STS Aviation Services will convert Boeing 737 airliners to E-7 Wedgetails for the Royal Air Force.
The conversion work – turning commercial 737 Next Generation airliners into a modern airborne battle management fleet – is expected to create more than 100 highly skilled jobs in the West Midlands: 90 with STS Aviation Services and 30 more with Boeing, say the firm in a press release.
The first two US-based aircraft have been stripped to their frames and those arrived in the UK this week.
The first fuselage sections have arrived at @STSAviationUK, ready to be converted into E-7 #Wedgetail for @RoyalAirForce.
Find out more: https://t.co/1C9FyKLUGS pic.twitter.com/ibDup4j1Os
— Boeing UK & Ireland (@BoeingUK) November 2, 2020
The work was previously announced for Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group, the firm however have withdrawn from the project. Marshall remains a valued supplier to Boeing and the two companies will continue their partnership on other programmes like the P-8.
The Birmingham-based employees of STS Aviation Services will join the 50 Boeing employees already working on the Wedgetail programme throughout the UK, including at Bristol, Yeovil and RAF Waddington.
The new work will be done at the hangar formerly operated by Monarch Aircraft Engineering at Birmingham Airport.
“The Royal Air Force (RAF) announced in March 2019 a contract for five Wedgetail aircraft, guaranteeing the UK the world’s most effective AEW&C aircraft at a fixed price. The Wedgetail’s advanced radar and 10 state-of-the-art mission crew consoles can track airborne and maritime targets simultaneously, allowing crews to direct offensive and defensive forces while maintaining continuous surveillance of an operational area.
The Wedgetail is a proven aircraft that is currently in service around the world, including by Royal Australian Air Force, which used the aircraft on operations in the battle against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. It has been continuously improved since its inception, and it is the most capable aircraft of its type.”
“We are thrilled to be partnering with STS Aviation Services in Birmingham on the Wedgetail,” said Anna Keeling, managing director of Boeing Defence UK.
First of one if Domo gets his way.
Is that true? Or a case of Boeing increasing the price by billions of dollars after Gavin Williamson signed for the aircraft?
No wonder DC has a bad rep with comments thrown about like that with no evidence whatsoever behind them.
Danielle he has a bad rep due to his actions and the issue that he will gut traditional defence in the coming review. He obviously has a lot on Johnson considering what he has got away with.
Hi Patrick. Lets go though that then.
His actions:
Led Brexit leave campaign. Public enemy no 1 for that alone.
Wants to reform the civil service from the dinosaur it is to a more efficient version. With the state of MoD procurement that is to be applauded!
He drove in a car, isolated from society, bar his immediate family, hundreds of miles, then made another shorter journey. Whether this is right or wrong, let’s get in the real world and consider the risks of that COMPARED to people massing on beaches, students partying like there is no tomorrow, millions ignoring social distancing ( we’ve all seen it, I see it daily) pubs packed, inside and out, and imbeciles literally dancing arm and arm in the streets of London on the eve of the 10 pm curfew.
When at NO TIME has HMG ever announced an end to social distancing.
DC was socially distanced. In his car!
I think some balance is needed as to what is the greater evil on that, and it’s not DCs actions. His actions provoked a witch hunt the likes we rarely see PRECICLEY due to his role as PE no 1 due to Brexit and the mass of the establishment out to get him and get the tories, no matter what.
Did anyone see the press packed outside his home hounding him and taking photos and filming as he left for work??! For not social distancing!! We’re they socially distancing? Masks? Not one. See the Hypocricy. Utter joke.
On to defence, again you’re repeating the same, he will gut defence. Says who? At the moment all that’s on record was that he does not approve of the QEC, his reasons easily demolished nor their costs, and wants procurement reformed.
If defence is cut, that is due to HMG doing what they have done since 1990 and before.
I’ve had this conversation several times on UKDJ and still no one provides me with any evidence or proof beyond the usual mud throwing that he wants x, y, z. I even looked at length on his blog to try and find this holy grail.
If one can prove these claims and then prove that DC alone after IDSR 2020 is solely responsible for cutting HM forces you will find me the first to admit I’m wrong on him regarding defence cuts only.
I’d also be calling for his head and virtual revolution how one unelected political advisor can actually control a nations military while having no military knowledge whatsoever apart from reading up on the ideas of a 1980s USAF general who advocated missile primacy.
Til then, it’s all mud throwing with no actual evidence I’m afraid.
Totally agree. the thoughts behind DC reforming stuff is to be applauded.
As to his possible mistake. When is the last time anyone made a mistake at work and decided to resign. Get over it. He has more to offer than a simple drive oop north. Which after all, was to an isolated property that enabled child care.
We just live a witch hunt in the country. ‘He who has not sinned may cast the first stone’, or something like that.
That gives me no confidence whatsoever Boris.
I also agree, the machinery of state is not fit for purpose and ‘long’ overdue for root and branch reform.
The civil service is one the last bastion of the ‘I don’t care, I get paid anyway’ attitude.
Defence procurement needs fundamental reform.
As for the E7 not being tendered, what was the alternative???
A euro Airbus ‘E7’ make-believe dream?
Reinventing the wheel at three times the cost.
The E7 hits the sweet spot:
It’s intial development money has been paid by others, it’s fully operational and de-risked.
It’s mature, but with interesting potential upgrade paths.
We can get involved with future updates, with costs shared between the other operators.
It’s just a shame the French didn’t decide to take part, we could have bought 10 between us and cooperated on support and training.
The French have instead spent a small fortune on keeping their E3’s relevent for a few more years…
There isn’t another realistic large aircraft option is there?
I wonder if we can flog secondhand E3D’s to the French for spares?
Problem is, there is precious little evidence that he has any of the knowledge or skills required to actually achieve this if it were not for the mythical (and overhyped) qualities of the man the idea of him being in control of this would be a mix of laughter and heads battering against walls Infact I suspect there is plenty of the latter going on from both the entrenched and the more enlightened factions. He was in the wilderness for years before the Brexit maverick act and has hardly covered himself in glory since even if his influence cannot be completely singled out amongst the general mayhem. So what actually is his skill base for determining what the Military and the MoD should bedding, planning and being prepared for over the next decade or so or is it just the immediate year its difficult to determine at the moment from whats coming out.
I seem to think Hitler and Stalin amongst others seemed to think they knew better than the actual experts and I really like them see Cummings taking any advice from others he deems inadequate… in other words everyone. We shall see he may indeed be an organisational genius or NOT of course time will tell but if the later I fear what state the forces will be in beyond those sitting behind computer screens looking at unfathomable charts if the latest COVID ones are anything to go by.
Absolutely.
My passionate defence was purely against the sort of sweeping statement of the original poster. We do not know.
Hitler and Stalin? Ooh that is another one I’d enjoy a good chat over. Up to 1942 as far as I’m concerned Hitler’s military strategy and instinct was correct, it was the generals who reached for the stars with their Moscow obsession and over reached the Wermacht.
Stalin was the opposite. He was useless to start and frozen with indecision and as the war progressed trusted his generals to make the right judgements.
Let us see. As I said I will be in the queue for DC’s head myself. I am happy to be shown to be wrong. That is the point. No one is showing anything concrete.
He was also, in fact, a chief architect of the stunning conservative victory. He is not an illusion, he has substance to back the bluster against waste and inadequacy. Is he “practically perfect in every way”? Of course not, only Mary Poppins is … but you dismiss him at your peril.
Agreed, well said mate. And if he shakes up MOD procurement, then all the better.?
He broke lockdown, just because others did does not excuse it. When he was caught out he showed zero remorse and was angered that the “plebs” caught him out.
His comments about the carriers showed his ignorance in defence matters. He’s as Cameron put it a “professional psychopath”. Yes procurement especially for the Army has been decades of disaster. But, he’ll shove his review through, which could gut defence for what will probably only be a modest cyber capability.
Too true, can’t believe a poster on here is defending him for breaking lockdown especially in the position he holds. That was the turning point for many people – us so called “plebs” – can’t blame people for thinking, ‘well if the government and their top advisor is ignoring the rules, so will I ‘ .
Morning Squirrel
I hold NO bitterness for DC for his actions compared to the CONTEMPT I have for others ignoring social distancing.
My Wife and I have been to not one restaurant, not one Pub, and taken no holiday this year. We even avoid people in the street!!!
So I don’t need to be shown what is right and wrong thank you.
I was actually countering Patrick on the usual mud throwing claims of what DC wants to do regards defence, without any evidence to back it up, and expanded on the reply he gave me that it is due to his actions.
But of course, conveniently one can turn the spotlight from the original subject and find something he did do wrong ( break lockdown ) and highlight it.
As for breaking lockdown, millions are doing it daily, in a fashion far worse that what DC did. That was my point.
Trying to shine a bit of common sense. But there is none when a witch hunt is needed.
Turning point? No, driving in a car isolated is nothing compared to the millions of younger adults and teenagers seen daily in the papers and on the TV ignoring everything and carrying on in a parallel world partying, socialising, and congregating in mass groups. All while the NHS fight for them. Pretty disgusting if you ask me. The position DC holds is irrelevant. Covid does not target by positions.
It is no different to the ridiculous situation when Derbyshire Police were using UAV to spy on LONE walkers in the Peak district and hauling them over the coals for it. That was an over reaction too.
The virus spreads by passing from person to person. What people was DC infecting driving up to a second home due to childcare needs? Whether it is 200 miles or 20 is irrelevant. He was isolated.
That was my point. I will happily defend things like that compared to what we see each day on TV from students who think they know better.
While I broadly agree with your approach to witch hunts and the level of breaking the guidance. I lost all sympathy for both DC himself and the Government’s defence of hm. He cocked up big style at the start of this pandemic and when caught tried to bullshit his way out and showed no remorse. My personal view is the guy is ‘on the spectrum’ but that’s just opinion, either way, those around him (and above him) would have realised that it was wrong and he needed to be ‘punished’, even if it was a suspension or the like.
You could argue that a lot of the bad behaviour that has followed could be based on the logic of “if its good enough for ‘them’ then its good enough for ‘us’ “. Personally I think it would have happened anyway as we live in such a decadent and self absorbed society but hey ho. For the record, I would put Andy Burnham’s fight with the government in the same category, I’ve no dispute with what he was saying and his right to put it out there publicly but mid-pandemic isn’t the time to challenge the government, this will all be dissected ‘post event’ and any perceived errors flagged up and hopefully the voters will vote accordingly.
A balanced view. All fair enough mate.
Evidence is in short supply. Defense News and The Telegraph ran stories in September, the former stated that Boeing had significantly increased the cost so the MOD was looking at reducing the order to just 3. The latter implies that it was partly cost but also because issues have arisen out of the contract being awarded with no competition, but that Boeing was looking at a solution which would mean an order of 4.
What truth there is in any of this isn’t clear as both articles merely quote “defence sources”.
Given the upcoming defence review my guess is that we are looking to cut numbers to save money, they leaked a reduction to 3 so that there is a sigh of relief when it is actually 4.
I agree Rob. It is all speculation as is. We chewed over it here when UKDJ also reported on it.
All sounds like chicken and egg to me did higher cost or lower order come first I wonder.
Here’s an old Boeing/RAAF video from 2008 that shows the manufacture of the RAAFs first E-7A:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XwHHEOCETNw
From the beginning up to about the 3.40 minute mark it shows the manufacture of the ‘green’ 737-700NG airframe (nothing too exciting).
From the 3.40 min mark onwards, the video shows the green airframe being stripped down and rebuilt for conversion to an E-7A.
Cheers,
PS, turn the sound down, the music is pretty horrible to listen to!
where do they get the music from in these type of videos could be worse I guess it could be a North Korean military propaganda movie.
Was it not the case the RAF’s E-3Ds need about £2-billion spent on them to bring them to rough parity with current US standard.
The no bid contract was because Boeing could deliver the aircraft quickly saving us spend that money on the temporary upgrades on the E-3D. Spending £1.51Bn we get 5 new aircraft.
We’re only getting 3 now….
Is that confirmed? I just thought that was speculation of what could possibly be cut in the delayed defense review. (ie tanks etc…)
Nope. Just speculation like there was on QEC, like Tanks, like LPD, like everything else.
Are they going to be using Green 737-700ERs or 800s?
All 14 E-7A aircraft currently in service (6 x Australia, 4 x South Korea and 4 x Turkey) all use the -700 airframe.
The UK airframes will also be -700, two used and three new build.
Changing the airframe from -700 to -800 would require a whole new bucket of money for R&D and recertification, no need to reinvent the wheel, it works well as it is.
So is it 5? 3? 1?
The e3 had 23 years of service, and we look to be adding modern tech to a previous generation of aircraft, I.e. UAV is the next revolution in military affairs. Would a mother ship swarm be more effective, or 24/7 autonomous operation that a UAV could achieve at a low cost?
What’s the benefit of having the tech on an airliner, when UAV is an option? You then avoid the risk like nimrod had with human losses, less wear to aircraft and impact to operators.
Is it that the best tech needs the massive air frame anyway? Is there anything like global hawk that could take a smaller radome, or would that be a complete redesign and more expensive? Or is Ericsson stuff worth a look?
It’s like the f35, why buy loads when you have on the near horizon UAV of equal capability, or enough to do most of the stuff we need. As for anything else you can deploy trident…
That’s an interesting question.
A manned AEW platform has a number of real threats today, ranging from long range air to air missiles. Ground based SAM systems like the S400 and S500 have dedicated variants of their missile to target AEW aircraft. This means to operate safely they have top fly further back, thus reducing the range they can look into enemy airspace.
But will UAVs be any better? The Western Nations haven’t really had an issues operating their reconnaissance or hunter-killer UAVs. When flying over Mali, Iraq etc there are no threats. However, if we compared the goings on in Ukraine, it does shed a light on what to expect. Both sides have significantly developed both their small tactical and larger reconnaissance UAVs. They have also been developing countermeasures to them. The ZSU-23 Shilka has shown to be incredibly effective against all types of drone at low level. However, its the Ukrainian separatists (Russia) who have shown remarkable advances in control signal jamming, especially when coordinated with GPS jamming.
If Russia was to go all in with a peer vs peer conflict you must expect that the satellites will be a priority strategic target for them. Recently Russia, China and India have all shown they are capable of damaging or destroying satellites. Just a few months ago a diplomatic protest was made by the US against China. China had moved one of their satellites near to a US reconnaissance one, why? Purely for eavesdropping perhaps, or more likely pre-positioning in case of a future conflict. It is easy to forget how much a modern military relies on satellites. Communications, reconnaissance and navigation are the legacy uses. However, being used as a datalink relay for UAV control and imagery, is becoming more and more prevalent. Therefore, if the satellite is jammed, damaged or destroyed we’d be snookered. I believe, because Russia has experience of operating and countering UAVs in a near peer conflict, they would have an advantage in peer vs peer conflict in this regard. This is one of the main pushes for developing unmanned high altitude aircraft, that can take over the role of a communications relay, such as the Airbus Zephyr. But also in the development of cheaper and smaller low earth orbit satellites, that can be launched from the UK for example.
I do foresee the E7 becoming a mother ship to UAVs, either as goalkeepers for its protection or as surveillance platforms. By being controlled by the mother ship, they would be less effected by jamming as they’d still be within line of sight for communications. The issue here would be the required size (fuel capacity) of the UAV needed to keep aloft with the E7 and the radar it carries. If we were talking about the size of Boeing’s Loyal Wingman, then its possible that it can be air to air refuelled. However, it would need a substantial boost to its electrical power generation. Plus, it would be too small for a decent long range radar.
The problem would be that to operate a long range radar you have to make a choice on the wavelength (frequency) you choose. The E7 Wedgetail’s MESA radar operates in the L band, which is 30 to 15 cm (1 to 2 GHz). Whilst Saab’s Erieye operates in the S band, which is 15 to 7.5 cm (2 to 4 GHz). Both radars are active electronically scanned arrays (AESA) which are made up of 200 plus transmitter-receiver modules (TRMs) per side of the “top hat/canoe”. The wavelength governs the size of the antenna/antenna aperture that can be used. This why with the longer wavelength, the MESA radar is so much bigger than the that on the Erieye. Due to atmospheric absorption, a longer wavelength radar will transmit further than a shorter one on the equivalent amount of output power. Therefore for a Loyal Wingman sized UAV you would need a much smaller wavelength radar that can fit in or on the airframe. The Searchwater radar used in Crowsnest is an X band radar that operates at a wavelength of 3.75 to 2.5 cm (8 to 12 GHz). This means the cross sectional area of the antenna array can be much smaller, but also means it wont transmit as far. If you put some serious power behind it you can make up the difference but will need substantial cooling, for example look at the Captor-E. However, it does have its upside which is target resolution and in synthetic aperture radar techniques for ground mapping.
For a largish UAV such as the Loyal Wingman, an X band radar is the best packaging option. It will require a number of UAVs to provide a decent coverage. As a comparison, Crowsnest has a range of about 150 to 200nm whereas the E7 would be a least double that. so if the E7 was acting as a mothership, it would need at least three to provide an equivalent footprint. Although they would be operating further away from the aircraft, so the actual coverage could be better.
