Well, the rumors have been finally confirmed. The UK is looking at the 737 AEW&C for their AWACS replacement.

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/20 ... craft-buy/

“The Wedgetail is the stand-out performer in our pursuit of a new battlespace surveillance aircraft, and has already proved itself in Iraq and Syria,” Williamson said.

“If selected, U.K. industry could be involved significantly with the program, from modification work to through life support,” the MoD said.

The mod will be done in the UK.

bt

I would appreciate it if you would remove the extra "t" from "Brittain" in the title, alternatively you could just put "UK" instead.

The comment in the article about "a small number of British Royal Air Force personnel have been training on the aircraft since mid-year" does rather make it seem that the UK is doing more than "looking" at this aircraft.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

I would appreciate it if you would remove the extra "t" from "Brittain" in the title, alternatively you could just put "UK" instead.

Moderator, Please correct typo in the subject line.

bt

Makes the most sense for them.

Fits in perfectly with the already purchased Poseidons. Fleet/crew commonality within country and the Aussies.

Good plan


However the RAF ‘Voyager’ tanker is not equipped with a boom which is the optimal method
if inflight refueling for larger
aircraft like this along with numerous other types such
as the P8 and C17

Max Q wrote:

Good plan


However the RAF ‘Voyager’ tanker is not equipped with a boom which is the optimal method
if inflight refueling for larger
aircraft like this along with numerous other types such
as the P8 and C17

It has an available boom, and I thought the MRTT was supposed to be easily reconfigurable, so I assume it can be added. They may also feel comfortable that allied nations with boom equipped tankers will be readily available should they need it. They have the US and Australia for starters.

Boeing 737 AEW&C would be the low risk option over the last decade. I wonder if the reduced range / endurance / time on station would be an issue. It seems very important for the typical AEW role / tanker dependence. Could it become a Voyager version? It could even have multi role. Space / range enough on that existing platform if the equipment fits a 737.

Or will they immidiately lock up anybody who gets crazy upgrade ideas & then actually start implementing them ..

AvWeek ( http://aviationweek.com/defense/britain ... 7-purchase , free email reg required ) has a good article on this.

“The Wedgetail is the standout performer in our pursuit of a new battlespace surveillance aircraft and has already proved itself in Iraq and Syria,” British Defense Minister Gavin Williamson said. “It could be an excellent asset for the RAF and give us a real edge in this increasingly complex world.”

The defense ministry says it has completed market analysis and discussions with other providers and concluded that the E-7 “represents the best value for money option” in terms of both UK need and growing cooperation with Australia.

Officials also say they will work closely with Boeing to ensure the UK defense industry will benefit from the deal.

It goes on to point out that E3s aren't exactly reliable, need costly cockpit and military systems upgrades, and require larger crews. It also points out the synergy with the P8s being purchased by the UK. On the down side, there isn't exactly a lot of UK content in E7 or P8, and both interface to tankers that have booms, which the UK doesn't operate (yet?).

Also, UK and Australia are BFFs:

“Our future with Australia will already see us operate the same maritime patrol aircraft, world-class Type 26 warships and supersonic F-35 jets,” Williamson said. “Wedgetail may join that formidable armory and help us work together to take on the global threats that we both face.”

Add to that India's purchase of P8 and Boeing is heading for a clean sweep of the Commonwealth market!

As I recall when they did the Wedgetail refueling design, there was probe that can be attached to the refueling receptacle that would allow the Wedgetail to accept a drogue. I believe the P-8 receptacle would have been the same design, so adapting both those planes to accept drogue refueling is not a show stopper.

Here is an interesting read:

https://sldinfo.com/2015/11/from-troubl ... nnovation/

So successful has Australia’s Wedgetail now become that stories of American strike squadrons delaying or planning missions to coincide with Wedgetail flight times have filtered back to a proud Aussie hierarchy.

keesje wrote:

I wonder if the reduced range / endurance / time on station would be an issue.

There was an article a year or so back describing an RAAF E7 operating in Iraq. The AWACs plane sent to relieve the E7 had technical difficulty and had to returned to base. With areal refueling, the E7 stayed on station and did a double shift. Could not find the article though.

bt

Here is another interesting article on Wedgetail operation:

http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/0 ... sionalism/

The E-7A Wedgetail had flown 269 missions including 108 in Syrian airspace totaling 3,302.7 hours for an average mission length of 12.3 hours.

Not sure if this is with or without refueling.

tjh8402 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Good plan


However the RAF ‘Voyager’ tanker is not equipped with a boom which is the optimal method
if inflight refueling for larger
aircraft like this along with numerous other types such
as the P8 and C17

It has an available boom, and I thought the MRTT was supposed to be easily reconfigurable, so I assume it can be added. They may also feel comfortable that allied nations with boom equipped tankers will be readily available should they need it. They have the US and Australia for starters.

Seen a picture of the UK Hercs? They could very well stick a refueling probe to the wedgetail before they’ll modify the MRTT.

bikerthai wrote:

As I recall when they did the Wedgetail refueling design, there was probe that can be attached to the refueling receptacle that would allow the Wedgetail to accept a drogue. I believe the P-8 receptacle would have been the same design, so adapting both those planes to accept drogue refueling is not a show stopper.

Here is an interesting read:

https://sldinfo.com/2015/11/from-troubl ... nnovation/

So successful has Australia’s Wedgetail now become that stories of American strike squadrons delaying or planning missions to coincide with Wedgetail flight times have filtered back to a proud Aussie hierarchy.

keesje wrote:

I wonder if the reduced range / endurance / time on station would be an issue.

There was an article a year or so back describing an RAAF E7 operating in Iraq. The AWACs plane sent to relieve the E7 had technical difficulty and had to returned to base. With areal refueling, the E7 stayed on station and did a double shift. Could not find the article though.

bt

17.1 hour sortie!

http://video.defence.gov.au/play/1480#

FrancisBegbie wrote:

tjh8402 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Good plan


However the RAF ‘Voyager’ tanker is not equipped with a boom which is the optimal method
if inflight refueling for larger
aircraft like this along with numerous other types such
as the P8 and C17

It has an available boom, and I thought the MRTT was supposed to be easily reconfigurable, so I assume it can be added. They may also feel comfortable that allied nations with boom equipped tankers will be readily available should they need it. They have the US and Australia for starters.

Seen a picture of the UK Hercs? They could very well stick a refueling probe to the wedgetail before they’ll modify the MRTT.

I have but that misses the point


Probe and drogue refueling is much,
much slower than using a boom and
in a contested environment that means
tanker and receiver are vulnerable for far longer


Even in a benign situation it’s just not
efficient, large aircraft are what the boom
system was designed for, its safer, more
efficient and far more effective

When would the UK AWACS ever operate in contested air space without US participation? Besides, with the UK built aux fuel tanks, you don't really need to tank up unless your shift get extended as mentioned above.

bt

Max Q wrote:

FrancisBegbie wrote:

tjh8402 wrote:

It has an available boom, and I thought the MRTT was supposed to be easily reconfigurable, so I assume it can be added. They may also feel comfortable that allied nations with boom equipped tankers will be readily available should they need it. They have the US and Australia for starters.

Seen a picture of the UK Hercs? They could very well stick a refueling probe to the wedgetail before they’ll modify the MRTT.

I have but that misses the point


Probe and drogue refueling is much,
much slower than using a boom and
in a contested environment that means
tanker and receiver are vulnerable for far longer


Even in a benign situation it’s just not
efficient, large aircraft are what the boom
system was designed for, its safer, more
efficient and far more effective

The RAF disagrees with you. I understand the argument but there are always trade-offs. The USAF happily abuses the boom system on fighter planes which by all theory are better off with drogue refueling systems (2 fighters simultaneously!) So it’s not as black and white as you make it.

India is looking if they can combine AEW and tanker capability in 1 platform.



Maybe they can even top up fighters during a mission.

That just makes just too much sense, not from here plus reduces platforms & jobs.

Let's dismiss / ignore it ASAP

FrancisBegbie wrote:

Max Q wrote:

FrancisBegbie wrote:

Seen a picture of the UK Hercs? They could very well stick a refueling probe to the wedgetail before they’ll modify the MRTT.

I have but that misses the point


Probe and drogue refueling is much,
much slower than using a boom and
in a contested environment that means
tanker and receiver are vulnerable for far longer


Even in a benign situation it’s just not
efficient, large aircraft are what the boom
system was designed for, its safer, more
efficient and far more effective

The RAF disagrees with you. I understand the argument but there are always trade-offs. The USAF happily abuses the boom system on fighter planes which by all theory are better off with drogue refueling systems (2 fighters simultaneously!) So it’s not as black and white as you make it.

Actually the RAF has stated having a
boom on the Voyager would be very
useful not only for the significant number
of larger types they now operate
that use in flight refueling but
also for the interoperability with other
nations aircraft, it’s a known deficiency



They are the ONLY western Air Force
operating new tankers without a boom
All other A330 modified aircraft operated
by other military’s worldwide have a boom
and separate drogue system


And of course the KC 46 has both


The only reason the Voyager does
not have a boom is that mod has
not been budgeted for


I’d be willing to bet it will be eventually

The E-3Ds are only difficult because of neglect. In fact they should be the most reliable E-3 fleet in the word. They have the CFMs and if the Uk would have up-graded the avionics together with the US and NATO the reliability problems would be much reduced.

seahawk wrote:

The E-3Ds are only difficult because of neglect. In fact they should be the most reliable E-3 fleet in the word. They have the CFMs and if the Uk would have up-graded the avionics together with the US and NATO the reliability problems would be much reduced.

Yes, it's not as if the RAF fleet are the oldest in the world, they are one of the youngest along with the French AF examples.
How are the French AF E-3's? Given the similar vintage you'd have thought that a parallel program of upgrades would have been developed between the two AF's, given that it is 20 years since an agreement to more closely co-operate on defence matters between the two nations was signed. The E-3 force and it's updates should have been an obvious area for this.

Where on Earth is the money for E-7's supposed to come from, even accounting for the E-7 being much more economical to operate and the savings from the E-3 (though it sounds like no much was spent of the latter).

keesje wrote:

India is looking if they can combine AEW and tanker capability in 1 platform.



Maybe they can even top up fighters during a mission.

That just makes just too much sense, not from here plus reduces platforms & jobs.

Let's dismiss / ignore it ASAP

Not dismissing it Keesje, but it's about trade-offs. Tankers have equipment which has weight. Boom or pods with drogues, ect. AEW has equipment which has weight. Consoles, radar mounts that induce drag, personnel that have weight, ect. If you multi-mission, now you have a tanker that has to subtract fuel to haul a radome and all the personnel through the air, reducing the fuel load. From the AEW side, you may have to leave the most desirable loiter point in order to fly straight and level while you do the fuel transfer. Every pound of fuel you move from your tanker/AEW reduces it's loiter time.

I suppose if you absolutely don't have the budget for both, you could have your sportscar/dumptruck but it kind of hobbles both capabilities.

A small two engine modern jet liner (737/320) is a pretty inexpensive frame for the military. Isn't most of the money in converting it to a radar plane and a refueling plane? Doing one of each is likely a twofer the price of one.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

A small two engine modern jet liner (737/320) is a pretty inexpensive frame for the military. Isn't most of the money in converting it to a radar plane and a refueling plane? Doing one of each is likely a twofer the price of one.

Yes. On the other hand, if you decide to start with a Comet derivative ( ref: https://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/200 ... st_flight/ ) you'll probably get a different outcome and find yourself behind the curve decades later.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

A small two engine modern jet liner (737/320) is a pretty inexpensive frame for the military. Isn't most of the money in converting it to a radar plane and a refueling plane? Doing one of each is likely a twofer the price of one.

In order to have do both AEW&C and tanking mission, you would probably need to have something the size of a 767 or A330. If you include the tanking mission to the narrow body, you will short yourself time on station or tanking capacity.

So the true comparison would be the cost of modifying two 737/A320 frames (one tanker and one AEW&C) vs. one 767/A330 frame to do both. There are pros and cons to either options.

bt

There is a reason the RSAF ordered their E-3s and KE-3s as separate mission aircraft (the KE-3s today don't do the tanker mission anymore, they are doing the RC-135 type mission today, so they again rejected a hybrid mission design). A multi-mission tanker/AWACS hybrid would be ineffective at both missions, not able to carry enough fuel to transfer enough to receivers to do thier mission, and not having enough AWACS capability for todays battle management. Both the tanker systems and the AWACS systems are heavy and the tanker mission need to carry extra fuel compromises both missions and no matter which airframe you put it on it still cannot lift more than its design MTOW.

Such an aircraft would have the combined capability of the KC-97 and EC-121 of the 50s and 60s.

I'm not even mentioning the aerodynamic effects and loads a rotodome or Wedgetail radar mount would have on the tanker receivers. Like refueling any AWACS or AEW aircraft today, the mission radar would have to be placed in stand-by mode during tanker mission refueling.

Sorry, even though a B-767, B-777, B-787, A-330, or A-350 airframe might be able to carry both mission equipment packages and the large crew, to me such a hybrid would have limited military value. You may need to go to a 4 engine airframe, such as a B-747-8 or an A-380 cut down to a single deck type airplane to have a better tanker/AWACS mission capable hybrid.

As far as the Wedgetail for the RAF is concerned, that may be a good choice. But I have two questions: Will the MoD neglect these E-7s in the same manor they have neglected thier E-3s? Can the MoD trade in the E-3Ds to Boeing as part of the payment for the E-7s? Boeing could refurbish these former RAF E-3Ds and sell them to the USAF to replace the highest time E-3B/Cs.

kc135topboom wrote:

Will the MoD neglect these E-7s in the same manor they have neglected thier E-3s?

Since the RAF will share maintenance and upgrade capabilities with the RAAF, there is more incentive to not to neglect their frames. But who knows?

kc135topboom wrote:

Can the MoD trade in the E-3Ds to Boeing as part of the payment for the E-7s?

I believe all E-7 sales ware direct commercial sales (you do not have to go thru the US government) so there may be some room for creative financing . . . lease to own deal anyone? mrgreen:

kc135topboom wrote:

Boeing could refurbish these former RAF E-3Ds and sell them to the USAF to replace the highest time E-3B/Cs.

I doubt that Boeing will touch these frames with a 10ft pole unless there's a bag of money at the end of it that is more than the US or UK can afford.

bt

SAAB is getting their knickers in a knot over the potential for an E-7 acquisition by the UK. Obviously they aren't happy with the potential sole source aspect of the acquisition.

Saab Concerned Over Lack of UK Airborne Early Warning Competition

Saab has waded into the political spat surrounding the British government’s decision to enter sole-source negotiations with Boeing for a multibillion-dollar purchase of new airborne early warning (AEW) radar aircraft.

In a letter to the UK defense select committee, the Swedish defense company said it disagreed with the UK defense ministry’s assertion that it had examined alternative platforms before announcing on Oct. 3 that it was beginning negotiations with Boeing on a potential purchase of the Australian Wedgetail version of the Boeing E-7, an AEW radar-carrying derivative of the 737-700 narrowbody airliner.

Andrew Walton, head of Saab UK, said Royal Air Force and materiel agency officials had approached Saab for classified data on Saab’s Erieye radar. But after clearance was given by the Swedish government to provide the data, delivery was declined, he wrote.

“We cannot support the assertion that Erieye’s performance has been analyzed,” Walton told the committee.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ement.html

This probably has absolutely nothing to do with the potential UK acquisition of the E-7 but interesting that the Qataris have decided not to go forward with the E-7. Perhaps with all the fighters jets signed for recently the budget, and more likely the ability to actually man these aircraft with qualified staff, is getting tight.

Qatar opts not to complete E-737 AEW&C deal

Qatar has decided not to proceed with the procurement of three Boeing E-737 Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft that was first announced in 2014, Jane's was told on 18 October.

The US manufacturer said that the Gulf state has chosen not to complete the transaction, which at the time it was announced during the DIMDEX 2014 exhibition in Doha was valued at QAR6.6 billion (USD1.8 billion in 2014 dollars).

Boeing did not say why Qatar has not fulfilled its procurement, though it appears that the company had expected to complete the transaction as recently as March, with a video playing on its stand at DIMDEX 2018 featuring the E-737 in Qatar Emiri Air Force (QEAF) markings. The Qatari Ministry of Defence did not respond to a request for comment.

The QEAF currently has no airborne early warning capability and the procurement of the E-737 would have represented a significant boost in its capabilities. Having decided not to proceed with the E-737, it is unclear if Qatar is considering an alternative or if it has decided not to field an airborne early warning capability altogether.

https://www.janes.com/article/83903/qat ... aew-c-deal

Hey Ozair,
I really appreciate the Qatari information. It does raise interesting questions as to why the deal was not consummated.
Are there any other countries seriously looking at the E-7 at the moment?
And while we are at it, what's the status of the P-8 negotiations with Saudi Arabia?
Cheers,
Bunumuring

Ozair wrote:

Obviously they aren't happy with the potential sole source aspect of the acquisition.

All this bluster is probably just for show. Saab just got the T-X contract with Boeing. That contract is much more lucrative and they probably would not jeopardize that working relationship for just a few AEW&C's.

bt

Saab wants a competition in UK. Saab was offering its “Erieye” system mounted on an Airbus A330.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... etter-mps/

Holly C**p. If that is what SAAB is proposing, then I wouldn't say there is much of a competition. That A330 frame looks too big, even with the two radar mount.

bt

Revelation wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

A small two engine modern jet liner (737/320) is a pretty inexpensive frame for the military. Isn't most of the money in converting it to a radar plane and a refueling plane? Doing one of each is likely a twofer the price of one.

Yes. On the other hand, if you decide to start with a Comet derivative ( ref: https://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/200 ... st_flight/ ) you'll probably get a different outcome and find yourself behind the curve decades later.

Yes, but you'll have a distinctly British aircraft.

In this thread we hashed out why having a combined tanker and AWACS aircraft is a bad idea: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1398947. Your tanker tracks and AWACS tracks are almost always going to be at odds.

queb wrote:

Saab wants a competition in UK. Saab was offering its “Erieye” system mounted on an Airbus A330.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... etter-mps/

Is this some clip-art thing that SAAB marketing did?

Putting Erieye on an A330 to me doesn't make sense. The beauty of Erieye is its small footprint, allowing it to be put on turbos and RJs.

smithbs wrote:

Revelation wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

A small two engine modern jet liner (737/320) is a pretty inexpensive frame for the military. Isn't most of the money in converting it to a radar plane and a refueling plane? Doing one of each is likely a twofer the price of one.

Yes. On the other hand, if you decide to start with a Comet derivative ( ref: https://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/200 ... st_flight/ ) you'll probably get a different outcome and find yourself behind the curve decades later.

Yes, but you'll have a distinctly British aircraft.

Will go well with that distinctly British carrier.

From the article:

However, Saab described its system as a “plug-and-play” with little risk, adding that much of the work on it would be carried out in the UK.

Well, the radar may be plug and play. But modifying the A330 is where the risk is. Believe me, even if that RADAR interface is mature, the various mod to the A330 to accommodate the power systems, communication gears and computing architecture will introduce significant risk. You are not talking about just the RADAR in itself, but the software package to integrate the total battle space is just as important.

bt

Some more details on the SAAB proposal from the FlightGlobal article:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... uy-452945/

This would involve integrating Saab's Erieye active electronically scanned array radar and mission system equipment on board the service's in-use Airbus A330 Voyager tanker/transports.

Having Tanker, AWACS and Transport all in one frame? Sounds like you are just looking for trouble trying to save a few bucks. Sounds great during peace time. But when the shooting starts, you just lost 1/3rd to 2/3rd of your functionality while performing a mission.

bt

Does the E-7 have full-360 coverage for its radar? Because I'm not sure the Erieye does.

angad84 wrote:

Does the E-7 have full-360 coverage for its radar? Because I'm not sure the Erieye does.

Yes the E-7 does. From a presentation given by RAAF 2 SQN.

Okay, so the business end of the capability is the MESA Multi-Role Electronically Scanned Array. So it’s actually four radars. So, if you think of it, the two side arrays are the more obvious ones, so that’s the side array and there’s one on the other side as well, and then in the surfboard you’ve got two radars, so you’ve got the top hat forward and the top hat aft. The idea behind the top hat radar is to account for the interface between the two side arrays. So you’ve got one side array looking out that way, one out that way, and there’s always going to be a bit of a gap, so that’s what those top hats do. They take account for that overlap of the two main side array radars

http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/me ... script.pdf

angad84 wrote:

Does the E-7 have full-360 coverage for its radar? Because I'm not sure the Erieye does.

The Erieye doesn't. 300° IIRC.
It just got a range increase with the ER though. It can also scan ground and maritime targets (simultaneously), which I'm not sure if the E-7 is capable of yet.

Slug71 wrote:

angad84 wrote:

Does the E-7 have full-360 coverage for its radar? Because I'm not sure the Erieye does.

The Erieye doesn't. 300° IIRC.
It just got a range increase with the ER though. It can also scan ground and maritime targets (simultaneously), which I'm not sure if the E-7 is capable of yet.

From the link I posted above,

The MESA radar modes: PDA mode, SPS and then the IFF is integral to that. So Pulse-Doppler Airborne [PDA] surveillance is for airborne threats. SPS— Single Pulse Surface surveillance [is for] surface threats being land-based or maritime based. For a pilot, PDA—planes, SPS—surface. The modes are interleaved, or sectored, to function simultaneously. Again, another good reason, or good benefit of this type of radar.

Ozair wrote:

angad84 wrote:

Does the E-7 have full-360 coverage for its radar? Because I'm not sure the Erieye does.

Yes the E-7 does. From a presentation given by RAAF 2 SQN.

Okay, so the business end of the capability is the MESA Multi-Role Electronically Scanned Array. So it’s actually four radars. So, if you think of it, the two side arrays are the more obvious ones, so that’s the side array and there’s one on the other side as well, and then in the surfboard you’ve got two radars, so you’ve got the top hat forward and the top hat aft. The idea behind the top hat radar is to account for the interface between the two side arrays. So you’ve got one side array looking out that way, one out that way, and there’s always going to be a bit of a gap, so that’s what those top hats do. They take account for that overlap of the two main side array radars

http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/me ... script.pdf

That was fascinating, it seems like
a highly capable platform and a leap
in capability over the E3


I understand this description had to stay
within non classified boundaries but
I’m curious about the total omission of
any details regarding the rear cabin

bikerthai wrote:

From the article:

However, Saab described its system as a “plug-and-play” with little risk, adding that much of the work on it would be carried out in the UK.

Well, the radar may be plug and play. But modifying the A330 is where the risk is. Believe me, even if that RADAR interface is mature, the various mod to the A330 to accommodate the power systems, communication gears and computing architecture will introduce significant risk. You are not talking about just the RADAR in itself, but the software package to integrate the total battle space is just as important.

bt

There is the little matter of the A330 fleet not being owned by the RAF as well. They are all owned by AirTanker and leased to the RAF.

This is quite a divergence from the original contracts that AirTanker was itself based on.

Max Q wrote:

I understand this description had to stay
within non classified boundaries but
I’m curious about the total omission of
any details regarding the rear cabin

That picture was just taken from one of the early powerpoint slide where definition were not complete. If you can get your hand on one of the E-7 cut-a-way poster, it would show you the full unclassified details.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/829717931318770061/

bt

Max Q wrote:

That was fascinating, it seems like
a highly capable platform and a leap
in capability over the E3


I understand this description had to stay
within non classified boundaries but
I’m curious about the total omission of
any details regarding the rear cabin

Page 13 has an image of the cabin and the article has descriptions of the various stations and the standard crew assignment. What else would you like to see?

Ozair wrote:

angad84 wrote:

Does the E-7 have full-360 coverage for its radar? Because I'm not sure the Erieye does.

Yes the E-7 does. From a presentation given by RAAF 2 SQN.

Okay, so the business end of the capability is the MESA Multi-Role Electronically Scanned Array. So it’s actually four radars. So, if you think of it, the two side arrays are the more obvious ones, so that’s the side array and there’s one on the other side as well, and then in the surfboard you’ve got two radars, so you’ve got the top hat forward and the top hat aft. The idea behind the top hat radar is to account for the interface between the two side arrays. So you’ve got one side array looking out that way, one out that way, and there’s always going to be a bit of a gap, so that’s what those top hats do. They take account for that overlap of the two main side array radars

http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/me ... script.pdf

Interesting. Do the little hat arrays have the range and output power of the main arrays though? or is it a slightly imperfect filling of the gap created by the main arrays?

Ozair wrote:

Max Q wrote:

That was fascinating, it seems like
a highly capable platform and a leap
in capability over the E3


I understand this description had to stay
within non classified boundaries but
I’m curious about the total omission of
any details regarding the rear cabin

Page 13 has an image of the cabin and the article has descriptions of the various stations and the standard crew assignment. What else would you like to see?

Thanks Oz but I only see a cabin diagram
on page six, don’t see a picture on
page thirteen


The description of the cabin on that
page just refers to the ‘unused space’
in the rear cabin, it looks like there are
electronic components back there and I’m sure some of this is classified


I also wonder if they want to minimize
time that crew members stay in this area
due to radiation from that huge antenna?

Max Q wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Max Q wrote:

That was fascinating, it seems like
a highly capable platform and a leap
in capability over the E3


I understand this description had to stay
within non classified boundaries but
I’m curious about the total omission of
any details regarding the rear cabin

Page 13 has an image of the cabin and the article has descriptions of the various stations and the standard crew assignment. What else would you like to see?

Thanks Oz but I only see a cabin diagram
on page six, don’t see a picture on
page thirteen


The description of the cabin on that
page just refers to the ‘unused space’
in the rear cabin, it looks like there are
electronic components back there and I’m sure some of this is classified

Odd, there are a couple of images of the cabin through the doc. Doesn't matter though as there are plenty on the net such as





and also a youtube video that walks through the cabin here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYAk3fFacCE

Max Q wrote:

I also wonder if they want to minimize
time that crew members stay in this area
due to radiation from that huge antenna?

I doubt that is an issue. The antenna is an active array and therefore has very low sidelobes meaning significantly more energy than previous generation radars goes in the direction it is supposed to and doesn't spill out the sides. The return energy is of course minuscule by comparison.

Yes, I have seen pictures of the main cabin it’s the area behind the wing I’m curious about

I also wonder if they want to minimize
time that crew members stay in this area
due to radiation from that huge antenna?

The answer is more of a regulatory/design concern. The aft cabin is considered as non-ocupied because FAA regulation is different for non occupied areas. Evacuation lighting, head bumps, hand holds, etc . . . would not be applicable thus would result in cost and weight saving. Access to the back through a door is for emergency fire fighting, and perhaps LRU swap during critical missions.

bt