Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

SD67 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 17:52
SW1 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 17:40
SD67 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 17:12 Right so as a cost accountant that is exactly what I would be challenging. What exactly is needed? Give me the specific dimensions. Payload endurance aerodynamic performance. Then gap fit that against the documented performance of this brand new 737 I have just bought from Ryanair. What is the cost of the delta. What are the alternative uses for that cost. Did Australia buy some special BBJ variant? If not why not. If the E7 cannot be easily adapted to a baseline 737 NG then it is not very good is it and actually maybe the advertised price is not entirely representative of the true acquisition cost - would you like us to advertise that to the entire world?
Seriously a Boeing sales rep walks in, sees one of our guys and has to contain himself from bursting out laughing.
Yes Australia did buy the bbj variant they also have 2 leased for government transport. They haven’t made them for some time. I believe all the wedgetails converted were from this baseline standard. Boeing moved on to the -800ng bbj sometime in the late 2010s and stopped making them all together in 2021 as they moved to max.

It’s a -700 fuse with a strengthened wing, 6-9 Additional fuel tanks and strengthened landing gear. That’s before the conversion is to begin.

All non recurring engineering and integration of systems would would need to be re-done against a new baseline if you don’t wish to use the same variant as previous or you wouldn’t be able to certify it.

Ryanair buy the most consessed aircraft going form Boeing that no one else wants so they get them cheap wouldn’t start from there.
That's interesting, so we now have a new breed of CADCAM that magically self destructs after a decade. All that integration work somehow disappears into the ether.
And we have certification that expires despite the fact that a the exact same airplane is currently in service with one of our closest allies. Really interesting. Let's test this out, get a friendly billionaire, say I don't know call him "Trump" to call up Chicago and ask for a BBJ -700 NG with a new wing, see what they say.
No again you are oversimplifying. The -800 or whatever standard of aircraft you chose to start
with is a different standard to that which the original baseline engineering is against and also at a different effectivity. This can also be a problem if tail numbers your converting cross mod cut ins in the production run. The RAF like all there aircraft as far as possible at the same mod standard before conversion this happened on sentinel and required some aircraft to be de moded before that started. It should also be noted that the MAA have not certified a Boeing E7 before and given Boeing recent history will do it rigorously at 2023 standards they maybe less willing to grandfather certain things

You can get Boeing to make whatever you wish and pay what there asking if you have the budget.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 846
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 15:17
mrclark303 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 14:23
SW1 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 13:18
mrclark303 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 12:54
tomuk wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 02:08
Jensy wrote: 07 Nov 2023, 16:57 Oh what a surprise:



The lies told by the MoD, in order to single source from their favourite US Defence Contractor / provider of cushty advisory and board positions seem to have finally come back to bite us on the posterior.

Not that anyone will be held responsible for this cronyism and corruption.
What agreed timeframe? I didn't think we had even agreed the business case yet.
So what exactly is causing the delay, considering it's a thoroughly well known and understood system and airframe combination, there certainly shouldn't be any unknown issues??

Or has the MOD done it's usual and demanded changes and alterations from the base spec??

The point of procuring a known and in service system, is to stop delays and unexpected additional expenses.
Is it thoroughly well know? Both of the far more experienced aircraft conversion specialists in the U.K. walked away because they were way underestimating what was involved.

Add to that most Boeing a/c program over the past 4 years has been suspended from delivery for at least 18 months due to incompetence in engineering and manufacturing practices which has lead to increased scrutiny on all supplementary type certification of their a/c.

Also pandemic supply chain issues that persist.
It was neither a known system or in production, issues arise no matter what yarns were spun to get it on contract in the beginning.
Well it's it's produced and in full service with Australia, in service and in production with South Korea and Turkey....

So what would be the unknown, in service with three countries SW1, what am I missing here??

Has the MOD specified a UK only modification ( something unique and exquisitely expensive) as per usual??
What South Korean production line? The last a/c was delivered to South Korea 11 years ago.

You really don’t know what your talking about when it comes to modifying a/c and certifying them so best to leave it there.
So, you're as ever good with the old sarcasm SW1, but as ever, short with the facts ....

Why is the programme going off the rails, proven radar build on a proven airframe?

Apparently not, you are suggesting it's in fact a different radar ( not the current production upgraded known original) going on a different model airframe, so creating an entirely new bespoke product .... Nimrod AEW anyone......

Now, if the current available version of the 737 and the aforementioned apparently brand new radar system is so 'vastly' different, requiring a totally new integration, why wasn't this immediately picked up on and all the variables taken into account in the decision?

If the answer is .... "don't know cheif, we just had a stab at it and it's going a tad tits up" .... and the variables involved meant an RAF E7 that is in fact completely seperated from the in service datum point E7's with thousand of hours of flight time and not in fact a low risk solution whatsoever.

This should have been a completely straight forward procument.

We are building what appears to be a bespoke platform that only looks like the other E7's.

Obviously, we should just have ordered the system directly from Boeing, as a fixed price contract and let them do the head scratching.

Let me guess, someone in government said, 'it must be built here old chap' and opened yet another great British procurement can of worms!

Shall we have a sweepstake on just how late it will be and just how far it will go above budget??

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

mrclark303 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 18:45
SW1 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 15:17
mrclark303 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 14:23
SW1 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 13:18
mrclark303 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 12:54
tomuk wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 02:08
Jensy wrote: 07 Nov 2023, 16:57 Oh what a surprise:



The lies told by the MoD, in order to single source from their favourite US Defence Contractor / provider of cushty advisory and board positions seem to have finally come back to bite us on the posterior.

Not that anyone will be held responsible for this cronyism and corruption.
What agreed timeframe? I didn't think we had even agreed the business case yet.
So what exactly is causing the delay, considering it's a thoroughly well known and understood system and airframe combination, there certainly shouldn't be any unknown issues??

Or has the MOD done it's usual and demanded changes and alterations from the base spec??

The point of procuring a known and in service system, is to stop delays and unexpected additional expenses.
Is it thoroughly well know? Both of the far more experienced aircraft conversion specialists in the U.K. walked away because they were way underestimating what was involved.

Add to that most Boeing a/c program over the past 4 years has been suspended from delivery for at least 18 months due to incompetence in engineering and manufacturing practices which has lead to increased scrutiny on all supplementary type certification of their a/c.

Also pandemic supply chain issues that persist.
It was neither a known system or in production, issues arise no matter what yarns were spun to get it on contract in the beginning.
Well it's it's produced and in full service with Australia, in service and in production with South Korea and Turkey....

So what would be the unknown, in service with three countries SW1, what am I missing here??

Has the MOD specified a UK only modification ( something unique and exquisitely expensive) as per usual??
What South Korean production line? The last a/c was delivered to South Korea 11 years ago.

You really don’t know what your talking about when it comes to modifying a/c and certifying them so best to leave it there.
So, you're as ever good with the old sarcasm SW1, but as ever, short with the facts ....

Why is the programme going off the rails, proven radar build on a proven airframe?

Apparently not, you are suggesting it's in fact a different radar ( not the current production upgraded known original) going on a different model airframe, so creating an entirely new bespoke product .... Nimrod AEW anyone......

Now, if the current available version of the 737 and the aforementioned apparently brand new radar system is so 'vastly' different, requiring a totally new integration, why wasn't this immediately picked up on and all the variables taken into account in the decision?

If the answer is .... "don't know cheif, we just had a stab at it and it's going a tad tits up" .... and the variables involved meant an RAF E7 that is in fact completely seperated from the in service datum point E7's with thousand of hours of flight time and not in fact a low risk solution whatsoever.

This should have been a completely straight forward procument.

We are building what appears to be a bespoke platform that only looks like the other E7's.

Obviously, we should just have ordered the system directly from Boeing, as a fixed price contract and let them do the head scratching.

Let me guess, someone in government said, 'it must be built here old chap' and opened yet another great British procurement can of worms!

Shall we have a sweepstake on just how late it will be and just how far it will go above budget??
Which part of the aircraft and radar or other systems are not or were not in production and hadn’t been for near 15 years are you struggling with. No one not here, in American, Korea, Australia, or Turkey were making this configuration when we ordered it. We are ordering them from Boeing direct but in case you missed it there practices have been shown to be somewhat questionable in production safe and certified products of late.

The fact there is no business case still for this procurement should speak volumes.

These aircraft are not in a production run they are individually changed and engineering written accordingly in some form of non incorporated engineering order against specific tail numbers and certification issued accordingly. The MAA will be responsible for certification in the UK because it is being operated by the UK. They are not responsible for the certification and airworthiness of anyone else’s aircraft nor is anyone else responsible for ours.

Converting aircraft is never straightforward anyone who has ever done it will never tell you it is. As I said the companies that have done these military conversion regularly in the UK walked away because it was unrealistic what was being asked within the budget. The radar will be a modern variant of a 15 year old one so different, like wise ecm, datalink, esm and all the rest. The consoles will be new and when you start taking apart an aircraft things you don’t expect will present itself that need fixed. Parts your taking off and replacing maybe different or the part your looking to modify may have already been modified for some other reason on that specific aircraft your changing. There maybe also some process methods that may need to change due to modern practices or substances no longer allowed to be used.

Turning round and saying someone did this on a similar a/c 15 years ago means doing it again will be easy just simply doesnt understand what there doing if that’s how it was sold I guess they were talking to the sales department.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1506
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by tomuk »

SD67 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 17:12 Right so as a cost accountant that is exactly what I would be challenging. What exactly is needed? Give me the specific dimensions. Payload endurance aerodynamic performance. Then gap fit that against the documented performance of this brand new 737 I have just bought from Ryanair. What is the cost of the delta. What are the alternative uses for that cost. Did Australia buy some special BBJ variant? If not why not. If the E7 cannot be easily adapted to a baseline 737 NG then it is not very good is it and actually maybe the advertised price is not entirely representative of the true acquisition cost - would you like us to advertise that to the entire world?
Seriously a Boeing sales rep walks in, sees one of our guys and has to contain himself from bursting out laughing.
Yes all the E7s are the same they are broadly BBJ 1 spec that is 700NG fuselage with 800NG wings and undercarriage. There are also 2 similar 737 700ERs which are the Japanese equivalent of the two A319 BA flew out of London City to the states.
NG are now out of production apart from the P8 which are different again 800 fuselage with 900 wings and extra thick skins and strengthening.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
new guy

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 846
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 19:37
mrclark303 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 18:45
SW1 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 15:17
mrclark303 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 14:23
SW1 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 13:18
mrclark303 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 12:54
tomuk wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 02:08
Jensy wrote: 07 Nov 2023, 16:57 Oh what a surprise:



The lies told by the MoD, in order to single source from their favourite US Defence Contractor / provider of cushty advisory and board positions seem to have finally come back to bite us on the posterior.

Not that anyone will be held responsible for this cronyism and corruption.
What agreed timeframe? I didn't think we had even agreed the business case yet.
So what exactly is causing the delay, considering it's a thoroughly well known and understood system and airframe combination, there certainly shouldn't be any unknown issues??

Or has the MOD done it's usual and demanded changes and alterations from the base spec??

The point of procuring a known and in service system, is to stop delays and unexpected additional expenses.
Is it thoroughly well know? Both of the far more experienced aircraft conversion specialists in the U.K. walked away because they were way underestimating what was involved.

Add to that most Boeing a/c program over the past 4 years has been suspended from delivery for at least 18 months due to incompetence in engineering and manufacturing practices which has lead to increased scrutiny on all supplementary type certification of their a/c.

Also pandemic supply chain issues that persist.
It was neither a known system or in production, issues arise no matter what yarns were spun to get it on contract in the beginning.
Well it's it's produced and in full service with Australia, in service and in production with South Korea and Turkey....

So what would be the unknown, in service with three countries SW1, what am I missing here??

Has the MOD specified a UK only modification ( something unique and exquisitely expensive) as per usual??
What South Korean production line? The last a/c was delivered to South Korea 11 years ago.

You really don’t know what your talking about when it comes to modifying a/c and certifying them so best to leave it there.
So, you're as ever good with the old sarcasm SW1, but as ever, short with the facts ....

Why is the programme going off the rails, proven radar build on a proven airframe?

Apparently not, you are suggesting it's in fact a different radar ( not the current production upgraded known original) going on a different model airframe, so creating an entirely new bespoke product .... Nimrod AEW anyone......

Now, if the current available version of the 737 and the aforementioned apparently brand new radar system is so 'vastly' different, requiring a totally new integration, why wasn't this immediately picked up on and all the variables taken into account in the decision?

If the answer is .... "don't know cheif, we just had a stab at it and it's going a tad tits up" .... and the variables involved meant an RAF E7 that is in fact completely seperated from the in service datum point E7's with thousand of hours of flight time and not in fact a low risk solution whatsoever.

This should have been a completely straight forward procument.

We are building what appears to be a bespoke platform that only looks like the other E7's.

Obviously, we should just have ordered the system directly from Boeing, as a fixed price contract and let them do the head scratching.

Let me guess, someone in government said, 'it must be built here old chap' and opened yet another great British procurement can of worms!

Shall we have a sweepstake on just how late it will be and just how far it will go above budget??
Which part of the aircraft and radar or other systems are not or were not in production and hadn’t been for near 15 years are you struggling with. No one not here, in American, Korea, Australia, or Turkey were making this configuration when we ordered it. We are ordering them from Boeing direct but in case you missed it there practices have been shown to be somewhat questionable in production safe and certified products of late.

The fact there is no business case still for this procurement should speak volumes.

These aircraft are not in a production run they are individually changed and engineering written accordingly in some form of non incorporated engineering order against specific tail numbers and certification issued accordingly. The MAA will be responsible for certification in the UK because it is being operated by the UK. They are not responsible for the certification and airworthiness of anyone else’s aircraft nor is anyone else responsible for ours.

Converting aircraft is never straightforward anyone who has ever done it will never tell you it is. As I said the companies that have done these military conversion regularly in the UK walked away because it was unrealistic what was being asked within the budget. The radar will be a modern variant of a 15 year old one so different, like wise ecm, datalink, esm and all the rest. The consoles will be new and when you start taking apart an aircraft things you don’t expect will present itself that need fixed. Parts your taking off and replacing maybe different or the part your looking to modify may have already been modified for some other reason on that specific aircraft your changing. There maybe also some process methods that may need to change due to modern practices or substances no longer allowed to be used.

Turning round and saying someone did this on a similar a/c 15 years ago means doing it again will be easy just simply doesnt understand what there doing if that’s how it was sold I guess they were talking to the sales department.
In which case it's a ridiculous way to procure a new system, if we are ordering a bespoke system, it appears we are, then in 10 years time, we will be paying billions more for a counter obsolescence upgrade and update.

We should have used the NATO AWAC fleet to fill the hole left by the retirment of the E3 and waited for the US to procure a new system. They would have ordered the E7 eventually anyway and we should have simply added a few to their substantial order.

We could have saved a lot of money and also placed our E7's into the US rolling upgrade programme moving forward.

My guess would be three E7's at half the procument price, with far lower costs of through life ownership.

As it stands, we are building a bespoke fleet of three bloody aircraft!!!

Did we learn nothing from the MRA4 feasco?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

mrclark303 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 20:16
We could have saved a lot of money and also placed our E7's into the US rolling upgrade programme moving forward.

My guess would be three E7's at half the procument price, with far lower costs of through life ownership.

As it stands, we are building a bespoke fleet of three bloody aircraft!!!

Did we learn nothing from the MRA4 feasco?
I’m not entirely sure why you think that, our systems will be like the new Australian aircraft that are going a MLU which will in part be the US baseline standard for systems.

When you modify aircraft there is always similar issues it’s what happens when you modify aircraft. I think the real question is did we enter into the program with a realistic budget and timeline or was it “sexed” up to suit an agenda knowing there wasn’t a budget to aquire it.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1062
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by SD67 »

SW1 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 18:12
SD67 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 17:52
SW1 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 17:40
SD67 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 17:12 Right so as a cost accountant that is exactly what I would be challenging. What exactly is needed? Give me the specific dimensions. Payload endurance aerodynamic performance. Then gap fit that against the documented performance of this brand new 737 I have just bought from Ryanair. What is the cost of the delta. What are the alternative uses for that cost. Did Australia buy some special BBJ variant? If not why not. If the E7 cannot be easily adapted to a baseline 737 NG then it is not very good is it and actually maybe the advertised price is not entirely representative of the true acquisition cost - would you like us to advertise that to the entire world?
Seriously a Boeing sales rep walks in, sees one of our guys and has to contain himself from bursting out laughing.
Yes Australia did buy the bbj variant they also have 2 leased for government transport. They haven’t made them for some time. I believe all the wedgetails converted were from this baseline standard. Boeing moved on to the -800ng bbj sometime in the late 2010s and stopped making them all together in 2021 as they moved to max.

It’s a -700 fuse with a strengthened wing, 6-9 Additional fuel tanks and strengthened landing gear. That’s before the conversion is to begin.

All non recurring engineering and integration of systems would would need to be re-done against a new baseline if you don’t wish to use the same variant as previous or you wouldn’t be able to certify it.

Ryanair buy the most consessed aircraft going form Boeing that no one else wants so they get them cheap wouldn’t start from there.
That's interesting, so we now have a new breed of CADCAM that magically self destructs after a decade. All that integration work somehow disappears into the ether.
And we have certification that expires despite the fact that a the exact same airplane is currently in service with one of our closest allies. Really interesting. Let's test this out, get a friendly billionaire, say I don't know call him "Trump" to call up Chicago and ask for a BBJ -700 NG with a new wing, see what they say.
No again you are oversimplifying. The -800 or whatever standard of aircraft you chose to start
with is a different standard to that which the original baseline engineering is against and also at a different effectivity. ....

You can get Boeing to make whatever you wish and pay what there asking if you have the budget.
The 737 MAX exists because the pilots do not need to be re certified to fly it so it cannot be that great a change. At least that's what Seattle told the market before they started falling out of the sky.
I'm arguing in favour of a conventional transparent tender process. It's not rocket science. Define requirements and put it out to the market. Firm price offers only please. Sourcing the airframe is your problem..
According to an ex client (lessor ) a BBJ conversion from any mark of 737 is of the order of 5 million USD

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

SD67 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 23:25
SW1 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 18:12
SD67 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 17:52
SW1 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 17:40
SD67 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 17:12 Right so as a cost accountant that is exactly what I would be challenging. What exactly is needed? Give me the specific dimensions. Payload endurance aerodynamic performance. Then gap fit that against the documented performance of this brand new 737 I have just bought from Ryanair. What is the cost of the delta. What are the alternative uses for that cost. Did Australia buy some special BBJ variant? If not why not. If the E7 cannot be easily adapted to a baseline 737 NG then it is not very good is it and actually maybe the advertised price is not entirely representative of the true acquisition cost - would you like us to advertise that to the entire world?
Seriously a Boeing sales rep walks in, sees one of our guys and has to contain himself from bursting out laughing.
Yes Australia did buy the bbj variant they also have 2 leased for government transport. They haven’t made them for some time. I believe all the wedgetails converted were from this baseline standard. Boeing moved on to the -800ng bbj sometime in the late 2010s and stopped making them all together in 2021 as they moved to max.

It’s a -700 fuse with a strengthened wing, 6-9 Additional fuel tanks and strengthened landing gear. That’s before the conversion is to begin.

All non recurring engineering and integration of systems would would need to be re-done against a new baseline if you don’t wish to use the same variant as previous or you wouldn’t be able to certify it.

Ryanair buy the most consessed aircraft going form Boeing that no one else wants so they get them cheap wouldn’t start from there.
That's interesting, so we now have a new breed of CADCAM that magically self destructs after a decade. All that integration work somehow disappears into the ether.
And we have certification that expires despite the fact that a the exact same airplane is currently in service with one of our closest allies. Really interesting. Let's test this out, get a friendly billionaire, say I don't know call him "Trump" to call up Chicago and ask for a BBJ -700 NG with a new wing, see what they say.
No again you are oversimplifying. The -800 or whatever standard of aircraft you chose to start
with is a different standard to that which the original baseline engineering is against and also at a different effectivity. ....

You can get Boeing to make whatever you wish and pay what there asking if you have the budget.
The 737 MAX exists because the pilots do not need to be re certified to fly it so it cannot be that great a change. At least that's what Seattle told the market before they started falling out of the sky.
I'm arguing in favour of a conventional transparent tender process. It's not rocket science. Define requirements and put it out to the market. Firm price offers only please. Sourcing the airframe is your problem..
According to an ex client (lessor ) a BBJ conversion from any mark of 737 is of the order of 5 million USD
It was deliberately not a normal procurement because it wasn’t wanted to be opened to scrutiny the decision was made before the request was even made.

Boeing offer bbj variants of all there aircraft if you want them. Great convert any mark of 737 to a bbj if you like how long will it take? Now go and covert it to Wedgetail. All the engineering which your wanting to utilise as much of as possible is against an old mark of 737 your now no longer using.

If you’ve taken say a Ryanair 737-800. It’s longer with a lot of different part number that need replaced modified that weren’t on or covered by the original drawings and paperwork, different weight, and engine types, different power requirements and power draws, different cabin layout different cabin decompression substantiation. Different stress substantiations required for parts and airframe, being a bigger aircraft specific aero envelope evaluation with the configuration as it’s never been done how longs that all take and cost?


Boeing sourced the aircraft on the basis it wanted to start from aircraft that were as close to the original baseline that it had used to convert all the other wedgetails which is what it did.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1506
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by tomuk »

SD67 wrote: 08 Nov 2023, 23:25
According to an ex client (lessor ) a BBJ conversion from any mark of 737 is of the order of 5 million USD
That maybe true for the bigger BBJ2 and BBJ3 which are more closely based on the commercial 800 and 900 NG respectively. But for BBJ(1) which is what the Wedgetails are you aren't going to fit a new pair of wings for £5 million.

sol
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by sol »

NATO selects E-7A as a replacement for AWACS fleet. In total 6 aircrafts will be procured

These users liked the author sol for the post:
serge750

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 846
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by mrclark303 »

sol wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 11:04 NATO selects E-7A as a replacement for AWACS fleet. In total 6 aircrafts will be procured

I believe the MOD has two spare radar arrays under a tarp in a Birmingham lock up, good opportunity to flog them on perhaps as we are clearly too stupid to buy enough E7's, we might as well try to recover some money....

Delivered in a colour of their choice, three stage pearl costs more mind you!

