The USAF’s next “doomsday” plane

[AE220]

I don’t think anyone was too aware of this until news that Boeing was eliminated from the competition,(https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...forces-doomsday-plane-competition-2023-12-01/) so who will make this next “doomsday” plane? Northrop Grumman building an airbus under license like the kc-45? What air frame will it be based on? A330? A350? Wildcards like the a321, a340 or a380 perhaps?

 

[Rhinocrates]

They might still buy Boeing airframes but the modification and fitout would be all by NG and its subcontractors.

 

[fightingirish]

Just as with the VC-25B, the Sierra Nevada Corporation will buy used Boeing airframes, probably the 747-8(F), when companies i.e. Lufthansa get their first 777Xs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Just as with the VC-25B, the Sierra Nevada Corporation will buy used Boeing airframes, probably the 747-8(F), when companies i.e. Lufthansa get their first 777Xs.

Agreed. Those 747s will probably be 10-15 years old at most.

 

[JohnCitizen]

It would be very interesting to go with an Airbus design from the beginning, but I have to agree w/everyone else that second-hand B747s (maybe 777s?) will be used and a contractor(s) chosen to convert them into the E-4B replacement.

One assumes/hopes the second-hand aircraft are gently used, if it all. Unless I'm missing something, it would seem crazy to use 15 year old aircraft for such a critical mission.

If future SECDEFs use the new "Survivable Airborne Operations Center" (SAOC) as their personal transport, as with E-4Bs today, I'm assuming the SAOC--or perhaps a sub-variant--will be developed to be and stay technologically current, unlike the E-4B which--compared to AF-1--is something of a IT/battle management dinosaur.

Before people jump on me, I fully realize that much of the E-4's systems have deliberately not been digitized as to (hopefully) avoid EMP effects. And, of course, when the E-4 was being developed, there were no digital systems like those of today.

I'm not an engineer, but would suppose that the SAOC could be built with an analog redundancy system that would come online immediately if the digital system fails.

Whats interesting to note is that unless the President is transferred to the E-4 / SAOC, if EMP disables the VC-25s, we're kind of in a delicate situation! The SECDEF, even if he's safely aboard SAOC enjoying its analog back-up, is only sixth in line to the Presidency!

 

[Scott Kenny]

It would be very interesting to go with an Airbus design from the beginning, but I have to agree w/everyone else that second-hand B747s (maybe 777s?) will be used and a contractor(s) chosen to convert them into the E-4B replacement.

One assumes/hopes the second-hand aircraft are gently used, if it all. Unless I'm missing something, it would seem crazy to use 15 year old aircraft for such a critical mission.

IIRC, the planes chosen for the VC-25B/AF1 conversion were effectively new, they'd never been delivered to their ordering customer(s). And they still required something close to a total rebuild to install all the new bits.

However, there is something to be said for using somewhat used aircraft for critical roles: you know the thing works and flies right already. Look at how much rework they had to do after finding all those mini-bottles of booze on the VC-25Bs. Also, the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels use fairly old planes in their demos, not the newest.

If future SECDEFs use the new "Survivable Airborne Operations Center" (SAOC) as their personal transport, as with E-4Bs today, I'm assuming the SAOC--or perhaps a sub-variant--will be developed to be and stay technologically current, unlike the E-4B which--compared to AF-1--is something of a IT/battle management dinosaur.

Before people jump on me, I fully realize that much of the E-4's systems have deliberately not been digitized as to (hopefully) avoid EMP effects. And, of course, when the E-4 was being developed, there were no digital systems like those of today.

I'm not an engineer, but would suppose that the SAOC could be built with an analog redundancy system that would come online immediately if the digital system fails.

Could be, the questions then become: "how much power does the backup analog system require," "how much cooling does it require," and "how much does it weigh." All are limited in a plane, and even more so when you'd have to have the analog system powered up and running 24/7 to be able to instantly take over when the digital system goes down.

 

[JohnCitizen]

IIRC, the planes chosen for the VC-25B/AF1 conversion were effectively new, they'd never been delivered to their ordering customer(s). And they still required something close to a total rebuild to install all the new bits.

However, there is something to be said for using somewhat used aircraft for critical roles: you know the thing works and flies right already. Look at how much rework they had to do after finding all those mini-bottles of booze on the VC-25Bs. Also, the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels use fairly old planes in their demos, not the newest.



Could be, the questions then become: "how much power does the backup analog system require," "how much cooling does it require," and "how much does it weigh." All are limited in a plane, and even more so when you'd have to have the analog system powered up and running 24/7 to be able to instantly take over when the digital system goes down.

 

[JohnCitizen]

Yes, you know the plane flies . . . in its original condition.

I thought about the power that would be required to have a primary digital system and back-up analog, yes.

Now, it's not like there are zero digital components on the E-4B and its primary defense is hardening not the deliberate use of downgraded tech. The most prominent "analog" feature is the cockpit. The original comms suite was impressive and has been upgraded of course. There's no such thing, obviously, as perfect protection from EMP effects

 

[JohnCitizen]

I didn't know (or I forgot) that fmr SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld wanted to retire the E-4B in the 2000s. "Rummy" was a provocative figure & this isn't the place to re-litigate the early 2000s. However, while he justified killing the E-4 off on cost grounds, there was a replacement (sort of) . . . the E-10. It never materialized, so it is perfect fodder for this forum!

Officially the Multi-Sensor Command and Control Aircraft or MC2A, it would incorporate the missions of the E-3, E-8 JSTARS, and RC-135 onto a single platform. When it became clear maintaining an airborne C2 mission & associated radar with a ground C2 radar would be near impossible on a practical level, the missions were split on "A" model and "B" model versions. I'm assuming the RC-135 collection mission would have been integrated with the ground-focused Alpha model.

The article below should be accessible for free. I've also included the somewhat lacking (not surprising) Wikipedia article

The story behind the USAF's failed E-10A MC2A programme

The Northrop Grumman E-10A Multi-Sensor Command and Control Aircraft was an ambitious program to replace several types with a single model. As we reveal, it proved to be too ambitious and was quickly dropped when the USAF needed funds for higher priority projects

shorturl.at

Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A - Wikipedia

shorturl.at

The E-10 died, apparently, due to lack of clear mission focus--it was trying to do three after all! And it would not necessarily have been a natural candidate for an airborne command post role, but could have pulled it off (I think).

It's been a long time, but by the 1980s, there were a host of EC-135 variants serving as airborne command posts. Every US combatant commander had one, plus the heads of SAC, TAC, and the various Navy fleets. I don't *think* that fleet was ever replaced. That is, today they have their private military VIP jet and that's about it.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I didn't know (or I forgot) that fmr SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld wanted to retire the E-4B in the 2000s. "Rummy" was a provocative figure & this isn't the place to re-litigate the early 2000s. However, while he justified killing the E-4 off on cost grounds, there was a replacement (sort of) . . . the E-10. It never materialized, so it is perfect fodder for this forum!

Officially the Multi-Sensor Command and Control Aircraft or MC2A, it would incorporate the missions of the E-3, E-8 JSTARS, and RC-135 onto a single platform. When it became clear maintaining an airborne C2 mission & associated radar with a ground C2 radar would be near impossible on a practical level, the missions were split on "A" model and "B" model versions. I'm assuming the RC-135 collection mission would have been integrated with the ground-focused Alpha model.

The article below should be accessible for free. I've also included the somewhat lacking (not surprising) Wikipedia article

The story behind the USAF's failed E-10A MC2A programme

The Northrop Grumman E-10A Multi-Sensor Command and Control Aircraft was an ambitious program to replace several types with a single model. As we reveal, it proved to be too ambitious and was quickly dropped when the USAF needed funds for higher priority projects

shorturl.at

Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A - Wikipedia

shorturl.at

The E-10 died, apparently, due to lack of clear mission focus--it was trying to do three after all! And it would not necessarily have been a natural candidate for an airborne command post role, but could have pulled it off (I think).

It's been a long time, but by the 1980s, there were a host of EC-135 variants serving as airborne command posts. Every US combatant commander had one, plus the heads of SAC, TAC, and the various Navy fleets. I don't *think* that fleet was ever replaced. That is, today they have their private military VIP jet and that's about it.

What I remember of the E-10 was that they had major electrical/electronic interference between the air search radar and the ground search radar.

Yes, you know the plane flies . . . in its original condition.

I mean that specific airframe is a good flier, not for whatever reason a hangar queen.

I thought about the power that would be required to have a primary digital system and back-up analog, yes.

Now, it's not like there are zero digital components on the E-4B and its primary defense is hardening not the deliberate use of downgraded tech. The most prominent "analog" feature is the cockpit. The original comms suite was impressive and has been upgraded of course. There's no such thing, obviously, as perfect protection from EMP effects

Right. But it's not just power.

You also need to cool the analog system, which usually takes just as much cooling capacity as your digital side, so now you need double the AC plant compared to your all-digital plane. Which eats into your hull volume and gross weight.

And your analog equipment is physically larger and heavier than your digital stuff is, which also eats into both hull volume and gross weight.

So yeah, you might have a 747 with only 30-50 people inside, but it might have most of 160,000lbs of gear onboard.

 

[JohnCitizen]

Brand new story on the E-4B, discussing unique virtual maintenance training but also discussing the SOAR replacement.

With E-4 ‘Doomsday’ Planes in High Demand, USAF Turns to VR Training on Digital Replica

The Air Force has created a digital scan of its E-4 'Doomsday' aircraft and is working on virtual reality training software.

www.airandspaceforces.com