Sierra Nevada E-4C Survivable Airborne Operations Center - E-4B replacement

www.defensenews.com

Flight tests begin on US Air Force’s new ‘doomsday plane’

Flight tests for the E-4C Survivable Airborne Operations Control are being held in Dayton, Ohio, aerospace firm Sierra Nevada Corp. said.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
The Air Force and aerospace firm Sierra Nevada Corp. have started flight tests on the service’s next-generation “doomsday plane.”

Flight tests for the E-4C Survivable Airborne Operations Control, or SAOC, are being held at the Aviation Innovation and Technology Center in Dayton, Ohio, the company said in a Wednesday release.

SAOC is meant to serve as an airborne command-and-control center that would be used in the most catastrophic circumstances. In the event of a nuclear war or other widespread calamity that destroys or disrupts most military command centers, the SAOC would allow the president to direct U.S. forces and relay orders from the air.

The Air Force in 2024 awarded SNC a $13 billion contract to build five SAOC aircraft to replace the Air Force’s aging fleet of four E-4B Nightwatch planes. Sierra Nevada is expected to finish the work by July 2036.

[snip]
Click to expand...
 
Better than the E-7 replacement based on the C-130 the Phoenix 2. Quite why they chose the C-130 over another jet powered Boeing type is beyond me.
 
FighterJock said:
Better than the E-7 replacement based on the C-130 the Phoenix 2. Quite why they chose the C-130 over another jet powered Boeing type is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Because the EC-130 is only replacing the TACAMO mission, not the Looking Glass mission that was also resident in the E-6 (E-7 is Wedgetail, so I assume you mean the E-6 Mercury).

For TACAMO alone, a prop airframe is better. It's easier to up the VLF antenna into its proper position in a slower (smaller diameter) circle.
 
Last edited:
Sorry TomS my mistake on getting the E-6 mixed up with the E-7. So if the C-130 is so good at the TACAMO why did the generals of the day insist on puting the system in a Boeing airliner?
 
FighterJock said:
Sorry TomS my mistake on getting the E-6 mixed up with the E-7. So if the C-130 is so good at the TACAMO why did the generals of the day insist on puting the system in a Boeing airliner?
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure why they opted for the 707 derivative as the E-6A. Most of the accounts I've seen suggests this was a mistake, because the E-6 was not an ideal platform for streaming the VLF antenna vertically. Using the 707/E-3 as a basis did make it better at the Looking Glass mission that got added on later.
 
At the time weren't the a lot of now surplus 707 aircraft that had just been retired from airline service?
 
NMaude said:
So modified new build C-135s?
Click to expand...

No, the E-3 and E-6 are based on the 707-320 airframe (aka C-137), which has a bigger fuselage diameter and other structural differences compared to the C-135.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
I'm not quite sure why they opted for the 707 derivative as the E-6A. Most of the accounts I've seen suggests this was a mistake, because the E-6 was not an ideal platform for streaming the VLF antenna vertically. Using the 707/E-3 as a basis did make it better at the Looking Glass mission that got added on later.
Click to expand...

The orbit is programmed as an autopilot mode in the E-6, it's about 30 deg of bank at 1.2g so nothing too exciting.

The big advantage of the E-6 over the 130Q was that the crew never had to worry about fuel. The 130Q flew the orbit at max continuous power, after a long transit, and fuel planning was critical.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom