Cuts to the RAF’s E-7 Wedgetail Fleet now only 3?

[ColintheCaterpillar]

NATO’s fleet is older than the RAF’s

In airframe/engine terms, yes. In fit standards, upgrade levels and capability, quite the opposite.

Depends on the serviceability of the former parts that you mention.

You can have the best mission system in the world, but it’s useless if it’s stuck on the ground.

[Ghost from above]

So the bean counters may be thinking if we pay for modifications and fit the AN/APS-154 AAS pod then we can cut the E-7 fleet requirement. It was my understanding that part of the large hangar is being given over along with support facilities to the Reds when they arrive. The East hangar will be built as it is for the E-7 and drones.

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Well Alpha dispersal is the perfect shape for a line of little jets.

[Bob DeBilda]

So the bean counters may be thinking if we pay for modifications and fit the AN/APS-154 AAS pod then we can cut the E-7 fleet requirement. It was my understanding that part of the large hangar is being given over along with support facilities to the Reds when they arrive. The East hangar will be built as it is for the E-7 and drones.
[/quote

This sounds to me typical of most MOD Procurement Projects, where the beancounters agree a deal and then spend twelve months faffing about with specs etc. and, due to the resultant delays, we get less of the end-product for our money.

[Kurnass]

If they reduce the order to 3 aircraft, at least the RAF will get some. And when they are in use, maybe the beancounters will find out that 3 is not enough and they will order more (here’s hoping...)

[Freeman Lowell]

So the bean counters may be thinking if we pay for modifications and fit the AN/APS-154 AAS pod then we can cut the E-7 fleet requirement. It was my understanding that part of the large hangar is being given over along with support facilities to the Reds when they arrive. The East hangar will be built as it is for the E-7 and drones.

But wouldn't buying the pod be to replace the Sentinels? Thus we'd have a requirement for more E-7s?

Freeman

[Ghost from above]

I read somewhere that they discovered the pod has some unexpected secondary uses which overlaps some E-7 functions. That along with the P-8's having proved themselves as capable over land as at sea would suggest some savings on the E-7 fleet.That along with as you say the Sentinel going looks good on the balance sheet.

[TonyO]

So the bean counters may be thinking if we pay for modifications and fit the AN/APS-154 AAS pod then we can cut the E-7 fleet requirement. It was my understanding that part of the large hangar is being given over along with support facilities to the Reds when they arrive. The East hangar will be built as it is for the E-7 and drones.

That whole thing about the AAS pod was an idea floated by a thinktank, its not a real MoD plan, there is no evidence that it will be offered for export.

[page_verify]

Someone near but not close enough to the programme has heard something and turned it into a nonsense tail if you follow posts by people involved with the E-7 elsewhere. https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threa ... 84/page-56

The UK is contracted to pay for 5 even if it only wants 3 delivered.

[ColintheCaterpillar]

It’s standard defence review scare-mongering. Say something is going to be cut, create debate and outcry, never actually happens.

[Vulcan74]

It seems now the Australians are looking into the future for an E7 replacement, maybe we could have some more cheap!!

[ColintheCaterpillar]

It seems now the Australians are looking into the future for an E7 replacement, maybe we could have some more cheap!!

I think they’re looking a bit too far ahead for them to be available soon.

They’d be nothing more than a stopgap anyway. It’d a bit like getting a Tranche 1 Typhoon when your order is for a Tranche 3 airframe.

[EGDR]

Depends on the serviceability of the former parts that you mention.

You can have the best mission system in the world, but it’s useless if it’s stuck on the ground.

NATO's E-3As are being/have been life extended until at least 2035. The airframes are older and the engine design is older, but that doesn't mean they're not in better condition. Don't forget that the USAF's E-3 fleet still use the TF33 engines like the NATO ones.

So the bean counters may be thinking if we pay for modifications and fit the AN/APS-154 AAS pod then we can cut the E-7 fleet requirement. It was my understanding that part of the large hangar is being given over along with support facilities to the Reds when they arrive. The East hangar will be built as it is for the E-7 and drones.

Those kinds of systems are designed to provide radar imagery of land and sea targets, not airborne contacts. Of course, there could be an overlap in capability, but it's really not what it was designed for. That being said, it would be a useful replacement for the soon to be retired Sentinel fleet.

[page_verify]

KyleG's reply suggests some might benefit from some background reading before commenting, there's lots in PMQs and MOD and RAF doctrine publications about this.

The MOD knows it let the E-3s collect more technical sensor debt that it could afford to remedy during the 2000s while it needed to spend its money elsewhere.
The RAF can't abandon it's AEW contribution to NATO and help fund the NATO fleet as it has its own AEW needs that NATO may not always support (e.g. Falklands)
Sentinel's lifespan is close to a permanent end as it's aircraft have always struggled to meet their requirement and need expensive upgrades (e.g. Sentinel has aircrew weight limits which stop even slightly overweight crew flying in it).

[Vulcanone]

Sadly Page-Verify is right...

A lot of hot air written on FC these days, with little forethought. Thank God for Tony O and those in the know.....


Can you imagine us on World Air Power Journal doing a story that we heard from a mates dog in the pub..

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Depends on the serviceability of the former parts that you mention.

You can have the best mission system in the world, but it’s useless if it’s stuck on the ground.

NATO's E-3As are being/have been life extended until at least 2035. The airframes are older and the engine design is older, but that doesn't mean they're not in better condition. Don't forget that the USAF's E-3 fleet still use the TF33 engines like the NATO ones.

Just because they’ve been extended doesn’t mean they are in a better condition, or have a better serviceability rate. It doesn’t mean they’ll work seamlessly everyday, turn up on time etc. The 707 as any platform is old, tired, would never get certified today and ever harder to keep airborne.

Before Wedgetail came along, the same decision was extant for E-3D.

[Thunder]

Sadly Page-Verify is right...

A lot of hot air written on FC these days, with little forethought. Thank God for Tony O and those in the know.....


Can you imagine us on World Air Power Journal doing a story that we heard from a mates dog in the pub..

I find that reply pretty insulting to the forum members and staff.? I didn’t realise that this forum was for those so called professionals only! FC is an open forum for the general masses that have an interest in military aviation, hardly anyone maintains they’re an expert. On the other hand, I’ve read articles which have seemingly been researched and written by professionals, that are nothing short of fabricated nonsense. Yes the forum might benefit from inside knowledge, but there’s no need to belittle those that don’t possess that same level.

[Vulcanone]

Clearly not by us then Thunder.

By the way I don't refer to absolutely everybody on here only those (who know who they are) that have insulted me before... Like I have said to one of the Coningsby local mods on here. I rarely reply to anything now, and that having worked in publishing on/off since 1991. means is yours and the rest of the forum that loses out in the long run

Saying that, some have insulted other folks that know what is going on. Little wonder they gave up and left too..


Toodle pip

[page_verify]

Who knows, the RAF may only have one working set of mission equipment which it swaps between several frail old air frames? May be keeping 3 of the 5 jets might actually be enough. Has anyone seen more than one E-3D on a mission recently?

[Thunder]

Not my loss, but you obviously feel far superior to most on here unless you just like polishing your ego from time to time.

What’s wrong with this forum is the certain so called experts that try to take over and belittle others opinions, as I said this place is for the general masses and without them the experts would be left speaking to themselves.