Little J
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by Little J »

Where will NATO and the US by sourcing their bbj's?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Little J wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 19:34 Where will NATO and the US by sourcing their bbj's?
American jets and I assume the nato ones will come from there too will come from new builds that the US military are asking Boeing to make for them. It will take about 4 years to build these new airframes hence why the ISD are a number of years away.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
Little Jmrclark303

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 846
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 20:12
Little J wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 19:34 Where will NATO and the US by sourcing their bbj's?
American jets and I assume the nato ones will come from there too will come from new builds that the US military are asking Boeing to make for them. It will take about 4 years to build these new airframes hence why the ISD are a number of years away.
What a shame we didn't try to time our order with the NATO/USAF buy and ran on a three E3's for a few more years, or alternatively, just reached a deal for NATO E3 coverage as a stop gap.

We would probably have saved a lot of money and had a common airframe/ radar combo with wider fleet.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

mrclark303 wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 21:09
SW1 wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 20:12
Little J wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 19:34 Where will NATO and the US by sourcing their bbj's?
American jets and I assume the nato ones will come from there too will come from new builds that the US military are asking Boeing to make for them. It will take about 4 years to build these new airframes hence why the ISD are a number of years away.
What a shame we didn't try to time our order with the NATO/USAF buy and ran on a three E3's for a few more years, or alternatively, just reached a deal for NATO E3 coverage as a stop gap.

We would probably have saved a lot of money and had a common airframe/ radar combo with wider fleet.
A decade plus of failing to maintain e3d to the same international standards as others. A decision to buy p8 without a budget to do it meant it was e3d and sentinel or something else had to go. A failure to adequately resource a decision to proceed with e7 all adds up. You could not wait 10 years without an any form of airborne early warning to tie in with future US decisions

The process they embarked on with e7 is not out of the ordinary it’s how every wegdetail conversion around the world was done in the past. The problem was they didn’t have the budget to do it and tried to kid everyone they did and as a result ended up will pay more and take longer as a result. If you don’t have a realistic budget or are not willing to reduce something else to ensure that you do ( priorities again) don’t start it.

Airborne ISR is a constant demand as I said I would have prioritised it. But people do not like to prioritise things they want to do it all and you can’t.

As the secretary of state told the defence select committee today the cost he has for taking the fleet back up to 5 and supporting them for I assume 10 years is an additional £750m pounds. Do you delete a type 26 to pay for 2 extra aews for example these are the choices that need to be decided.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 3):
new guyLittle Jmrclark303

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by serge750 »

after we get our 3 delivered - what are chances of ordering a couple more in early 2030's of the "hot" american production line to make the numbers up to the original 5 wanted ? as presumably they will be a bit cheaper...

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2903
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by abc123 »

SW1 wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 21:32 As the secretary of state told the defence select committee today the cost he has for taking the fleet back up to 5 and supporting them for I assume 10 years is an additional £750m pounds. Do you delete a type 26 to pay for 2 extra aews for example these are the choices that need to be decided.
No, the choice is to increase defence budget for these 750 mil. ( during a few years ) and get two more of them- or not.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

abc123 wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 22:20
SW1 wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 21:32 As the secretary of state told the defence select committee today the cost he has for taking the fleet back up to 5 and supporting them for I assume 10 years is an additional £750m pounds. Do you delete a type 26 to pay for 2 extra aews for example these are the choices that need to be decided.
No, the choice is to increase defence budget for these 750 mil. ( during a few years ) and get two more of them- or not.
No that is the cake and eat it wishful thinking that gets you into these problems in the first place.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 846
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 21:32
mrclark303 wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 21:09
SW1 wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 20:12
Little J wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 19:34 Where will NATO and the US by sourcing their bbj's?
American jets and I assume the nato ones will come from there too will come from new builds that the US military are asking Boeing to make for them. It will take about 4 years to build these new airframes hence why the ISD are a number of years away.
What a shame we didn't try to time our order with the NATO/USAF buy and ran on a three E3's for a few more years, or alternatively, just reached a deal for NATO E3 coverage as a stop gap.

We would probably have saved a lot of money and had a common airframe/ radar combo with wider fleet.
A decade plus of failing to maintain e3d to the same international standards as others. A decision to buy p8 without a budget to do it meant it was e3d and sentinel or something else had to go. A failure to adequately resource a decision to proceed with e7 all adds up. You could not wait 10 years without an any form of airborne early warning to tie in with future US decisions

The process they embarked on with e7 is not out of the ordinary it’s how every wegdetail conversion around the world was done in the past. The problem was they didn’t have the budget to do it and tried to kid everyone they did and as a result ended up will pay more and take longer as a result. If you don’t have a realistic budget or are not willing to reduce something else to ensure that you do ( priorities again) don’t start it.

Airborne ISR is a constant demand as I said I would have prioritised it. But people do not like to prioritise things they want to do it all and you can’t.

As the secretary of state told the defence select committee today the cost he has for taking the fleet back up to 5 and supporting them for I assume 10 years is an additional £750m pounds. Do you delete a type 26 to pay for 2 extra aews for example these are the choices that need to be decided.
The issue we have is all capabilities are now absolutely bare bones with zero mass anywhere across all three services.

I've just watched the excellent Hypo hysterical History's extensive historical video on both Gulf Wars, on You Tube. One thing that's quite startling in this detailed military review is how astonishing it is regarding the capability we have lost since 2003.

We are today a pale shadow of our 2003 force structure.

Like I said, there is nothing to cut from anywhere now, absolutely no meat on bone.

Loose an T26 and ASW capability is compromised etc, etc, as 8 is the absolute minimum for core tasking, it's the same across absolutely everything, bar military bands and horses!!

Re, the AEW question, is there a reason we couldn't have simply withdrawn our D modems, as planned and paid to base and operate 3 NATO E3's in the UK?

They are after all NATO assets and this is exactly what they are for!

Had we done that ( some dangerous joined up thinking) the RAF could have ordered 5 E7's, alongside a large joint NATO/ USAF order.

The procurement and sustainability savings of the fleet would been 'substantial' and future counter obsolescence upgrades would simply follow the parent fleet.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1506
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by tomuk »

mrclark303 wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 00:50
Re, the AEW question, is there a reason we couldn't have simply withdrawn our D modems, as planned and paid to base and operate 3 NATO E3's in the UK?

They are after all NATO assets and this is exactly what they are for!
What would be the point Geilenkirchen is less than an hours flying time from Waddington.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
new guy

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

[quote=mrclark303 post_id=160043

The issue we have is all capabilities are now absolutely bare bones with zero mass anywhere across all three services.

I've just watched the excellent Hypo hysterical History's extensive historical video on both Gulf Wars, on You Tube. One thing that's quite startling in this detailed military review is how astonishing it is regarding the capability we have lost since 2003.

We are today a pale shadow of our 2003 force structure.

Like I said, there is nothing to cut from anywhere now, absolutely no meat on bone.

Loose an T26 and ASW capability is compromised etc, etc, as 8 is the absolute minimum for core tasking, it's the same across absolutely everything, bar military bands and horses!!

Re, the AEW question, is there a reason we couldn't have simply withdrawn our D modems, as planned and paid to base and operate 3 NATO E3's in the UK?

They are after all NATO assets and this is exactly what they are for!

Had we done that ( some dangerous joined up thinking) the RAF could have ordered 5 E7's, alongside a large joint NATO/ USAF order.

The procurement and sustainability savings of the fleet would been 'substantial' and future counter obsolescence upgrades would simply follow the parent fleet.
[/quote]

I’ll disagree with most of your first few paragraphs.

On aew if you do not wish to allocate budget for sustaining aew you don’t no matter who sustains it.

They sold it as an 18 month gap however they now will only have 1 a/c by sometime in 2025 inservice. It’s been a mess from start to finish due to over optimism and lack of priorities.

You can’t gap aew until the 2030s I am amazed they allowed it to be gapped at all. It’s fairly fundamental to National airspace surveillance and air warfare in general.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 846
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 08:53 [quote=mrclark303 post_id=160043

The issue we have is all capabilities are now absolutely bare bones with zero mass anywhere across all three services.

I've just watched the excellent Hypo hysterical History's extensive historical video on both Gulf Wars, on You Tube. One thing that's quite startling in this detailed military review is how astonishing it is regarding the capability we have lost since 2003.

We are today a pale shadow of our 2003 force structure.

Like I said, there is nothing to cut from anywhere now, absolutely no meat on bone.

Loose an T26 and ASW capability is compromised etc, etc, as 8 is the absolute minimum for core tasking, it's the same across absolutely everything, bar military bands and horses!!

Re, the AEW question, is there a reason we couldn't have simply withdrawn our D modems, as planned and paid to base and operate 3 NATO E3's in the UK?

They are after all NATO assets and this is exactly what they are for!

Had we done that ( some dangerous joined up thinking) the RAF could have ordered 5 E7's, alongside a large joint NATO/ USAF order.

The procurement and sustainability savings of the fleet would been 'substantial' and future counter obsolescence upgrades would simply follow the parent fleet.
I’ll disagree with most of your first few paragraphs.

On aew if you do not wish to allocate budget for sustaining aew you don’t no matter who sustains it.

They sold it as an 18 month gap however they now will only have 1 a/c by sometime in 2025 inservice. It’s been a mess from start to finish due to over optimism and lack of priorities.

You can’t gap aew until the 2030s I am amazed they allowed it to be gapped at all. It’s fairly fundamental to National airspace surveillance and air warfare in general.
[/quote]

Morning SW1, so what do you disagree with?

Our force structure is stripped to the absolute bone, or the viability of using the NATO AEW fleet as a stop gap?

You mention priorities, but what else would you have delayed or cancelled to fund 5 E7's?

For the life of me I can't think of anything that wouldn't be equally damaging for defence.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 846
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by mrclark303 »

tomuk wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 04:09
mrclark303 wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 00:50
Re, the AEW question, is there a reason we couldn't have simply withdrawn our D modems, as planned and paid to base and operate 3 NATO E3's in the UK?

They are after all NATO assets and this is exactly what they are for!
What would be the point Geilenkirchen is less than an hours flying time from Waddington.
Good point, so just task as appropriate and pay into the pot, why wasn't that considered as an option I wonder, or am I missing something here?

It has been clear for years that the UK/ US/ European E3 fleet was coming up for replacement, why the hell wasn't a joint sensible solution looked at??

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5772
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by SW1 »

[quote=mrclark303 post_id=160048
Morning SW1, so what do you disagree with?

Our force structure is stripped to the absolute bone, or the viability of using the NATO AEW fleet as a stop gap?

You mention priorities, but what else would you have delayed or cancelled to fund 5 E7's?

For the life of me I can't think of anything that wouldn't be equally damaging for defence.
[/quote]

The force structure comments. We have 145 thousand regular personnel across the 3 services that should sufficient to provide a robust defence of this country.

Well if you wanted to stay solely within the airforce budget because it is always easy to cut other people’s budgets. I would have said I would only purchased 5 P8s not 9 and used the saved funds for the 5 E7 if that was the direction of travel. Depends how far back you wish to go in time and choices made.

topman
Member
Posts: 776
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)

Post by topman »

mrclark303 wrote: 16 Nov 2023, 00:50
SW1 wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 21:32
mrclark303 wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 21:09
SW1 wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 20:12
Little J wrote: 15 Nov 2023, 19:34 Where will NATO and the US by sourcing their bbj's?
American jets and I assume the nato ones will come from there too will come from new builds that the US military are asking Boeing to make for them. It will take about 4 years to build these new airframes hence why the ISD are a number of years away.
What a shame we didn't try to time our order with the NATO/USAF buy and ran on a three E3's for a few more years, or alternatively, just reached a deal for NATO E3 coverage as a stop gap.

We would probably have saved a lot of money and had a common airframe/ radar combo with wider fleet.
A decade plus of failing to maintain e3d to the same international standards as others. A decision to buy p8 without a budget to do it meant it was e3d and sentinel or something else had to go. A failure to adequately resource a decision to proceed with e7 all adds up. You could not wait 10 years without an any form of airborne early warning to tie in with future US decisions

The process they embarked on with e7 is not out of the ordinary it’s how every wegdetail conversion around the world was done in the past. The problem was they didn’t have the budget to do it and tried to kid everyone they did and as a result ended up will pay more and take longer as a result. If you don’t have a realistic budget or are not willing to reduce something else to ensure that you do ( priorities again) don’t start it.

Airborne ISR is a constant demand as I said I would have prioritised it. But people do not like to prioritise things they want to do it all and you can’t.

As the secretary of state told the defence select committee today the cost he has for taking the fleet back up to 5 and supporting them for I assume 10 years is an additional £750m pounds. Do you delete a type 26 to pay for 2 extra aews for example these are the choices that need to be decided.
The issue we have is all capabilities are now absolutely bare bones with zero mass anywhere across all three services.

I've just watched the excellent Hypo hysterical History's extensive historical video on both Gulf Wars, on You Tube. One thing that's quite startling in this detailed military review is how astonishing it is regarding the capability we have lost since 2003.

We are today a pale shadow of our 2003 force structure.

Like I said, there is nothing to cut from anywhere now, absolutely no meat on bone.

Loose an T26 and ASW capability is compromised etc, etc, as 8 is the absolute minimum for core tasking, it's the same across absolutely everything, bar military bands and horses!!

Re, the AEW question, is there a reason we couldn't have simply withdrawn our D modems, as planned and paid to base and operate 3 NATO E3's in the UK?

They are after all NATO assets and this is exactly what they are for!

Had we done that ( some dangerous joined up thinking) the RAF could have ordered 5 E7's, alongside a large joint NATO/ USAF order.

The procurement and sustainability savings of the fleet would been 'substantial' and future counter obsolescence upgrades would simply follow the parent fleet.
I don't think that follows at all. Following the parent fleet can get expensive, see the sentry fleet for example ended up in a bit of state by the end.
Following exactly what the Americans do can be quite expensive, they have very deep pockets.

Post Reply