoD / RAF is just really, really poor at airframe sustainment. Excuses about the USAF having more money or more spares are just that, excuses; they 5,000 aircraft to maintain, overall, yet still manage to budget for long-life sustainment for types like the E-3.

[Vulcanone]

Perhaps its more likely Bean counters dithering over money for fleet upgrades maybe...?

[Agent K]

Barely 30 years, lol, assume you’re joking there. Let’s face it 30 years is a decent airframe life/pressurisation cycles life, it’s not dissimilar in the airline business.
Do you still drive your car from 30 years ago and daily?

Airlines hammer their aircraft, target utilisation is often 13 to 16 hours per DAY for a long-hauler.....

I know, I work for a large global airline group. I worked for a long time in engineering and fleet management so know that aircraft life is pressurisation cycles rather than just hours flown...

Agree that upgrades and financing for spares etc is poor.


The MoD / RAF is just really, really poor at airframe sustainment....

Canberra????!

[KINROTATE]

Barely 30 years, lol, assume you’re joking there. Let’s face it 30 years is a decent airframe life/pressurisation cycles life, it’s not dissimilar in the airline business.
Do you still drive your car from 30 years ago and daily?

Airlines hammer their aircraft, target utilisation is often 13 to 16 hours per DAY for a long-hauler.....

I know, I work for a large global airline group. I worked for a long time in engineering and fleet management so know that aircraft life is pressurisation cycles rather than just hours flown...

Agree that upgrades and financing for spares etc is poor.


The MoD / RAF is just really, really poor at airframe sustainment....

Canberra????!

Canberra (and similar ilk) was engineered under a different ethos to that of current engineering. Todays aircraft are scrutineer'd to death with a paperwork trail that is of a different order to that of years gone by.

[Agent K]

"Canberra (and similar ilk) was engineered under a different ethos to that of current engineering. Todays aircraft are scrutineer'd to death with a paperwork trail that is of a different order to that of years gone by."

And maybe safer as a result?

[big john]

A paper trail is not necessarily safer, but does make it easier to blame someone when things go wrong. And of course makes everything a lot more expensive.

[Agent K]

Agreed.... a paper trail in itself doesn't make things safer. The processes around it do.

Having worked within a civilian aircraft maintenance framework for many years and with colleagues and friends within the military aircraft Engineering governance framework (I use the word Engineering in it's proper sense) I'd suggest things are more controlled and safer as a result.

[Ghost from above]

Further comment with Madeleine Moon, Chair of the Defence Sub-Committee, asked:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he plans to run a competition to replace the RAF’s airborne early warning aircraft.”

Guto Bebb, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, answered:

“No decision has been made with regard to the future delivery of the UK’s Airborne Warning and Control capabilities, although a range of options are being explored. I am withholding details of the level of funding allocated for the future delivery of the RAF’s Airborne Warning and Control System as releasing them would prejudice commercial interests.”

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/governm ... e-process/

[Gary]

Times are reporting the MOD are planning on buying between 4 and 6 Wedgetails. Order could come as soon as Farnborough / Trump visit.

Only the first couple of paragraphs are viewable unless you pay https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/raf- ... -36b2drlhm

[Vulcanone]

I would rather us go with a proven airframe that's in service/already exported than go around and around in ever decreasing circles developing something else (for those not old enough to remember what didn't work and why we bought the Sentry try looking for the Nimrod AEW.3

[Aarhus44]

I was based at RAF Waddington when the first one arrived on 01.04.90 . It was quite a sight.

[Vulcan74]

Maybe 4 or 5 refitted P-3 Orion aircraft?

[Thunder]

Considering we recently purchased the P8 for the MPA role why on Earth would we consider buying the P3 for the AEWC role. Toss up between the E7, IAI EL/W2085 or SAAB Globaleye.

[PeteHemsley]

It makes logical sense to purchase the wedge tail. A massive cut in maintenance costs and engineering support, not to mention parts supply. If the fleet used the same airframe/engine type for AEW and MPA.

[PR9]

Will double the cost by requesting probe refuelling system and getting the MAA to certify it.

[PeteHemsley]

Will double the cost by requesting probe refuelling system and getting the MAA to certify it.

Double the cost? From what info do you base this statement on?

[Charles022]

Whilst on the subject - has ZH107 been permanently withdrawn now?

[PR9]

Will double the cost by requesting probe refuelling system and getting the MAA to certify it.

Double the cost? From what info do you base this statement on?

T'was tongue in cheek.

[C-Harvey]

Just so that I know

Boeing 737 AEW&C Wedgetail Early Warning Aircraft.

[Andy_99]

So if we go with the wedgetail to join the P8 would it not make sense to get the tanker fleet retro fitted with a boom ?
That way we could refuel

RC135,P8,Wedgetail,C17
heck we could even chop some F35B's for F35A's to save a few quid.

Oh yeah I forgot we're so tied into the Airtanker contract so it'd no doubt be cheaper to design a new aircraft from scratch.