US AWACS recapitalization for the 21st century

mkellytx said:
Given the backlog of Max deliveries, most of those NG's are still in revenue service. The few that aren't in passenger service are in process of conversion to cargo. Furthermore, USAF has little interest in used airframes unless forced into it. Finally, the long pole in the tent (so to speak) isn't the airframe but the radar.
Click to expand...
Yeah, apparently the factory only makes about 2x radar sets a year.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yeah, apparently the factory only makes about 2x radar sets a year.
Click to expand...
Indeed, also, sloppy of me to forget to mention the only new NG airframes in production are for P-8/E-7. Everything else in production is a Max. I fly at least once a month, and the crews complain almost every flight about the continued use of the NG instead of a new Max.
 
I'd think that the USAF is going to be buying enough airframes that it makes sense to follow the P-8 model and do the necessary airframe mods during assembly rather than as a retrofit, which is inevitably more expensive. And they can actually make the E-7 airframes on the P-8 line that is otherwise about to close.
 
mkellytx said:
Indeed, also, sloppy of me to forget to mention the only new NG airframes in production are for P-8/E-7. Everything else in production is a Max. I fly at least once a month, and the crews complain almost every flight about the continued use of the NG instead of a new Max.
Click to expand...
Didn't realize that the NGs were basically out of production...

Wonder if the Navy will be willing to accept a delay on some P-8s so the USAF can get E-7s sooner?
 
TomS said:
I'd think that the USAF is going to be buying enough airframes that it makes sense to follow the P-8 model and do the necessary airframe mods during assembly rather than as a retrofit, which is inevitably more expensive. And they can actually make the E-7 airframes on the P-8 line that is otherwise about to close.
Click to expand...
Mid-twenties number of airframes is no where near enough to mod in assembly like the P-8 which was a program of record for over a hundred jets before export orders were added.....
 
Scott Kenny said:
Didn't realize that the NGs were basically out of production...

Wonder if the Navy will be willing to accept a delay on some P-8s so the USAF can get E-7s sooner?
Click to expand...
Not really an issue since the P-8 is based off of the 800 and the E-7 is based off of the 700. Different base models. Since the lead time is basically two years anyhow no reason to twist the Navy's arm, especially if all you'll do is have a green jet sit on a ramp and wait for the avionics...
 
mkellytx said:
Not really an issue since the P-8 is based off of the 800 and the E-7 is based off of the 700. Different base models. Since the lead time is basically two years anyhow no reason to twist the Navy's arm, especially if all you'll do is have a green jet sit on a ramp and wait for the avionics...
Click to expand...
That's just a difference in number of fuselage frames and overall wingspan (plus wingtips), wing center box is the same for all NGs.

I could see slotting the E-7 production in between runs of P-8s, or a partially shared production line between the two.
 
Except it is not that simple. From Wiki with various references to other sources including Flight International articles.

“The P-8 is a militarized version of the 737-800ERX, a 737-800 with 737-900-based wings.[37] The fuselage is similar to, but longer than, the 737-700-based C-40 Clippertransport aircraft in service with the USN. The P-8 has a strengthened fuselage for low-altitude operations and raked wingtips similar to those fitted to the Boeing 767-400ER, instead of the blended winglets available on 737NG variants.[38] In order to power additional onboard electronics, the P-8 has a 180 kVA electric generator on each engine, replacing the 90 kVA generator of civilian 737s; this required the redesigning of the nacelles and their wing mountings.[39] The P-8 has a smoother flight experience, subjecting crews to less turbulence and fumes than the preceding P-3, allowing them to concentrate better on missions.[40]”

Note 39
www.flightglobal.com

CUTAWAY: P-8A Poseidon - A Boeing with boost of bravado

The US Navy's P-3C replacement will transform anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
mkellytx said:
Mid-twenties number of airframes is no where near enough to mod in assembly like the P-8 which was a program of record for over a hundred jets before export orders were added.....
Click to expand...
Some mods are being done on the line anyway (-800 wings, beefed up landing gear, etc.) It's hard to see why they would not go ahead and include things like the fuselage structural reinforcement at the same stage. There are no commercial 737NGs anymore, so it's not like they get economies of scale by building things to a civil standard and then reworking them.

The plan is 26 for the USAF. Quite likely another dozen for NATO. Plus potentially more for export customers. What's the magic number where it makes sense to do the P-8 approach?
 
The 26 E-7s for the USAF seems rather low TomS? What was the number of E-3s bought when they reached service in the original E-3A designation.
 
FighterJock said:
The 26 E-7s for the USAF seems rather low TomS? What was the number of E-3s bought when they reached service in the original E-3A designation.
Click to expand...
The USAF only acquired 34 E-3 in total, (some as A standard and some as C standard) of which 2 were lost in accidents in 1995 & 2009. Others have been withdrawn from service as they have worn out.
 
TomS said:
Some mods are being done on the line anyway (-800 wings, beefed up landing gear, etc.) It's hard to see why they would not go ahead and include things like the fuselage structural reinforcement at the same stage. There are no commercial 737NGs anymore, so it's not like they get economies of scale by building things to a civil standard and then reworking them.

The plan is 26 for the USAF. Quite likely another dozen for NATO. Plus potentially more for export customers. What's the magic number where it makes sense to do the P-8 approach?
Click to expand...
The P-8A fuselages are built as such by Spirit AeroSystems, who build all (?) of the B737 fuselages. They incorporate the necessary differences on their line including the internal weapons bay unique to the P-8A.
avitrader.com

Boeing begins building of first P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft for New Zealand Defence Force

Boeing P-8A team members and Spirit AeroSystems employees have laid the keel beam for New Zealand’s first P-8A. This process, also called ‘keeling,’ was done at the Spirit AeroSystems facility where all Boeing 737 fuselages, nacelles and pylons are designed and built. Laying the keel is an...
avitrader.com avitrader.com
 
TomS said:
Some mods are being done on the line anyway (-800 wings, beefed up landing gear, etc.) It's hard to see why they would not go ahead and include things like the fuselage structural reinforcement at the same stage. There are no commercial 737NGs anymore, so it's not like they get economies of scale by building things to a civil standard and then reworking them.

The plan is 26 for the USAF. Quite likely another dozen for NATO. Plus potentially more for export customers. What's the magic number where it makes sense to do the P-8 approach?
Click to expand...
@TomS it's a bit hard to tell, not to mention apples to oranges as the nature and extend of the mods are different, but even the P-8's aren't fully modded in Renton. Both are constructed there and flown over to KBFI to be finished. It's not like I haven't asked to the same question of the folks I know who work E-7, who say something like there's a balance between the capacities of the two locations. Probably the best answer that will reach the public.
 
There are some details in this article about the amount of work required for the conversion of the RAF E-7A being undertaken by STS in Birmingham UK. The first two aircraft were ex-civil B737-700BBJ aircraft that had been in storage with Boeing since 2019. The third is a new build straight from the Boeing production line in July 2022.
www.key.aero

The RAF’s E-7 Wedgetail programme

Joe Campion provides insight into the RAF’s latest airborne early warning programme, the Boeing E-7 Wedegtail
www.key.aero www.key.aero
 
EwenS said:
Except it is not that simple. From Wiki with various references to other sources including Flight International articles.

“The P-8 is a militarized version of the 737-800ERX, a 737-800 with 737-900-based wings.[37] The fuselage is similar to, but longer than, the 737-700-based C-40 Clippertransport aircraft in service with the USN. The P-8 has a strengthened fuselage for low-altitude operations and raked wingtips similar to those fitted to the Boeing 767-400ER, instead of the blended winglets available on 737NG variants.[38] In order to power additional onboard electronics, the P-8 has a 180 kVA electric generator on each engine, replacing the 90 kVA generator of civilian 737s; this required the redesigning of the nacelles and their wing mountings.[39] The P-8 has a smoother flight experience, subjecting crews to less turbulence and fumes than the preceding P-3, allowing them to concentrate better on missions.[40]”

Note 39
www.flightglobal.com

CUTAWAY: P-8A Poseidon - A Boeing with boost of bravado

The US Navy's P-3C replacement will transform anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...
Right.

Build the wing box in common between the aircraft. Can also build the forward fuselage in common, as the weapons bay is aft of the wings. Could leave the weapons bay in, for space for antimissiles, but that's not required. The radar is likely going to need the 2x 180kva generators for power anyway, and the -900 wing is bigger for more fuel and lift for more range and altitude.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Right.

Build the wing box in common between the aircraft. Can also build the forward fuselage in common, as the weapons bay is aft of the wings. Could leave the weapons bay in, for space for antimissiles, but that's not required. The radar is likely going to need the 2x 180kva generators for power anyway, and the -900 wing is bigger for more fuel and lift for more range and altitude.
Click to expand...
The wings for the NG's are the same external dimensions (type of winglet dependent). The changes are under the surface to deal with the different gross weights. The P-8 of course has different winglets. The airport planning documents are very nice references.

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/737NG_REVA.pdf
 
mkellytx said:
The wings for the NG's are the same external dimensions (type of winglet dependent). The changes are under the surface to deal with the different gross weights. The P-8 of course has different winglets. The airport planning documents are very nice references.

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/737NG_REVA.pdf
Click to expand...
Thank you, and I stand corrected.

What wing does the E-7 have? That of the -700? Or is it one of the heavier wings?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Thank you, and I stand corrected.

What wing does the E-7 have? That of the -700? Or is it one of the heavier wings?
Click to expand...
Presumably the -700 wing to start, given that the UK conversions are -700/-700 derivatives. It's probably out there open source somewhere.
 
Don't forget that P-8 has an increased thickness wing surface, added ribs, beefier spars etc...
Some details can be found in our P-8 thread.
 
Okay, found it, -700 wing.

It would be a little tough to use the P-8 airframe entirely for the USAF E-7s, the P-8 is 19.5ft longer than the E-7 and I think that would mess with the radar (it looks like the radar beam just clears the top of the cockpit on the E-7).

It may still be possible to build E-7s and P-8s on a common line, though the common parts would only be cockpit and wing box. Forward tube is shorter, and the E-7 doesn't need the weapons bay of the P-8. IIRC, the cockpit section is bolted onto the round fuselage tube (it was on the 727s, and IIRC 707, 727, and 737 all started out with the same tube and cockpit structure.)
 
Let's wait and see Josh_TN, Boeing has messed up their other programs like the KC-46 and more recently the T-7, fingers and toes crossed that they do not mess this one up.
 
EwenS said:
The P-8A fuselages are built as such by Spirit AeroSystems, who build all (?) of the B737 fuselages. They incorporate the necessary differences on their line including the internal weapons bay unique to the P-8A.
Click to expand...
And they then ship the fuselages by rail to Renton.

Not without issue sometimes.

Train carrying parts to Boeing derails in Montana​

by KING 5 News - Posted on July 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM - Updated today at 11:01 PM
​
SUPERIOR, MONTANA -- The investigation continues into the derailment of a train near the town of Superior, Montana Thursday night. Some of the cars carried aircraft components.
Nineteen cars on the westbound train derailed. Three of the cars contained aircraft parts and ended up in the Clark Fork River. Sources tell KING5 the parts were heading to Boeing in Renton.
Crews spent the night and into this morning cleaning up. No one was hurt and the cause is under investigation.
Click to expand...

20140704_165030.jpg

boeingderail6.jpg

Kyle+Massick+Boeing+Train+Derailment+2+(1).JPG
 
It's always impressive to see the Salmon-Thirty-Salmon in spawning season. It's a real tourist attraction. Watch out for the bears, though.
 

Attachments

  • Kyle+Massick+Boeing+Train+Derailment+2+(1).JPG
    Kyle+Massick+Boeing+Train+Derailment+2+(1).JPG
    79.3 KB · Views: 12
Hanz2k said:
E7 radar with P8 airframe - 5 AIM260 in weapon bay plus 6 SM2 under fuselage?
Click to expand...

Why?!? Also, not possible without a redesign that sets the project back half a decade. I believe people commented on the exact 737 model used for the E-7 and its relative scarcity earlier in the thread. The P-8 is not the same plane and would require a lot of development time to employ the NG radar.
 
