UK Orders Wedgetails

[Nighthawke]

Techy note: there is no such thing as an E-7 under the DoD system. Well, there was from 1981 to 1982. Does no-one wonder why the E-8 JSTARS has a later designation?! I thought we were meant to be geeks in here!

E-7 is the Australian designation. I guess the assumption by the "non-geeks" is that it is a US one given the format. Not everyone is an expert! E-7 was due to have been used but became the EC-18B instead.

Using older "logic" one would expect the UK ones to be Wedgetail E.1 unless MoD comes up with a completely different name for it. Only time will tell...

[Fighterfoto]

More likely AEW MK1, rather than E.1 I would have thought.

[ColintheCaterpillar]

E-3 wasn’t designed with a probe but the E-3D was delivered with one. Maybe with Marshall’s and UK plc’s P&D tanking expertise we’ll see a probe conversion fitted.

Lots of AEW tasking is from NATO anyway, which opens lots of tanker “doors”.

With the E-7 nose essentially being similar to the E-3 it's hopefully a possibility.

From what I’ve seen of cutaways etc, the E-7 pipework from the boom receptacle is more similar to that of the E-3, which passes vertically down around the rear of the flightdeck. IIRC the pipe work routes differently on the P-8.

[Agent K]

E-3 wasn’t designed with a probe but the E-3D was delivered with one. Maybe with Marshall’s and UK plc’s P&D tanking expertise we’ll see a probe conversion fitted.

Lots of AEW tasking is from NATO anyway, which opens lots of tanker “doors”.

With the E-7 nose essentially being similar to the E-3 it's hopefully a possibility.

From what I’ve seen of cutaways etc, the E-7 pipework from the boom receptacle is more similar to that of the E-3, which passes vertically down around the rear of the flightdeck. IIRC the pipe work routes differently on the P-8.

Thanks Colin, 33 years in airline engineering and operations I know these things aren’t always as easy or as practical as they might appear!

[ColintheCaterpillar]

With the E-7 nose essentially being similar to the E-3 it's hopefully a possibility.

From what I’ve seen of cutaways etc, the E-7 pipework from the boom receptacle is more similar to that of the E-3, which passes vertically down around the rear of the flightdeck. IIRC the pipe work routes differently on the P-8.

Thanks Colin, 33 years in airline engineering and operations I know these things aren’t always as easy or as practical as they might appear!

I’ve also looked at another cutaway now which shows them being broadly similar. My gut feeling is they’ll do exactly as they do now. Much AEW tasking is from NATO (hence we see so many Sentries operating under NATO callsigns) and under which they would be eligible for NATO tanker support, the overwhelming majority of which is boom.

Maybe we’ll see a couple of booms appear on Voyager, maybe we’ll see a probe modification on E-7. I’m not sure we will though.

[Evergreen 44]

RAF Tanker support and receiver compatibility was mentioned when the RAF RC135s arrived. Wrong tanker for this receiver.
Voyagers would not be boom-modified and (contractural) operating restrictions exist on which tankers can be used.
Same issue with the P8's and presumably Wedgetail when they arrive.
Same fix would cover all three though, maintaining a healthy working relationship with 100 ARW
The wonders of MoD strategic planning and once again relying on the continued availability of neighbour's assets ...

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Same fix would cover all three though, maintaining a healthy working relationship with 100 ARW
The wonders of MoD strategic planning and once again relying on the continued availability of neighbour's assets ...

But when the neighbours, partners and coalition members offer the capability (USAF, AdlA, RNLAF just in Europe etc) then those assets are there to be used.

RAF Tanker support and receiver compatibility was mentioned when the RAF RC135s arrived. Wrong tanker for this receiver.

Indeed. That then becomes a balance of the need for the capability (and timeframe) vs the means of supporting it. Same applies for P-8 and E-7. It's also got to be remembered that if a capability is specified and introduced, you have to provide an adequate means of keeping said capability current.

Voyagers would not be boom-modified and (contractural) operating restrictions exist on which tankers can be used.

I'm sure Air Tanker would welcome the opportunity for some more cash if it meant they were able to provide a boom or two. It would probably mean adding to the fleet though, as opposed to a conversion of an existing frame to maintain the balance of 3pt and 2pt drogue equipped aircraft airframes amongst the core fleet.

[Malcolm]

After Haddon-Cave, I can't see MOD authorising any modifications to the fuel systems in E7/P8/RC135 unless it has OEM manufacturer backing and certification. I'm sure Boeing would happily take UK money to do so, but it wouldn't be cheap and is therefore unlikely. I've often wondered how we'd get P8 to the Falklands if it became necessary.

[Ghost from above]

Amendments to voyagers will never happen.The contract modification would be far to costly. It should make for some interesting training for RAF/RN crew on American tankers.
We will have to wait to 2035 before buying the KC-46.

[Evergreen 44]

After Haddon-Cave, I can't see MOD authorising any modifications to the fuel systems in E7/P8/RC135 unless it has OEM manufacturer backing and certification. I'm sure Boeing would happily take UK money to do so, but it wouldn't be cheap and is therefore unlikely. I've often wondered how we'd get P8 to the Falklands if it became necessary.

Re. Falklands hop, it would be a convenient coincidence (or 48 hours deliberate planning) for a couple of USAF KC135/KC10 to have dropped into Ascension on their way to 'another deployment' and just need a crew rest period ...
Now that we no longer have the quantity of tankers we used to have, where we have them becomes the limiting factor of use to support assests abroad.
Even though the modern tankers are larger/carry more etc. they still obey the old adage that it can only be in one place at a time - whereas two smaller tankers ...

Edit : Just seen French tanker 041 pic http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/ph ... 65567.html
Guess we could have ordered boom option but not sure when it was developed by Airbus in relation to when RAF contract was placed

[Ghost from above]

Problem is the cost of the boom would have to bourne by the MOD wholly.
Also with civilian use it's difficult to remove a boom when not in military use.

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Problem is the cost of the boom would have to bourne by the MOD wholly.
Also with civilian use it's difficult to remove a boom when not in military use.

Any boom equipped aircraft would need to be one of the “core” fleet, ie the ones not made available commercially.

As for the FI, there are other ways to get there, even without tanking.

[Evergreen 44]

Problem is the cost of the boom would have to bourne by the MOD wholly.
Also with civilian use it's difficult to remove a boom when not in military use.

Any boom equipped aircraft would need to be one of the “core” fleet, ie the ones not made available commercially.

As for the FI, there are other ways to get there, even without tanking.

Providing dilomatic clearances are still possible ☺ Bear in mind why you would need to move assets in the first place (change in circumstances) political relationships with South America can prove difficult and longer transits through international airspace may be the only option. Rather than assume you have a 'friendly' country to drop into for fuel it may be more prudent to plan without it - if history tells us anything.

[Thunder]

wonders of MoD strategic planning and once again relying on the continued availability of neighbour's assets ...

Just like when the USN, USMC and RAAF have relied on our VC10’s, TriStars and A330 more or less every week since 1991. How do Portugal, Belguim, Greece, Denmark, Norway, Czech Rep, Poland, Hungary, and more.... manage when they have no tanker capability of their own.

[Evergreen 44]

wonders of MoD strategic planning and once again relying on the continued availability of neighbour's assets ...

Just like when the USN, USMC and RAAF have relied on our VC10’s, TriStars and A330 more or less every week since 1991. How do Portugal, Belguim, Greece, Denmark, Norway, Czech Rep, Poland, Hungary, and more.... manage when they have no tanker capability of their own.

Agreed, works fine, when one country's Foreign Policy agrees with another - in peace-time. Obviously not guaranteed in times of conflict.
Remember 1986 and the route the F-111s took ? I.e avoiding French airspace as overflight clearance was denied due to French interests in North Africa.
Mission took a lot longer and stretched resources beyond what 'normal' mission planning would involve. Just demonstrating how fickle the real world can be in changing a country's options when trouble brews ... you think you have it covered, then ...

[Vulcanone]

Thunder, NATO is buying its own A330s as far as I recall.

[Thunder]

Maybe, but they haven’t operated any tanker a/c up until now.

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Maybe, but they haven’t operated any tanker a/c up until now.

Why would they need to, unless they all upset the Americans?

[Thunder]

That’s my point.

[TonyO]

No modifications for probe-drogue refuelling planned for the new E-7s, been told that the endurance meets the RAF needs. Any aerial refuelling requirements will be met by allies and the number of boom-equipped tankers in Europe is rapidly increasing. Hopefully the UK never buys the travesty that is the KC-46.