The existing E3D Sentry aircraft provide a vital element of airspace management and a significant force multiplier. Internet arguments about whether the Typhoon is better than the SU30 or the F22 or the Rafale simply fail to take into account the fact that the fighter aircraft is a single part of a very complicated machine, the E3D contributes to overall combat effectiveness.
They were due to be significantly upgraded via Project Helix but this was downgraded to a more modest technology refresh which was understandable in the current economic climate. Although our overall goal should be to reduce airframe types the E3D Sentry, which is based on a Boeing 707, is the exception. The costs of transferring to a new airframe would likely exceed the savings.
However, when the missions systems are upgraded in the future it would be an opportune moment to transfer to a larger and common airframe, the obvious candidate being the Airbus A330. This might coincide with a USAF upgrade with the UK participating in systems development but on a likely different airframe than the USAF (unless hell freezes over and they take an A330 based tanker)
In the short term it may be possible to mothball some of the airframes.
QUICK SUMMARY
1. Fund feasibility study to transfer electronic systems to A330 based airframe
2. Maintain some airframes at extended readiness to achieve short term savings
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
5 Comments
To the best of my knowledge most of the RAF E-3D fleet is already at extended readiness in other words mothballed in a hangar been cannibalised to some extent, so there is not really much more that could be done.
I agree fully that the option to transfer the AWACS system to the A330 should be studied but I would also like the RAF to find out how much it would cost to buy something else like the Israeli Phalcon system and have it installed on an A330. The idea being that an A330 platform could be used to replace E-3D and Nimrod R1 while providing a much more modern airframe with all the advantages that bit brings. Furthermore it could be used as a very effective airborne command post and UAV control aircraft as well as a communications relay while performing these core duties. If ASTOR had been cancelled this system could also have been incorporated to the airframe alongside everything else although we might have run out of space or be close to the maximum ideal weight. Basically I’m thinking along the lines of the cancelled USAF E-10 aircraft.
I think the E10 was cancelled because of the scale of the integration challenge, too many transmitters and receivers in the same space. We will be looking at ISR in the next post and this will include an R1 replacement. I don’t think most of the E3 fleet is at extended readiness by the way but could be wrong :D
Sorry guys, cant agree with this one, you are designing and building a brand new aircraft, you cant simple ‘move’ the E3D AWACS radar and mission systems in to a green Airbus airframe, its a potential cost overrun disaster waiting to happen. Fanciful I am afraid. Either donate the E3D’s to the NATO AWACS force and buy a replacement, or upgrade the E3D’s.
I agree that it would be a significant challenge and has the possibility for ‘project issues’ which is why I only recommend going as far as a feasibility study. If this reports that it would be be economically feasible then there are other options available. It is one of those very expensive but very essential capabilities that would be difficult to cut back on but do we really need 7 airframes (I think it is 7)
Integration issues did have a part to play but so did money, with the rapidly advancing pace of technology especially in solid state transmit and receive modules I think it will be possible. It has been mooted that modern AESA radars could easily be used as high bandwidth antennas while performing other functions. I think the hardware is there already but the software would be the expensive and tricky part of the program as it would need risk reduction work to be done and extensive testing before it could be trusted. We are essentially talking within the next decade trying to do the E-10 over again maybe by that time the USAF will have decided to have another go at the E-10. If so we could ask to join the program which would no doubt be developed as an open source plug and play architecture allowing us to integrate our own equipment and move the mission systems over to the A330 airframe. The USAF need to replace the E-3 is much greater than ours so we could just do the logical thing and join whatever program they start. My information may be wrong or out of date on the E-3D fleet so we both could be correct or mistaken. Can’t wait for the next post and keep up the excellent work.
Jed, I agree transferring over the AWACS system is risky and perhaps not really worth it considering the age of the design. Even although it has been updated I’m confident the alternatives on the market will be as effective or more effective while much lighter and cost effective.
Admin, you are correct there are 7 UK E-3D AWACS airframes. I would ask why do you think 7 is more than enough airframes I would say that it is a good number, as it should allow 1 to be kept airborne on station and one ready to take-off as well as the required training and spares. It is a very complex aircraft and no doubt things go wrong that mean a mission scrub so having extra would be a wise idea. If we could replace the E-3D and R1 with a single platform I would like to see 8 airframes a net loss of 2 airframes.
As a side note, is there a way for you to post with your name own name rather than Admin? Just wondering.