Josh_TN said:
Why?!? Also, not possible without a redesign that sets the project back half a decade. I believe people commented on the exact 737 model used for the E-7 and its relative scarcity earlier in the thread. The P-8 is not the same plane and would require a lot of development time to employ the NG radar.
Click to expand...
Ability to self defend allow to send close protection fighters into other tasks. If you consider that you need to provide protection for extended period of time (as E7 has longer loiter time than any fighter) it mean at least 2 pairs busy that could be located somewhere else. Multiply by at least 2 e7 in the same time in the air - 8 fighters to use. So why not?

Airframe adoption - beside energy consumption - it is just matter to program radar shadows plus adopt the airframe balance. P8 is already militarised. Anything else to consider?

PS. Still believe more in some stealth UAV platforms with smaller version of NG radar that should fulfill this role in more dynamic approach - let say 6 UAV with 3 active and 3 changing position connected via Link 16 or even randomly switching on and off radar. This should make the system as a whole more survivable that could allow quickly switch radar source to illuminate stealth targets from different angle. Such approach make mission planning much more difficult.
 
Hanz2k said:
Ability to self defend allow to send close protection fighters into other tasks. If you consider that you need to provide protection for extended period of time (as E7 has longer loiter time than any fighter) it mean at least 2 pairs busy that could be located somewhere else. Multiply by at least 2 e7 in the same time in the air - 8 fighters to use. So why not?

Airframe adoption - beside energy consumption - it is just matter to program radar shadows plus adopt the airframe balance. P8 is already militarised. Anything else to consider?

PS. Still believe more in some stealth UAV platforms with smaller version of NG radar that should fulfill this role in more dynamic approach - let say 6 UAV with 3 active and 3 changing position connected via Link 16 or even randomly switching on and off radar. This should make the system as a whole more survivable that could allow quickly switch radar source to illuminate stealth targets from different angle. Such approach make mission planning much more difficult.
Click to expand...

Using a large multi engined aircraft to launch missiles is utterly pointless. Always has been, and is going moving further and further in that direction. Barring some kind of anti-missile self defense capability, there is no reason to arm an AWACs.

While large aircraft of this type are vulnerable to peer competitors, they still have a role to play in peacetime, non peer conflicts, and lower threat theaters of a peer conflict. Some type of distributed UAV/fighter network is probably more survivable but more problematic to employ and less comprehensive in area coverage. I suspect NGAD's family of systems will attempt area coverage using passive and active sensors networked via directional datalinks across wide formations of vehicles. But that is still well into the future.

As for the E-7 specifically, it is being purchased because it is the platform that can be put into service in the least amount of time, with the extra advantage of having commonality with arguably the two closest allies of the US (and with the NATO purchase, that organization as well). Getting it fielded (as is) to replace the E-3s which are of marginal availability and utility is the priority, not reinventing the wheel. I cannot imagine why the USAF waited so long into the game to purchase what is an easy off the shelf solution; they could have been cooperating with the RAF and RAAF from the start.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Well, it was 9 years 5 months ago, so your concern is a bit obsolete.
Click to expand...

FWIW, the final investigation ruled it to be a "track geometry" issue, which basically means some bit of track shifted just enough to cause a problem. Not too suspicious considering the number of derailments that happen in a typical month.

vp-mi.com

Montana Rail Link confirms ‘track geometry’ caused derailment in 2014

Six years this month, Montana Rail Link experienced a derailment which received national attention.
vp-mi.com vp-mi.com
 
Josh_TN said:
Why?!? Also, not possible without a redesign that sets the project back half a decade. I believe people commented on the exact 737 model used for the E-7 and its relative scarcity earlier in the thread. The P-8 is not the same plane and would require a lot of development time to employ the NG radar.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the NRE for integrating the radar onto the -800 fuselage is non-trivial, not to mention the longer fuselage does bad things for the lateral directional stability, especially with that big flat sided radar up there. Full up flight test to recertify the P&FQ, dynamic loads, etc.; yeah, definitely not worth the trouble when the -700 has enough floorspace to do the job.

The -700 isn't so much scarce, since it's technically in production, but that the bulk of the NG line in Renton is -800's for the P-8, USAF has to wait the full lead time for a new airframe. Isn't like the Max -8 or -9 where you have hundreds, if not thousands of people in line in front of you that you could pay handsomely for their spot in line. Of course, the used market is tough since the Max -7 just got TIA less than a month ago and won't be certified until next year. Good luck convincing Southwest to part with one if it's younger -700's.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom