RAAF Project Wedgetail AEW&C

Triton

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
14 August 2009
Messages
9,707
Reaction score
2,055
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Raytheon Systems Company, Elta Division of Israeli Aircraft Industries, and Airbus Industries A130-based submission for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Project Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AEW&C) system. The team also included Hawker de Havilland, Honeywell Australia, E-Systems Australia, Australian Defence Industries and Adacel.


Sources:
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Wedgetail-99.html
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/special/e310.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/e-310.htm
 

Attachments

  • Airbus-Elta-AEW-Cutaway-1-S.jpg
    Airbus-Elta-AEW-Cutaway-1-S.jpg
    99.8 KB · Views: 421
  • a310-1.JPG
    a310-1.JPG
    17.4 KB · Views: 399
  • A310-3.jpg
    A310-3.jpg
    13.9 KB · Views: 408
  • A310_cut.jpg
    A310_cut.jpg
    46.1 KB · Views: 410
im suprised they didnt purchase this before. great long range radar system in the air capable of 10hr long missions...... interesting
 
No surprises there then with NATO following the USAF and the RAF buying the E-7 Wedgetail AWACS, I always had thought that they would purchase the E-7. But one question. Why is it only a partial replacement? Why not make it a full replacement it does not make any sense.:confused:
 
FighterJock said:
No surprises there then with NATO following the USAF and the RAF buying the E-7 Wedgetail AWACS, I always had thought that they would purchase the E-7. But one question. Why is it only a partial replacement? Why not make it a full replacement it does not make any sense.:confused:
Click to expand...
It makes plenty of sense. The 737-based aircraft simply don't have the range or equipment capacity that the 707-based aircraft did. But you don't need that kind of range or payload all the time in this mission. So it makes sense to have a high-low mix of shorter and longer ranged AWACS aircraft. When USAF does replace the rest of the E-3 fleet eventually, the high part of the mix will probably be 767-based, as they've already got new tankers in the works based on that airframe.
 
I am actually surprised that the USAF did not convert the 767 to begin with and put the Wedgetail radar on them instead of the 737 if they were worried about the range issue?
 
FighterJock said:
I am actually surprised that the USAF did not convert the 767 to begin with and put the Wedgetail radar on them instead of the 737 if they were worried about the range issue?
Click to expand...
The whole E-7 acquisition plan only arose about 2020/21 when the USAF generals, particularly in the Pacific, were voicing their concerns about the servicability and availability of the aging E-3 fleet in the coming years. Until that point the USAF seems to havee intended to wait until nearer the end of the decade to seek a replacement. So the whole E-7 acquisition programme is a rush job to plug an emerging gap.

The USAF E-3 were originally delivered between 1977 & 1984

Attempting to put the E-7 radar into the 767 / KC-46 airframe would have meant delay and additional development costs while that programme was developed and carried out.
 
USAF hasn't seriously looked at a 767-based AEWC since E10 died. 500nmi less unrefueled range isn't ideal, but with tankers (and NGAD on the way) they seem to believe it's workable. If there's a crewed AWACS after E7, I'd expect it to be built off the flying wing tanker platform.
 
That is interesting Moose, about the future AWACS being built of the flying wing tanker platform, it actually makes sense to have the E-7 Wedgetail as an interim tanker then have the Future AWACS as the replacement aircraft sometime during the next decade.
 
FighterJock said:
No surprises there then with NATO following the USAF and the RAF buying the E-7 Wedgetail AWACS, I always had thought that they would purchase the E-7. But one question. Why is it only a partial replacement? Why not make it a full replacement it does not make any sense.:confused:
Click to expand...
By this metric France should be similar. Albeit we wasted so much time in the 1980's, agonizing over that E-3 buy; our AWACS are perhaps the youngest in the family.
 
DesScorp said:
When USAF does replace the rest of the E-3 fleet eventually, the high part of the mix will probably be 767-based, as they've already got new tankers in the works based on that airframe.
Click to expand...
As reported in this thread, the USAF has already announced that the E-7 would replace the E-3 as it "is the only platform capable of meeting the requirements for the Defense Department's tactical battle management, command and control and moving target indication capabilities within the timeframe needed..." with an expected total fleet of 26 acft.
 
Blueking said:
In fact, Japan has using two 767-based、E-3 radar AWACS for long time .
Click to expand...
Indeed... that always seemed to me to be a "no-brainer" for the USAF, but... they do simply have the E-3's radar and systems.

The first two were delivered to Japan in March 1998, the 3rd & 4th were delivered in January 1999.

In September of this year the first was re-delivered with modernized computing capacity. The MCU (Mission Computing Upgrade) modernization is similar to upgrades performed on the U.S. Air Force’s E-3 AWACS fleet. It will provide the JASDF with improved command and battlespace control capabilities, increased real-time information sharing between the services, reduced target identification time and increased lethality.

Previously, E-767 AWACS were upgraded with the Radar System Improvement Program (RSIP) and Mission Navigation System Upgrade through an Air Force contract with Boeing in 2006.
The RSIP upgrade is a joint U.S.-NATO development program that involved intensive hardware and software modification of the existing radar system. The RSIP implementation increased the operational capability of the radar’s electronic counter-countermeasures while improving reliability, reducing maintenance and increasing system availability.

Boeing E-767 9 August 2007:

Boeing E-767 9 August 2007.jpg

E-767-AWACS-JASDF.jpg
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
No surprises there then with NATO following the USAF and the RAF buying the E-7 Wedgetail AWACS, I always had thought that they would purchase the E-7. But one question. Why is it only a partial replacement? Why not make it a full replacement it does not make any sense.:confused:
Click to expand...
Because the E-7s aren't survivable.

The major replacement for AWACS is going to be based on the Flying Wing or BWB tanker, which is designed to be inside someone's A2AD bubble and still directing the air battle or providing fuel.

E-7s are good for places outside the A2AD bubbles.
 
FighterJock said:
No surprises there then with NATO following the USAF and the RAF buying the E-7 Wedgetail AWACS, I always had thought that they would purchase the E-7. But one question. Why is it only a partial replacement? Why not make it a full replacement it does not make any sense.:confused:
Click to expand...

The AWACS role really isn’t the same as when the E-3 originally entered service. The US and its allies now have a far more network based approach, i.e. multiple radars and other sensors on multiple platforms connected to each other to give widest and most detailed view possible. You have to also take into account the greatly increased ranges and capabilities of land based radars, fighter based radars and of the latest generation radar in the E-7 (and USN Hawkeyes). In that scenario the central importance and role of an AWACs aircraft isn’t quite the same as it used to be, and in this overall context it probably would be expected that replacements for the Sentry wouldn’t be on a one-to-one basis.

Additionally there are the likely (but probably not very advertised) developments in relation to space based sensors and in relation the capabilities of unmanned aircraft that somewhat overlap into this role/ area that similarly impact/ change the role of a “traditional” AWAC aircraft, with this impact/ change likely to become more pronounced as time goes by.

Hence the USAF Wedgetail buy is really best seen as a risk avoidance measure against the the worn-out Sentry fleet not surviving until all of these longer developments come to full fruition (and to help de-risk these developments by giving them longer to reach sufficient maturity). In related studies the Wedgtail option probably defeated Global Hawk variants and/ or equivalent unmanned near-term unmanned options due to likely lower perceived risk and tighter timescales.

Hence the “partial replacement” aspect is almost certainly not in relation to an intention re: introducing a manned BWB or similar new large manned AWAC aircraft but on the basis that other networked existing and future platforms that are likely/ mostly not traditional AWAC aircraft are currently and will in future supplement and help perform this role.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GTX said:
Details?
Click to expand...
Not many, just that the KC-Z is supposed to be LO to deal with jokers throwing R-37s and other VLRAAMs around. If not to be able to get over hostile ground to catch a plane in trouble.
 
US Air Force having a difficult time negotiating price with Boeing on the two US prototypes, Boeing wants to charge the US considerably more than it charged the UK in one off engineering charges for tailoring the aircraft to US specifications. The US awarded Boeing an outline contract of $1.2bn for the two aircraft subject to agreeing detailed cost breakdowns, but its currently unable to reach agreement with Boeing on the itemised costings.

(Could be reflecting Boeings 'no more loss making fixed price military contracts' attitude)

US Air Force hits turbulence on Boeing E-7 acquisition negotiations

The US Air Force (USAF) is “having a hard time getting a price agreement with Boeing” on purchasing E-7 Wedgetails, Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall told...
www.janes.com
 
Last edited:
I'm sure SAAB would happily provide itemised costing for refuelling receptacle on Globaleye, if they were asked.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom