https://www.defensenews.com/newsletters ... -platform/

I came across this article while perusing LinkedIn. I don't frequent the military forum often so apologies if this is old news.

The article doesn't provide much information but the basic gist is the USAF is open to replacing the E-4, C-32, and E-6 platforms with a single type, assuming said type won't be more expensive than replacing all three individually or forfeit any existing capabilities.

While I can see the E-4 and E-6 being combined I'm not so sure about the C-32s, or at least not all of them. The C-32s which are used for military transport could easily be wrapped up into this new type but, the ones used for VVIP government transport are probably a different story. I can't see the VP or first lady being comfortable in an aircraft filled to the brim with electronic warfare and communications equipment. Should be interesting to watch though.

Any predictions on a possible type? I'd say the 787 (probably the -9 or -10) or the 77W/778 are probably leading contenders; the 748 is probably too big and while the 767 could make a nice C-32 replacement it might not be right for the E-4 & E-6 roles. The A330NEO could be a real possibility too.

AviationAddict wrote:

assuming said type won't be more expensive than replacing all three individually

That's the money statement right there. Of course you would replace all of them with a single platform if the budget says it works.

AviationAddict wrote:

While I can see the E-4 and E-6 being combined I'm not so sure about the C-32s, or at least not all of them. The C-32s which are used for military transport could easily be wrapped up into this new type but, the ones used for VVIP government transport are probably a different story. I can't see the VP or first lady being comfortable in an aircraft filled to the brim with electronic warfare and communications equipment. Should be interesting to watch though.

I think they may be talking in broader terms and using a single airframe type for these conversions. They may all be a common type, but fitted out differently inside. My bet is a 787 platform.

AviationAddict wrote:

While I can see the E-4 and E-6 being combined I'm not so sure about the C-32s, or at least not all of them. The C-32s which are used for military transport could easily be wrapped up into this new type but, the ones used for VVIP government transport are probably a different story. I can't see the VP or first lady being comfortable in an aircraft filled to the brim with electronic warfare and communications equipment. Should be interesting to watch though.

I think they may be talking in broader terms and using a single airframe type for these conversions. They may all be a common type, but fitted out differently inside. My bet is a 787 platform.[/quote]



I was thinking the same thing but the article is quite vague. I would love to see a military 787.

Probably makes too much sense to replace with a derivative of the KC46

I never worked directly on the products but there is one common theme: electronics warfare is really outdated now. By doing a new clean with all new electronics you can cram a lot more into a smaller air frame.

I would doubt the airforce wants something as large as the 787. I would guess they're looking at a potential MOM type size. Or even just a 737 - just work off the P8A.

I don't think a possible 797 would be mature enough for this role. Is it possible this is how Boeing will position the KC-390 initially to the US DoD? I can't see it working to shuttle VIP's around from the 89th, though, which makes me think a P-8 type of derivative (737-800, sort of) might be quicker/easier/cheaper overall in all of these roles (there's no real need for a 747 as a flying command post at this point).

It'll probably be a 767.

There are these threads,

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1367329

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1364651

Well, there is a 757-sized airliner in production in Mobile...

The A321LR could be a candidate. Since the belly-space isn't really needed for cargo, you could fill it up with additional fuel tanks.
If modern equipment can be miniaturized, the A320neo could also be an option. The ACJ320neo is already advertised as having a range that is more or less comparable to the E-4 and C-32.

E-4 has operational capability for another 30+ years. So they won't be replacing it anytime soon. The only reason to do so would be to update the electronics as I mentioned. Nobody expects the USAF to operate it for that long, but that's the life it has left.

There's other reasons for having the E4 be a 747 though. The volume of people that may eventually be on it in the situation that it would be needed for instance.

The other reason the E4 is a 747 is the power requirement. They need those 4 engines for the amount of power pulled. If you can solve that with a 2 engine set up then I can see you moving away from it.

E6 is a 707 and C32 is a 757 so shrinking hte C32 and growing the E6 to meet in the middle at the 737-800 would make some sense. But the thing is they are so different it doesn't matter if you try to use the same frame. Might as well do them independently. I'm also not sure if the E6 also has power requirements that need 4 engines. They are smaller engines so going to a new generation of engine probably solves that issue.

So to elaborate and slightly ammend my previous statement..

I see the E4 remaining in the 747 family and being a 747-8. Solely due to power requirements. If they change the mission and power requirements then feel free to swap this out to 777x.

The E6 will be a 737-800 based on P8 build.

C32 will be MOM. They don't need it yet and no reason to buy something now.

This of course all assumes they're actually wanting to replace these anytime soon (or at all in the case of the E6). Airforce already says JSTARS is obsolete just as another thing to point to. There's still lots of life on these airframes. So the only thing really driving a new acquisition would be improved electronics.

What should really be discussed is what the USAF is going to do about AWACS.

trpmb6 wrote:

E-4 has operational capability for another 30+ years. So they won't be replacing it anytime soon. The only reason to do so would be to update the electronics as I mentioned. Nobody expects the USAF to operate it for that long, but that's the life it has left.

There's other reasons for having the E4 be a 747 though. The volume of people that may eventually be on it in the situation that it would be needed for instance.

The other reason the E4 is a 747 is the power requirement. They need those 4 engines for the amount of power pulled. If you can solve that with a 2 engine set up then I can see you moving away from it.

E6 is a 707 and C32 is a 757 so shrinking hte C32 and growing the E6 to meet in the middle at the 737-800 would make some sense. But the thing is they are so different it doesn't matter if you try to use the same frame. Might as well do them independently. I'm also not sure if the E6 also has power requirements that need 4 engines. They are smaller engines so going to a new generation of engine probably solves that issue.

So to elaborate and slightly ammend my previous statement..

I see the E4 remaining in the 747 family and being a 747-8. Solely due to power requirements. If they change the mission and power requirements then feel free to swap this out to 777x.

The E6 will be a 737-800 based on P8 build.

C32 will be MOM. They don't need it yet and no reason to buy something now.

This of course all assumes they're actually wanting to replace these anytime soon (or at all in the case of the E6). Airforce already says JSTARS is obsolete just as another thing to point to. There's still lots of life on these airframes. So the only thing really driving a new acquisition would be improved electronics.

What should really be discussed is what the USAF is going to do about AWACS.

A replacement has been in the works for a while.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ap-434963/

http://m.aviationweek.com/federal-budge ... sday-fleet

http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war ... source=dam

Slug71 wrote:

A replacement has been in the works for a while.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ap-434963/

http://m.aviationweek.com/federal-budge ... sday-fleet

http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war ... source=dam

Makes for great articles but really not hearing anything of substance in the industry about it. The E4s have so little cycles on their airframes it doesn't make sense to replace them at this time. All they do is sit around at the end of a runway on ready alert. The worst wear and tear is from just keeping the engines on all the time.

Going to anything other than an 737 or a 767 would go against their attempt to consolidate air frame types. There has already been significant development work on the systems for the P-8A, KC-46 and MC2A (not implemented) aircraft makes the 737MAX or 767-C the leading candidates. The A320 has an outside chance if Airbus can get the A320 MMA developed in time to defray some development cost. The A330 also has a chance, but unless the NEO has any leg, that line would be a dead end. The MOM is a ways off and since the 787 frame is composite (and perhaps the MOM as well), it would be a whole new level of infrastructure to support them. Might as well put in a little extra money and go straight to the blended wing body.

bt

The 767-2C seems like it would manage to fill all of the roles, as well as give lots of commonality to the KC-46. The additional power requirements, should they be needed in a more modern aircraft with more efficient electronics, can be derived from larger spec generators on the engines, and/or an additional APU installation in the fuselage. Multi APU setups are not unheard of. Whatever they go to, it would seem that they gain the most by pairing any of those platforms with the P-8, KC-46, or the gulfstream they have in mind for another project.

smithbs wrote:

AviationAddict wrote:

assuming said type won't be more expensive than replacing all three individually

That's the money statement right there. Of course you would replace all of them with a single platform if the budget says it works.

AviationAddict wrote:

While I can see the E-4 and E-6 being combined I'm not so sure about the C-32s, or at least not all of them. The C-32s which are used for military transport could easily be wrapped up into this new type but, the ones used for VVIP government transport are probably a different story. I can't see the VP or first lady being comfortable in an aircraft filled to the brim with electronic warfare and communications equipment. Should be interesting to watch though.

I think they may be talking in broader terms and using a single airframe type for these conversions. They may all be a common type, but fitted out differently inside. My bet is a 787 platform.

E-4 and E-6 are supposed to be EMP-hardened, aren't they? A composite airframe, like 787, is apparently less suitable for EMP-hardening than an older, but aluminum (for example) 767, no?

Phosphorus wrote:

E-4 and E-6 are supposed to be EMP-hardened, aren't they? A composite airframe, like 787, is apparently less suitable for EMP-hardening than an older, but aluminum (for example) 767, no?

That's a good question. There is still a faraday cage of sorts inside the fuselage of a 787 thanks to the lightning strike mesh that encompases it. But it's surely less effective than the traditional aluminum tube right?

trpmb6 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

E-4 and E-6 are supposed to be EMP-hardened, aren't they? A composite airframe, like 787, is apparently less suitable for EMP-hardening than an older, but aluminum (for example) 767, no?

That's a good question. There is still a faraday cage of sorts inside the fuselage of a 787 thanks to the lightning strike mesh that encompases it. But it's surely less effective than the traditional aluminum tube right?

Already done on the KC-46 too.

The KC-46 will be around in numbers for at least 30 years in terms of support, pilots, MRO, a no brainer I guess. Maybe a stretched (- 300) KC-46 variant?

As others have stated, the 767 airframe is going to be hard to beat if this goes forward. The airframe/engines will already be USG approved, school houses for 767 will be in place and plenty of costs would have been paid for by the tanker program. On the fleet side, you are looking at 175+ 767s at FEDEX and UPS for at least another 20 years. Add onto that another 179 KC-46s and you have a fleet of over 300+ aircraft that will be flying for over another two decades in large numbers. No other airframe that is already in the USG system has that type of parts/supply stability over the next 20 years outside of the 737. With that said, the 737NG line is coming to an end. One would have to build out a new 737 mil spec aircraft on the MAX.

The 767 offers a great amount of space, range, cargo capability and will be in service for the USG for decades to come. It might be larger than is needed for certain missions but does anyone know what the next 30 years really holds?
It is better to have space to build out in, than confining one's abilities. The only thing against the 767 right now, is the fact that it is the easiest and most logical solution.

trpmb6 wrote:

That's a good question. There is still a faraday cage of sorts inside the fuselage of a 787 thanks to the lightning strike mesh that encompases it. But it's surely less effective than the traditional aluminum tube right?

So, how to they harden a B-2? EMI hardening consists of multiple levels where the air frame is only a portion. If the fuselage is deficient, they would have to make it up elsewhere, cabinet or LRU levels.

bt

CX747 wrote:

One would have to build out a new 737 mil spec aircraft on the MAX.

Boeing has already stated that future 737 military derivatives would be based on the MAX. This would have started with the now defunct JSTAR replacement and probably will continue with any C-40 replacements. I would not be surprised if the US Air Force decided that they need a fleet of AWACs replacements, Boeing would offer the 737 AEW&C on a MAX platform.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

That's a good question. There is still a faraday cage of sorts inside the fuselage of a 787 thanks to the lightning strike mesh that encompases it. But it's surely less effective than the traditional aluminum tube right?

So, how to they harden a B-2? EMI hardening consists of multiple levels where the air frame is only a portion. If the fuselage is deficient, they would have to make it up elsewhere, cabinet or LRU levels.

bt

As it is classified I can't be sure about this but my guess would be that whatever is put into the paint mixture that helps reduce radar signature probably also helps harden it against EMI

bikerthai wrote:

CX747 wrote:

One would have to build out a new 737 mil spec aircraft on the MAX.

Boeing has already stated that future 737 military derivatives would be based on the MAX. This would have started with the now defunct JSTAR replacement and probably will continue with any C-40 replacements. I would not be surprised if the US Air Force decided that they need a fleet of AWACs replacements, Boeing would offer the 737 AEW&C on a MAX platform.

bt

Unfortunately for Boeing I believe the 737max might be more plane than the USAF needs for AWAC replacements (same for JSTAR should congress force USAF to acquire more)

Hey guys,
I also predict a 767 selection here, but could the US choose second-hand ones? I suspect that they wouldn't WANT to, but maybe stretched military budgets might necessitate it.
I agree that versions of the KC-46 would seem perfect for the roles suggested.... But $$$$ would be an issue!
Cheers
Bunumuring

bunumuring wrote:

I also predict a 767 selection here, but could the US choose second-hand ones?

It really depends on what will the function of the airplane and how many (in quantity) will the order be. If it's going to be a simple VIP aircraft where there is not much mod to be done, then maybe. But if there is a lot of mod work, and if there is enough quantities then second hand aircrafts may not be wise.

1) With the 767, there is only specific models where a digital airplane is available. A digital airplane makes the Engineering mod much easier.
2) Can you find enough frames with the same configuration to support your fleet requirement. The greater the variations between the frames makes the Engineering more complex. Specially since you have to go back to BOEING for the IP information.

With the USAF, if they plan to get a fleet of aircrafts, they can get a bulk buy from Boeing on the basic frame which in the long run may be more cost effective than trying to get used frames from the open market.

bt

Maybe they could assign a second source for part of the requirement, to prevent 1 supplier promising a lot knowing congressmen & flagwaving will justify steep increases, after the point of no return.

trpmb6 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

That's a good question. There is still a faraday cage of sorts inside the fuselage of a 787 thanks to the lightning strike mesh that encompases it. But it's surely less effective than the traditional aluminum tube right?

So, how to they harden a B-2? EMI hardening consists of multiple levels where the air frame is only a portion. If the fuselage is deficient, they would have to make it up elsewhere, cabinet or LRU levels.

bt

As it is classified I can't be sure about this but my guess would be that whatever is put into the paint mixture that helps reduce radar signature probably also helps harden it against EMI

Please google EMI/EMP. This is not about hardening the body of the aircraft, it is about hardening the electronics and the wiring of the aircraft.

I just don't see a common aircraft between the three listed (and even a fourth if you want to throw AWACS in). The roles each play is vastly different and the aircraft size needed vastly different.

The E4 is currently a 747. E6 a 707. C32 a 757. AWACS a 707.

As it stands, advancement in technologies have produced smaller and lighterweight electronics for the E4/E6/AWACS platforms. For the E6 and AWACS it would make a lot more sense to go with a smaller aircraft than is currently operated. I believe there is an E99 out there that has been fitted with much of this tech already. Would not be surprised at all to see an even smaller aircraft than that. The E4 mission set has additional requirements so it would still need to be a larger aircraft. A 767 may make sense here, but it is unclear to me if the reduction in required space for electronics is enough to make up for the change in volume. Would take a lot of reorganizing internally (obviously) from how they currently operate. Personally I think a 747-8 or a 777x would be more appropriate. Problem is you have to retro fit for refuelling capability. This is easily remedied if you use a 747-8, just take the current refueling system from the E4 and slap it in. The forward sections are nearly identical. There's also the question about available power that I brought up before.

The C32 is just a VIP plane and should just be a BBJ with a bit of retrofitting for press pool seating etc. I think they like the 757 because of it's ability to punch it fast and climb fast if needed. (This is just me speculating.) No reason to go bigger than we currently have and could probably even shrink it to a 737max if you had to. Or MOM or an A321.

But again, this discussion is kind of pointless because, except for AWACS, none of this aircraft are anywhere close to their lifetimes. Some of them aren't even half way there. Plenty of life left in them and no reason to replace them beside doing electronics upgrades.

trpmb6 wrote:

I just don't see a common aircraft between the three listed (and even a fourth if you want to throw AWACS in). The roles each play is vastly different and the aircraft size needed vastly different.

The E4 is currently a 747. E6 a 707. C32 a 757. AWACS a 707.

As it stands, advancement in technologies have produced smaller and lighterweight electronics for the E4/E6/AWACS platforms. For the E6 and AWACS it would make a lot more sense to go with a smaller aircraft than is currently operated. I believe there is an E99 out there that has been fitted with much of this tech already. Would not be surprised at all to see an even smaller aircraft than that. The E4 mission set has additional requirements so it would still need to be a larger aircraft. A 767 may make sense here, but it is unclear to me if the reduction in required space for electronics is enough to make up for the change in volume. Would take a lot of reorganizing internally (obviously) from how they currently operate. Personally I think a 747-8 or a 777x would be more appropriate. Problem is you have to retro fit for refuelling capability. This is easily remedied if you use a 747-8, just take the current refueling system from the E4 and slap it in. The forward sections are nearly identical. There's also the question about available power that I brought up before.

The C32 is just a VIP plane and should just be a BBJ with a bit of retrofitting for press pool seating etc. I think they like the 757 because of it's ability to punch it fast and climb fast if needed. (This is just me speculating.) No reason to go bigger than we currently have and could probably even shrink it to a 737max if you had to. Or MOM or an A321.

But again, this discussion is kind of pointless because, except for AWACS, none of this aircraft are anywhere close to their lifetimes. Some of them aren't even half way there. Plenty of life left in them and no reason to replace them beside doing electronics upgrades.

The mission systems today are able to be MUCH smaller, more efficient, more powerful, and more capable.
A 767 frame will more than likely be just fine.

AWACS will probably be a B737.

trpmb6 wrote:

But again, this discussion is kind of pointless because, except for AWACS, none of this aircraft are anywhere close to their lifetimes. Some of them aren't even half way there. Plenty of life left in them and no reason to replace them beside doing electronics upgrades.

The issue would be the operating cost, newer frames are quite likely more efficient and easier as in cheaper to maintain, they just need to work out the savings to see if replacement is justified.

par13del wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

But again, this discussion is kind of pointless because, except for AWACS, none of this aircraft are anywhere close to their lifetimes. Some of them aren't even half way there. Plenty of life left in them and no reason to replace them beside doing electronics upgrades.

The issue would be the operating cost, newer frames are quite likely more efficient and easier as in cheaper to maintain, they just need to work out the savings to see if replacement is justified.

Cheaper to maintain? Two things here. The way the USAF treats their VIP planes is way different than the commercial industry. Doesn't matter if it has 100 cycles or 10000 cycles, they strip down the E4 and Air Force one and others all the way down and do a complete sweep of them on a specific schedule. The other thing is, these planes haven't even gotten into their inspection programs yet. They are literally flown that little. Especially the E4. It just sits there on ready alert. Very likely that the USAF doesn't want to change something like the E4 because there is tremendous fleet history out there showing the reliability of the 747 and exactly where there are problems (so they can address them early and not have any problems later).

AWACS is different, it has a lot (LOT) more cycles and so definitely needs replacing.

The problem for the USAF is that the E-4 will be a one off airframe after the two VC-25s are retired. Trying to support a 747-200 airframe in 2018 isn't getting any easier.

CX747 wrote:

The problem for the USAF is that the E-4 will be a one off airframe after the two VC-25s are retired. Trying to support a 747-200 airframe in 2018 isn't getting any easier.

Am I correct in assuming that the four E-4 are actually not identical aircraft? I've read some are powered by GE and some PW engines.
Well, once VC-25A are retired, I guess the spare parts pool (and salvaged components from parked VC-25A's) can be used to support continued operations of E-4, but PW-engined ones will be, comparatively, out of luck.

Phosphorus wrote:

CX747 wrote:

The problem for the USAF is that the E-4 will be a one off airframe after the two VC-25s are retired. Trying to support a 747-200 airframe in 2018 isn't getting any easier.

Am I correct in assuming that the four E-4 are actually not identical aircraft? I've read some are powered by GE and some PW engines.
Well, once VC-25A are retired, I guess the spare parts pool (and salvaged components from parked VC-25A's) can be used to support continued operations of E-4, but PW-engined ones will be, comparatively, out of luck.

The E-4 is already a one off airframe. There is no commonality with the VC-25s really (Other than being a 747-200). At least when it comes to support that threat them as separate entities anyways.

Yes the E-4 are not all identical (at least to start with). The first 3 were E-4A's. Two were delivered with PW JT9D engines and the Third was delivered with a GE F103 engine. The first two were retrofitted for commonality later so all three had GE F103.

The first E-4B (fourth and final aircraft) was delivered just before 1980 and had a couple upgrades, improved EMP hardening and the SHF antenna (that unique hump looking thing on top). The other three E-4 aircraft were each upgraded to E-4B's by the mid 80's.

At this point all four are nearly identical in practice. But have some minor differences here and there.

trpmb6 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

CX747 wrote:

The problem for the USAF is that the E-4 will be a one off airframe after the two VC-25s are retired. Trying to support a 747-200 airframe in 2018 isn't getting any easier.

Am I correct in assuming that the four E-4 are actually not identical aircraft? I've read some are powered by GE and some PW engines.
Well, once VC-25A are retired, I guess the spare parts pool (and salvaged components from parked VC-25A's) can be used to support continued operations of E-4, but PW-engined ones will be, comparatively, out of luck.

The E-4 is already a one off airframe. There is no commonality with the VC-25s really (Other than being a 747-200). At least when it comes to support that threat them as separate entities anyways.

Yes the E-4 are not all identical (at least to start with). The first 3 were E-4A's. Two were delivered with PW JT9D engines and the Third was delivered with a GE F103 engine. The first two were retrofitted for commonality later so all three had GE F103.

The first E-4B (fourth and final aircraft) was delivered just before 1980 and had a couple upgrades, improved EMP hardening and the SHF antenna (that unique hump looking thing on top). The other three E-4 aircraft were each upgraded to E-4B's by the mid 80's.

At this point all four are nearly identical in practice. But have some minor differences here and there.

Thanks for explanation!
And then there was this:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1366601

I wonder what is the actual status of the fleet, all things considered.

Phosphorus wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Am I correct in assuming that the four E-4 are actually not identical aircraft? I've read some are powered by GE and some PW engines.
Well, once VC-25A are retired, I guess the spare parts pool (and salvaged components from parked VC-25A's) can be used to support continued operations of E-4, but PW-engined ones will be, comparatively, out of luck.

The E-4 is already a one off airframe. There is no commonality with the VC-25s really (Other than being a 747-200). At least when it comes to support that threat them as separate entities anyways.

Yes the E-4 are not all identical (at least to start with). The first 3 were E-4A's. Two were delivered with PW JT9D engines and the Third was delivered with a GE F103 engine. The first two were retrofitted for commonality later so all three had GE F103.

The first E-4B (fourth and final aircraft) was delivered just before 1980 and had a couple upgrades, improved EMP hardening and the SHF antenna (that unique hump looking thing on top). The other three E-4 aircraft were each upgraded to E-4B's by the mid 80's.

At this point all four are nearly identical in practice. But have some minor differences here and there.

Thanks for explanation!
And then there was this:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1366601

I wonder what is the actual status of the fleet, all things considered.

Interestingly that's not the first time a tornado has caused damage to one or more E4-Bs either

Three are operational post repairs. Mostly minor stuff really. 75-00125 (the E4-B delivered in 1985) is in for it's paint strip and maintenance checks right now. should be back out and about soon.

I expect the USAF will standardise on the 737 and 767 for the specialised airframes. Yes that will mean in some cases you get more plane than you may specifically need. But you get a benefit from having one or two sets of common parts across the entire fleet. And both airframes are going to have a long life ahead of them so you can share the support network with the civil side during that time. And then as that part shrinks you can better support your fleet as you only have to handle one or two sets of parts. Either from the boneyard or from OEMs. And for many components I would expect additive manufacturing to help keep costs down for keeping planes flying after mass production of components has finished.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

And for many components I would expect additive manufacturing to help keep costs down for keeping planes flying after mass production of components has finished.

For the newer airplanes a more relevant reason would be the availability of digital modeling of the components and extensive use of NC machining. Formed, forged parts require tooling which make support of out of production aircraft more difficult. With NC machining, and to some extent casting (with advances in casting techniques), the ability to keep digital data allows you to re-make spare parts at a more reasonable cost.

bt

Surely Wedgetail is ready made to replace AWACS?

flyingcello wrote:

Surely Wedgetail is ready made to replace AWACS?

You would think. I imagine theres even a lot of updates that can be done to the E-7 now. It should probably be migrated over to the MAX now though. That way there is less work for an updated P-8 once the current orders become exhausted and that line is closed. The frame could probably be used to replace the OC/WC/RC-135s too.

I think there is a lot to be said about lowering operating costs too. Why fly a 737 when you can fly a smaller business jet for instance.

trpmb6 wrote:

I think there is a lot to be said about lowering operating costs too. Why fly a 737 when you can fly a smaller business jet for instance.

A 737 would probably be cheaper than a business jet. I can't imagine you could go much smaller than the 737 without losing capability. Even Airbus has gone up to the A320 for their MPA (up from a LENGTHENED A319). Due to high production numbers of the 737, parts would probably be cheaper.

Look at some of the electronic warfare planes we've seen lately. Israel uses a g550. I dont think that's the cheapest option but it's a data point.

The tech is so much better than the 70s. It isnt even close. Jstars was looking at Bombardier globals. Of course the larger end of those approach a 737 but it shows they dont need such a large aircraft.

trpmb6 wrote:

Look at some of the electronic warfare planes we've seen lately. Israel uses a g550. I dont think that's the cheapest option but it's a data point.

The tech is so much better than the 70s. It isnt even close. Jstars was looking at Bombardier globals. Of course the larger end of those approach a 737 but it shows they dont need such a large aircraft.

Completely agree. There is also the R-99. But as far as I'm aware, those smaller ones are not quite as capable as the E-7 or E-3. Although the Globaleye is supposed to be pretty good. I'm not sure if the tech is quite small enough yet for the USAF's needs/requirements, but I have no doubt it will get there.

Especially when the USAF is now looking to integrate the JSTARS abilities into the E-3 replacement, anything less than the 737 will probably be too small.

Slug71 wrote:

Completely agree. There is also the R-99. But as far as I'm aware, those smaller ones are not quite as capable as the E-7 or E-3. Although the Globaleye is supposed to be pretty good. I'm not sure if the tech is quite small enough yet for the USAF's needs/requirements, but I have no doubt it will get there.

Especially when the USAF is now looking to integrate the JSTARS abilities into the E-3 replacement, anything less than the 737 will probably be too small.

Great points. It's hard to say what we will really end upool seeing when the missions are constantly evolving as is the tech. We won't know until the Pentagon puts out their RFPs.

From what I understand of the smaller airframes a large part depends on how much you want to be doing on the aircraft in flight. The small business jets work fine if your on station time is limited and a lot of the work is ofloaded to ground personnel via datalinks. But if you're wanting to have a bigger on board staff handle the incoming data without offloading it and keep flying for ages then the larger airframes start to have major benefits.

trpmb6 wrote:

What should really be discussed is what the USAF is going to do about AWACS.

Nothing's been divulged here at Tinker...at least nothing that has more than a grain of rumor to it.

AWACSooner wrote:

Nothing's been divulged here at Tinker...at least nothing that has more than a grain of rumor to it.

Yeah not much being said in the industry at this point. Some rumors of re-engine-ing but in my opinion we'd probably be better off going forward with a new build. The tech has advanced so much in that regard.

Well, we're running out of engines...and they keep trying to put new software on systems that are pushing 45-50 years old...so yah.

While the E-4Bs have relatively few flight cycles, they are used a lot sitting ground alert. And parts for old airframes get harder and harder to get, and more expensive How many 747-200s are still flying today? And here is something to think about, while the E-6 is based on the 707, they were all delivered after all of the E-4s.