USAF NEAT (late 2010s)

Grey Havoc

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
9 October 2009
Messages
19,884
Reaction score
10,392
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-studies-neat-replacement-for-e-4b-e-6b-and-c-3-450842/

A newly-posted solicitation document combines plans for replacing three separate US military aircraft fleets flown today by three different Boeing types into a single programme.

The 747-200-derived E-4B, 707-based E-6B and 757-based C-32A could all be replaced under the US Air Force’s proposed NEAT programme.

The NEAT acronym combines the first letter of the acronyms that define the missions for each of the three platforms it could replace. Those are the E-4B’s National Air Operations Center (NAOC) mission, the C-32A’s Executive Airlift role and the E-6B’s dual assignments as an airborne command post (ABNCP) and take-charge and move-out (TACAMO) platform.

The US Air Force Materiel Command on 31 July published a request for information to support an analysis of alternatives (AoA) for the NEAT programme.

Such an analysis usually takes more than a year to complete. In the Pentagon’s elaborate acquisition planning process, the AoA is used to inform the proposed acquisition strategy, which, if accepted by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, often proceeds to a competitive acquisition.

The request for information reveals nothing about the possible platforms on the USAF’s shopping list. The document asks for companies to respond to general questions about their experience, software development process and a description of their “recommended technical solution”.

The USAF fleet includes four E-4Bs and four C-32As. Two US Navy squadrons based at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, operates 16 E-6Bs, a platform used to communicate with US submarines, bombers and missile silos in a nuclear war. In the TACAMO role, the E-6B deploys an 8,530m (28,000ft) trailing wire antenna and a 1,520m “short” trailing wire antenna to communicate with submerged ballistic missile-carrying submarines. The E-6B also inherited the “Looking Glass” airborne command post mission after the USAF retired a fleet of EC-135s.

The RFI document emerges nearly four months after Gen Robin Rand, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, told a Senate committee during a hearing that it was time to get “very serious” about acquiring a replacement for the E-4B and E-6B fleets.
Click to expand...
 
Makes sense to fit the E-4B and E-6B missions into a common airframe (presumably a 767?) But why shoehorn the VIP transport mission in there when you already have the C-40B (737-700) and could just buy a few more?
 
TomS said:
Makes sense to fit the E-4B and E-6B missions into a common airframe (presumably a 767?) But why shoehorn the VIP transport mission in there when you already have the C-40B (737-700) and could just buy a few more?
Click to expand...
I think range is the big reason they want a larger aircraft in addition to the C-40 family, the VP and SECSTATE don't want to be limited to 3-4 thousand miles hops. Depending on how this develops, I think it's a sensible enough approach. If a block buy of airframes can bring the unit cost down for each type, and if those savings aren't undone by the cost to equip each subset of that block for the assigned mission.
 
A BBJ Max 7 (basically a 737 MAX 7 with tanks in the cargo bay, in the same way the C-32 is a 757 with tanks) can go 7000 miles. Admittedly, that's super-light (8 passengers), but it's still going to go at least 6000 even with more people.

The issue is that the C-32 also has a mission as AF1 when the VC-25 is too big to get into the destination. A 767 or other large widebody isn't going to substantially improve on the short field performance of the 747, so you lose that capability and the next option is to put the President on a Gulfstream.
 
Few things match the short field prowess of 757, even 737s look on in envy. Somehow I don't think they'd be a NMA launch customer, though.
 
Defense News on the program.
While the RFI provides little information into what is specifically sought, it does ask for companies' experience in commercial derivative military aircraft and joint work with other businesses. It also asks companies to propose a “recommended technical solution” for the NEAT program.

According to the RFI, the Pentagon is conducting an analysis of alternatives “that will examine potential synergies in acquiring common platforms that do not sacrifice operational effectiveness or increase the overall cost." The RFI also says the Pentagon is looking for “innovative industry solutions to accomplish the missions performed by the E-4B, E-6B, and C-32A in a more effective and efficient fashion.”

The AoA process can often take more than a year to complete, and is used to provide information for a possible proposed acquisition strategy.
Click to expand...
 
The USAF has started searching for a replacement for the E-4B and they are asking US defence manufacturers for input.
There are no specifications yet, those will be released to interested defence companies during an industry day in February 2020.

Not sure if this is still related to NEAT or if the E-4B replacement is being handled separately. Flight have postulated the 747-8 could be a likely candidate but its not clear if the 747 production line will still be going to meet this requirement. I suppose a 777 variant could meet the range requirements and would be cheaper and at this stage its hard to tell if the max capacity of a staff of 212 will still be relevant moving forwards, surely modern tech could reduce that number.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...for-boeing-e-4b-aerial-command-center-462719/
 
Hood said:
The USAF has started searching for a replacement for the E-4B and they are asking US defence manufacturers for input.
There are no specifications yet, those will be released to interested defence companies during an industry day in February 2020.

Not sure if this is still related to NEAT or if the E-4B replacement is being handled separately. Flight have postulated the 747-8 could be a likely candidate but its not clear if the 747 production line will still be going to meet this requirement. I suppose a 777 variant could meet the range requirements and would be cheaper and at this stage its hard to tell if the max capacity of a staff of 212 will still be relevant moving forwards, surely modern tech could reduce that number.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...for-boeing-e-4b-aerial-command-center-462719/
Click to expand...
Shame they could not think far enough ahead to tack some 747-8s onto the end of the production line. Other than that, 777 seems to be the only other relevant US produced airframe.
 
Mark Nankivil said:
Hood said:
The USAF has started searching for a replacement for the E-4B and they are asking US defence manufacturers for input.
There are no specifications yet, those will be released to interested defence companies during an industry day in February 2020.

Not sure if this is still related to NEAT or if the E-4B replacement is being handled separately. Flight have postulated the 747-8 could be a likely candidate but its not clear if the 747 production line will still be going to meet this requirement. I suppose a 777 variant could meet the range requirements and would be cheaper and at this stage its hard to tell if the max capacity of a staff of 212 will still be relevant moving forwards, surely modern tech could reduce that number.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...for-boeing-e-4b-aerial-command-center-462719/
Click to expand...
Shame they could not think far enough ahead to tack some 747-8s onto the end of the production line. Other than that, 777 seems to be the only other relevant US produced airframe.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine the hysterical headlines if it ever came out that the DoD bought some 747-8s and just put them in a warehouse? This at a time when they had a former Boeing exec in the running for SecDef?
 
Probably, not so much. Contractors detest fixed price agreements on anything. Allows the competition to soak up some losses on this one.......
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom