Boeing E-7 Wedgetail AEW&C

What are the main differences between the radar of the E-3 Sentry and the E-2 Hawkeye in terms of range?
 
FighterJock said:
What are the main differences between the radar of the E-3 Sentry and the E-2 Hawkeye in terms of range?
Click to expand...
As per cruise altitude(e-3 will see further because it's horizon is further); incorrect question.

Correct question is detection ranges v different targets (low observable and/or physically small), against different backgrounds.
Also, number of seats onboard and plethora of their uses.
 
Ozair said:
Interesting commentary in the recent Aerospace Advantage podcast where they discussed the E-2s that are essentially doing the airspace control for Op Epic Fury over the E-3 fleet, which isn't mission capable enough in sufficient numbers to support the mission.
Click to expand...

This is true. The best time to have recapitalized the E-3 was a decade plus ago. The next best time is now.

Ozair said:
I feel like the E-7 program is going to be too little too late
Click to expand...

The US Air Force does not think so and didn't when it embarked on the effort which was initially floated by Will Roper under Trump 1.0. While it would have liked to have had a fleet of E-7s now in hand it will accept the first tow by FY28 and a small fleet of 5 or so in hand by 2030/1 with the balance of the fleet fielded by the early-mid 2030s.
Ozair said:
It is probably the mid 2030s by the time the USAF has sufficient E-7As while an E-2 fleet could conceivably arrive much quicker and be useful even as a stop gap for a decrepit E-3 fleet.
Click to expand...

There is nothing stopping the DOD from ordering additional E-2D's for the US Navy to allow sustained land based forward deployments over the next years. The FY-27 buy seems to be going after that. It will help the Navy long term build readiness and preserve the program which is a good thing all around.

As far as the USAF, and the airborne AMTI mission, any serious alternatives to the E-7 will take even longer given the fact that the first two E-7s are in production with one already advanced to conversion, and the EMD contract has already been awarded for both USAF specific enhancements and production of 5 aircraft.
 
Last edited:
So the USAF are going to have 12 E-7s? That is a major turn around from threatning to canclle the program last year, the RAF should order more to take our total to 12 as well when the production line is still open.
 
FighterJock said:
So the USAF are going to have 12 E-7s? That is a major turn around from threatning to canclle the program last year, the RAF should order more to take our total to 12 as well when the production line is still open.
Click to expand...
Twelve apparently through FY-27 order year. 2 under the MTA rapid prototyping and rapid fielding, five funded under the FY-26 RDTE accounts under EMD and, if what’s stated in this testimony above stands, five via FY27 procurement adjustment (it was originally zero under 27 procurement). The more in FY-28 (funding to be present ; confirmed my SecDef). Original plan is 20 plus and I have not seen any indication they have changed that.
 
Seems like a rather big 180 by Hegseth/DoD. Someone finally learned not every conflict or situation with airborne control requirements is a war with China.
 
The decision to disregard the AFs own analysis on the E-7 and nuke the program with AF E-2D funding was an OSD CAPE decision. The CSAF at the time publicly distant himself stating that he had absolutely no involvement in the analysis. Good to see the OSD buckle under pressure from the service, hoards of retired senior AF officials, and Congress. It would also have been important to ask the INDOPACOM commander, tasked with executing a potential conflict with China, whether the E-7 would be useful in that effort. Luckily the decision was flipped before Congress got all these and others to give their statements and share their views on the record. Something I’m sure it was prepared to do had the OSD dragged it out further.
 
bring_it_on said:
The decision to disregard the AFs own analysis on the E-7 and nuke the program with AF E-2D funding was an OSD CAPE decision. The CSAF at the time publicly distant himself stating that he had absolutely no involvement in the analysis. Good to see the OSD buckle under pressure from the service, hoards of retired senior AF officials, and Congress. It would also have been important to ask the INDOPACOM commander, tasked with executing a potential conflict with China, whether the E-7 would be useful in that effort. Luckily the decision was flipped before Congress got all these and others to give their statements and share their views on the record. Something I’m sure it was prepared to do had the OSD dragged it out further.
Click to expand...
It’s apparent that there is still a role for large AEW&C aircraft in a potential West Pacific contingency, as the Chinese themselves continue developing and fielding large platforms such as the KJ-3000 and KJ-700 alongside the carrier-borne KJ-600; as well as space-based systems.
 
snne said:
It’s apparent that there is still a role for large AEW&C aircraft in a potential West Pacific contingency, as the Chinese themselves continue developing and fielding large platforms such as the KJ-3000 and KJ-700 alongside the carrier-borne KJ-600; as well as space-based systems.
Click to expand...
I think Iran/Ukraine made it abundantly clear it's now absolute necessity and more. You have to track hordes of physically small, low altitude, LO targets overland somehow. Especially in a new connected reality.

E-3/A-50 aren't nowhere near modern enough, but E-2 class is simply physically insufficient, no matter how advanced.
 
snne said:
It’s apparent that there is still a role for large AEW&C aircraft in a potential West Pacific contingency, as the Chinese themselves continue developing and fielding large platforms such as the KJ-3000 and KJ-700 alongside the carrier-borne KJ-600; as well as space-based systems.
Click to expand...

Even if there was not, there clearly is a role for them in most every other contingency (and even in the Pacific in second tier/low threat roles). Really hard to imagine how anyone failed to realize that; six E-3s were deployed to the mid east early in the build up.
 
snne said:
It’s apparent that there is still a role for large AEW&C aircraft in a potential West Pacific contingency, as the Chinese themselves continue developing and fielding large platforms such as the KJ-3000 and KJ-700 alongside the carrier-borne KJ-600; as well as space-based systems.
Click to expand...

The PLAAF is not expecting to fight PLAAF halfway across the globe in its backyard. What works for one may be totally the wrong thing for the other. That said, there are plenty of things for the E-7 to do in INDOPACOM. The platform has always enjoyed support form PACAF.
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1779383418364.jpg
    FB_IMG_1779383418364.jpg
    62.4 KB · Views: 66
  • FB_IMG_1779383421907.jpg
    FB_IMG_1779383421907.jpg
    206.4 KB · Views: 41
  • FB_IMG_1779383426243.jpg
    FB_IMG_1779383426243.jpg
    148.6 KB · Views: 31
  • FB_IMG_1779383429478.jpg
    FB_IMG_1779383429478.jpg
    142.4 KB · Views: 29
  • FB_IMG_1779383433320.jpg
    FB_IMG_1779383433320.jpg
    137.6 KB · Views: 64
I could see that happening when the Wedgetails finally enter service timmymagic and what a sight that will be.
 
I wonder how many times it has flown?

I make it ten flights, but fear I've missed some?

20 September 2024 Birmingham ‘local’ first post-conversion flight

1 October 2024 Birmingham to Southend for painting

18 October 2024 Southend to Birmingham

10 July 2025 Birmingham ‘local’

19 July 2025 Birmingham to RIAT and return (did not land)

22 July 2025 Birmingham to Boscombe Down

28 November 2025 Boscombe Down to Birmingham

19 May 2026 Birmingham ‘local’ 2 hours 47 minutes

20 May 2026 Birmingham ‘local’

21 May 2026 Birmingham to Lossiemouth, 1 hr 26 minutes

Any thoughts?
 
Pentagon To Raid Navy Aircraft Procurement To Fund Boeing E-7

The Pentagon wants to raid the Navy’s aircraft and broader Pentagon procurement funding to reverse course on developing the Boeing E-7A Wedgetail.

The White House Office of Management and Budget in a budget amendment letter to House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) on June 17 stated the funding adjustments would pay for the two E-7 prototype aircraft, along with other amendments to pay for nuclear facility enhancements. The shifts would not affect the overall discretionary base budget authority in the request.

Specifically, the letter states the Pentagon wants to reduce the Navy’s aircraft procurement account by $650.549 million to fund the prototypes and continue engineering and manufacturing development for a program of record. The letter does not say which part of the Navy’s aircraft procurement request would be cut, and the dollar amount does not directly coincide with a specific program. However, the Navy had sought to increase its spending on the Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye that Pentagon officials have said would cover the gap in airborne early warning and control.

Additionally, the amendments would cut the Pentagon’s other procurement account by $899 million for the E-7s. Combined, OMB would request about $1.55 billion for the E-7 program.
Click to expand...
 
Jackonicko said:
Hearing that Wedgie 1 hasn't flown since arriving at LM, and is in a world of pain certification-wise...
Click to expand...
Anything you can add specifically on this, certification issues with the base airframe modifications or something else?
 
The scuttlebutt is that certification difficulties are centred on (but not limited to) the problems that arise from difficulties with configuration control. These in turn stem from the different origin and build standard (and the lack of some engineering/servicing documentation) of the first two airframes (eg: the second hand ex Chinese/Russian BBJs). That's my understanding, for what little it's worth.

I have not heard that STS' work on converting the aircraft has led to certification issues.
 
It's a pretty typical issue with using existing airframes e.g. very similar issue with RAF Airseekers / Rivet Joints and their previous usage. And it can also happen with brand new aircraft as evidenced with Boeing T-7 recently.

This then comes up against the UK military regulatory environment that is extremely risk adverse and you get gridlock. It's pretty easy for a future prosecutor to argue that you could have practicably taken more action to reduce risk.

The UK military regulatory environment is fundamentally broken at the moment regardless of what aircraft type is being pushed through it. There appears little appetite to fix this.
 
Was ever thus. I gave a lecture on RAF tankers a couple of years back and queried why the RAF spent over the odds on new, hobbled A330 MRTTs on a PPI deal when they could have had a similar capabilty with ex-airline B767s for a fraction of the cost.

An audience member advised thatvthe RAF had had enough of shagged-out ex-airline airframes.

A similar question could be asked about Wedgies vs Globaleye/G550AEW.

Chris
 
red admiral said:
It's a pretty typical issue with using existing airframes e.g. very similar issue with RAF Airseekers / Rivet Joints and their previous usage. And it can also happen with brand new aircraft as evidenced with Boeing T-7 recently.

This then comes up against the UK military regulatory environment that is extremely risk adverse and you get gridlock. It's pretty easy for a future prosecutor to argue that you could have practicably taken more action to reduce risk.

The UK military regulatory environment is fundamentally broken at the moment regardless of what aircraft type is being pushed through it. There appears little appetite to fix this.
Click to expand...
The first USAF E-7 is being worked on by STS right now and two deliveries are expected to complete next year. It could well be that those aircraft run ahead of final certification and get into operational testing before the UK aircraft.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom