VC-10 AEW ?

A

Archibald

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
6 June 2006
Messages
11,796
Reaction score
13,425
As said in the tin. I do know why Nimrod was picked for AEW Mk.3 OTL, and how it failed in a rather catastrophic way.
Things like the fuel being used as a heat sink for the radar, as a desperate last ditch effort.

Whatif VC-10s or Super VC-10s airframes (turned into RAF tankers OTL), where used instead ? Was that ever considered ? VC-10 is the closest thing from a 707 / C-135 GB ever built, and we all know it was plenty enough for AWACS.

Sounds like a no-brainer - with absolute perfect hindsight, obviously.

Your thoughts ?
 
The VC-10 was considered (but deemed too expensive). I suspect there would have been issues with the engine exhaust being so close to the aft radome.
It'd have solved the Nimrod-specific issues (lack of space), but not the radar issue (they set the minimum target speed too low, which meant the computers would try to track motorway traffic which overloaded the computers).
 
Then I'm glad it was considered (and also: desperate it was rejected as too expensive).
 
EwenS said:
You need Chris Gibson's books "The Air Staff and AEW and "Vickers VC10 AEW, Pofflers and Other Unbuilt Variants".

Various proposals were around from early 1964.
Click to expand...

The proposals based on the VC10 and BAC1-11 having a ventral retractable spherical rotodome are quite interesting.

Detection ranges would be

8ft Antenna - 185nm (342km)
7ft Antenna - 170nm (315km)
5ft Antenna - 135nm (250km)
 
a ventral retractable spherical rotodome
Click to expand...

... that typically British unability of doing things the same way as the rest of the world.
I mean: even freakkin' Soviet and Chinese adopted the AWACS "flying saucer on pylons" antenna.
 
And in the rest of the world in the mid 1960s who was doing what?

USAF - EC-121 (& USN WV) based on the Constellation airliner with radar arrays above and below the fuselage. E-3 was only at the very start of its development from 1963, with no hardware until the 1970s and service entry in 1977.
USN - with the Grumman E-1B Tracer with a fixed over fuselage dome (with radar rotating within it) which lasted into the 1970s. E-2 with a rotodome only came into service in 1964. but it was much later in the decade before it could be said to be successful due to radar problems.
USSR - Tu-126 from 1965 with a rotodome (but the contra props caused clutter)

Prior to that everything carried the radar under the fuselage, unless you want to talk about the Wellington conversions in WW2 or the USN Goodyear blimps that carried the radar array inside the balloon. Studies for the RN in the 1960s included options with rotodomes as well as pods and nose and tail scanners.

So maybe in the 1960s not quite so obvious. And since the late 1980s many systems have shied away from the rotodome altogether. For example

E-7 Wedgetail, Embraer 145 AEW&C, Saab 340 AEW&C, Saab 2000 AEW&C with a fixed long over fuselage pod with an AESA radar, a layout now copied by the Chinese in their latest AEW aircraft.

Gulfstream G550 CAEW and IAI Condor with conformal radars on the fuselage sides and nose and tail (G550 only) radomes.

One disadvantage of the rotodome is the large amount of drag it develops with its heavy supporting pylons. It also requires electronic trickery to cope with the aircraft turning (when the whole scanner tips over at an angle) whereas simple scanners in nose and tail radomes can be mechanically stabilised as was already being done with radars in fighters. As with everything in life there has to be compromises.
 
Archibald said:
a ventral retractable spherical rotodome
Click to expand...

... that typically British unability of doing things the same way as the rest of the world.
I mean: even freakkin' Soviet and Chinese adopted the AWACS "flying saucer on pylons" antenna.
Click to expand...

Then there is the Buccaneer AEW with underfuselage flat sided pods just inboard of the wing fold hinge or the Type 583 AEW with an underfuselage blade antennae.

There is also unfortunatley the dumb bell Buccaneer with fore and aft pods.....the ugliest aircraft ever to even be thought of.

All in 'The Admiralty and AEW: Royal Navy Airborne Early Warning Projects..........three guesses as to by whom.
 
Edit on the ugliest aircraft ever...i've just read Chris' book again and he mentions the Blackburn P.139B as being 'condidered to be the ugliest aircraft to come out of a British aircraft manufacturers design office'. He then goes on to describe some other competing designs for NAST.6166 and....well........
 
We had a thread once at AH.com - ugliest aircraft ever. I had one hell of a time digging pictures of the worst "insult to aerodynamics" interwar French monstrosity.
Dyle and Bacalan had a knack to churn such horrible flying horrors.

I also have fond memories of a similar thread at Whatif modelers forum. When I put a picture of the Farman Jabiru, one comment said "Hey Look ! Mister Blobby with wings !" I browsed who was Mister Blobby and laughed my ar$e off.
en.wikipedia.org

Mr Blobby - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Log in

Log in
www.whatifmodellers.com
 
Last edited:
Around the time the Nimrod conversions went ahead the RAF was buying up surplus commercial VC-10s as parts hulks and tankers, so on paper doing an AEW conversion at the same time was viable. However, with only 39 airframes available and 27 converted to tankers IOTL, and given 11 Nimrods ended up being converted to AEW (the total operational airframes being not far off from the 7 E-3 Sentries they ended up actually buying) that's an uncomfortably low margin of airframes as parts hulks.
 
Last edited:
The E3 Sentrys have been around for a long time now with only the Japanese and Italians using the later 767 mounted system.
With so many late model Boeings and Airbus airframes being released by airlines this ought to be an opportunity to get some extra military aircraft.
 
Might be harder than you think as the entire business has changed.

Airlines have rationalised their fleets to suit a world that was already emerging pre-pandemic. So they have been dumping large 4 engined B747, A340 and A380 which were ideal for mass transit between major hub airports which are too big for the new reality of serving city pairs. Those aircraft are also too big for virtually all military tasks.

They have also been dumping smaller, older, less fuel efficient types and rationalising their fleets onto fewer newer types. So older B737, B767, A300/310, A320 and A330 have found their way to the scrapman. And with so many aircraft of these types in the world today there is a healthy spare parts market and even a growing repurposing market (fancy a mirror created from a engine turbine ring?). So old aircraft are being recycled, stripped of useable / saleable parts and the remaining basic airframe scrapped. Some BAe 146 have also gone for fire fighting conversion. And there is a healthy market for cargo conversions of some older aircraft on the civil market for which demand seems to have increased during the pandemic as fewer passenger aircraft have been travelling with cargo in their holds. IIRC some new regs came in easing the conversion rules albeit maybe temporarily.

Older aircraft today will have been worked much much harder in airline service than the equivalent VC-10, L-1011 Tristar and DC-10 of yesteryear. So there is probably a lot less life in the used airframe.

I note however that the British Govt leased two brand new A321 from Titan Airways early this year in VIP configuration at the height of the pandemic. They probably got a good deal on those as Titan’s original customer seemed to have pulled out of the deal they had originally been bought for.

www.airplaneboneyards.com

Airplane Boneyards in Europe

www.airplaneboneyards.com www.airplaneboneyards.com

The only market I’ve seen opening up is for tankers for civilian companies to support the US forces. But despite a lot of talk the Tristars and VC-10s are still grounded and rotting away. The last proposal I saw was to re-use retired C-135s which are probably more serviceable.

Aviation Furniture by Plane Industries - Authentic Aircraft Parts

Plane Industries find the most innovative ways to breathe new life into retired aircraft parts to make beautiful aviation furniture for home or office.
www.planeindustries.com www.planeindustries.com
 
PMN1 said:
Edit on the ugliest aircraft ever...i've just read Chris' book again and he mentions the Blackburn P.139B as being 'condidered to be the ugliest aircraft to come out of a British aircraft manufacturers design office'. He then goes on to describe some other competing designs for NAST.6166 and....well........
Click to expand...
New Zealand is hard to beat on the ugly aircraft front:

Bennett Airtruck

ZK-BPVa.jpg

Which was developed into the Aussie Transavia PL-12 Airtruk

1280px-AirTruk_at_Temora_Airport_October_2018.jpg
 
Oddly enough, last year Kepler Aerospace in Texas were hoping to restore two VC-10s to airworthy status as satellite launchers, not sure if this is still a going project or not. But it proves there is still some life left in the VC-10.
https://ukaviation.news/kepler-aerospace-aims-to-get-former-raf-vc10-flying-again/

The VC-10 would seem to be tricky to convert for AEW for two reasons; the fore and after radome layout would be difficult with the rear engine layout and a dorsal saucer would be difficult too with a T-tail (yes Beriev managed it with the Il-76 but the consensus is the aerodyanmics of such a layout can be a bit dodgy).
 
uk 75 said:
The E3 Sentrys have been around for a long time now with only the Japanese and Italians using the later 767 mounted system.
With so many late model Boeings and Airbus airframes being released by airlines this ought to be an opportunity to get some extra military aircraft.
Click to expand...
As you've mentioned the Airbus do you know whether there were any proposals for an AEW version of A300 or A310 with RB.211 engines to replace Dougal et al in No. 8 Squadron?
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
uk 75 said:
The E3 Sentrys have been around for a long time now with only the Japanese and Italians using the later 767 mounted system.
With so many late model Boeings and Airbus airframes being released by airlines this ought to be an opportunity to get some extra military aircraft.
Click to expand...
As you've mentioned the Airbus do you know whether there were any proposals for an AEW version of A300 or A310 with RB.211 engines to replace Dougal et al in No. 8 Squadron?
Click to expand...
When ASR400 was first opened for bids in 1973 Airbus was just getting going with airliner production. A300 had just flown and the A310 was still nearly a decade away. When it reopened in 1986 there were 6 proposals put forward, none of them from Airbus.

At that time Airbus was not the single corporate entity that it is today. Put simply its constituent partners used it as a vehicle for civilian aircraft production (it is a lot more complicated I know). They each retained responsibility for their military activities. And BAe was never the greatest fan of the whole Airbus venture. So its proposal in 1986 was the "Hawkrod", a Nimrod with the E2C Hawkeye radar.

The RB.211 was never certificated on either the A300 or the A310 so that would have been another cost and risk to be borne by the MoD. Something that in 1986 the MoD was keen to avoid and which figured highly in the eventual decision to pick the updated E-3D.

I think the first interest Airbus have shown in the AEW business was a fleeting proposal to fit the Swedish Eyrie radar on the A320 or A330 just before the RAF purchased Wedgetail.
 
Last edited:
There wasn't any AEW proposal based around the planned (late 1989s) AST300, aka the Airbus Special Transport?
 
Chris Gibson's Battle Flight, details the Airbus offerings of the time (well at least BAe Filton) - the multi-role AEW/MPA/Tanker platform that proved a nightmare of competing demands and was soon dropped.
 
Hood said:
Oddly enough, last year Kepler Aerospace in Texas were hoping to restore two VC-10s to airworthy status as satellite launchers, not sure if this is still a going project or not. But it proves there is still some life left in the VC-10.
https://ukaviation.news/kepler-aerospace-aims-to-get-former-raf-vc10-flying-again/

The VC-10 would seem to be tricky to convert for AEW for two reasons;
- the fore and after radome layout would be difficult with the rear engine layout
and
- a dorsal saucer would be difficult too with a T-tail (yes Beriev managed it with the Il-76 but the consensus is the aerodyanmics of such a layout can be a bit dodgy).
Click to expand...

Going off topic - no such issues with VC-7... but it was flawed elsewhere, unfortunately - way too heavy.

Hmmm a VC-7 with a saucer radome on the tail, An-74 style...
 
I seem to recall a late 1980s proposal for an AEW variant fitted with the Israeli Phalcon radar system, not sure if this was related to the AST300. This was around the time that the USN was seriously studying a AEW variant of the V-22 fitted with the same system.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
PMN1 said:
Edit on the ugliest aircraft ever...i've just read Chris' book again and he mentions the Blackburn P.139B as being 'condidered to be the ugliest aircraft to come out of a British aircraft manufacturers design office'. He then goes on to describe some other competing designs for NAST.6166 and....well........
Click to expand...
New Zealand is hard to beat on the ugly aircraft front:

Bennett Airtruck

View attachment 663892

Which was developed into the Aussie Transavia PL-12 Airtruk

View attachment 663891
Click to expand...

Mhhh, some of the other designs Chris lists look a bit like these.......
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom