Seedcorn came about due to a large time gap. By the time you’ve relocated people to a seedcorn location, you need them back, which isn’t great for them, and is politically difficult to agree with the other nation/coalition who you - effectively - want jobs from.Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 3:44 pmYes, but what I'm proposing is similar to what happened with Seedcorn after the Nimrod got chopped. You place a smallish number of people into an existing similar environment in order to maintain the capability until you (hopefully) get a replacement airframe of your own. Doesn't have to be existing crews, but since they're currently out of a job it makes sense (to me at least) to offer it to them first.ColintheCaterpillar wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 3:26 pmDepends on the manning and who is actually going - and just because you are on E-3 doesn’t automatically mean you have to go to E-7 for all the reasons previously mentioned.
The E-7 crew make up is quite different to E-3 too.
Nato AWACS's are in the process of being updated again, which it is hoped will keep them in service till 2035. USAF AWACS have been upgraded to Block 40/45 standard, with the last one being handed back to the USAF just last year. I'll bet 50p that neither service will have their first replacement delivered the next 10-15 years, by which time our fleet of 3 E-7's will either be obsolete (again) or on their second MLU (dream on).
As it is, the RAF have people on E-7 already in Australia.
I’m not sure too many people are confident on E-3 staggering on to 2035 in many services, however many upgrades people try and sell to the operators.