Thanks for the very detailed reply.
I agree with your view on satellites, they seem to be a easily defeated yet critical component, that is ripe for evolution, which I guess is where the x37 and more rapidly deployable and smaller satellites are solving.
This evolution of capability is where I see alot of the spend not meeting the business criteria tests, or the goals of procurement. Resulting in number reduction but the value is the same, like how the standing army ratio was reduced after the first nuclear weapon as it more than equalled the conventional forces, or where improved countermeasures make survival more likely to balance the attrition risks.
Just thinking on the mothership scenario. There must be a link between transmit power and reciever sensitivity, where the signal distance surpasses the normal usuable range, but due to attenuation can only work at the 200nm you mentioned on the round trip. Would a mothership relatiinship work if the UAV actually were receivers? Whereby the same GPS technology and timing could be used to form a picture of the reflected signal at much greater distances, potentially with less resolution?
As you could start to deploy swarms on a pattern where it was more likely to defeat stealth or a targets countermeasures, as often the RCS is bias towards head on to the source and the swarm is a much more complex and dynamic approach to defeat.
What you are describing is called bi-static radar. This was the first form of radar and was used in the Chain Home system during WW2.
The main advantage with the mothership if it’s based on an airliner like the 737, is that the antenna can be made bigger. Signal sensitivity is directly proportional to the cross sectional area of the antenna, i.e. the bigger the area the more chances a minute signal can be detected. The problem would be that the UAV transmitter would be some distance in front of the receiver aircraft. Therefore, the returned signal will be even smaller when received by the mothership, depending on the separation distance. If the mothership did not have a transmit function, more resources could be put into the receiver. But there will be a limit on how sensitive you can make the receiver due to induced noise created by the system itself and how the signal is then filtered and processed. Timing would be crucial which is where the GPS timing signal comes in or is synchronised with a master timing signal from the mothership.
The main advantage bi-static radar has over a normal combined one, is target triangulation. A modern stealth aircraft employs two passive methods of defeating radar. One is for the aircraft’s skin to absorb some of the signal, the other is to reflect the signal away from the transmitter. If you are using multiple transmitters separated from each other over a distance, there’s a very good chance that some of the redirected signal off the aircraft may be directed at the receiver. This is similar to how passive radar works, in that you have multiple transmitters, such as mobile phone masts, Then you use a receiver/computer to determine what is different to the normal background reception picture. Part of how they allegedly tracked the F35 in Germany was when the system detects basically a moving hole in the normal background picture. The aircraft was fitted with Luneberg reflector lenses though, so it was detectable by normal radar anyway! They had a spotter at the airfield to tell them when the aircraft was lifting and then matched the picture to the lift off time.
So in essence the mothership combo with AEW UAVs would work. But as I mentioned the UAVs would have to use a higher frequency radar (X band) due to antenna size packaging. All stealth aircraft are designed to counter higher frequency radar, as these are primarily used for tracking radars. There is a major benefit of using a lower frequency radar, specifically 2GHz and below. This is due to the Rayleigh Scattering effect. There are a number of reasons for it, but one of them is due to resonance when an aircraft has edge that is less than a 1/4 wavelength of the transmitted signal. You also get it from tubular objects such as missiles hanging off pylons. The effect is enough to generate a decent return signal. You do get the same effect from higher frequencies, but the signal strength won’t be as high due to atmospheric absorption, therefore the separation distance is more crucial. Higher frequency radars do have a better target resolution though due to better angular discrimination. They can also for very high frequencies of above 16GHz, start detecting inaccuracies with a stealth coating, such as detecting uncovered rivet heads etc. But also the ends of flying controls, that emerge above or below the wing during maneuvering.
The more I think about, the more I believe the combination of a mothership with a number of (expendable) UAVs will be the answer to area deniable systems, such as the S400/500 to provide a survivable AEW system. If the UAVs are sized appropriately and only fitted with a transmitter that is set for maximum gain. The mothership would control the types of waveform the UAVs transmit. It would preferable be an AESA system so it has a low probability of detection plus a very high sweep rate. The mothership would have the largest feasible antenna for better reception sensitivity. Perhaps mounted in the envelope of a dirigible airship. How effective it will be in detecting an object designed to countermeasure X band radars for example would be an interesting debate.
Very interesting analysis.
So essentially a massive ear hanging inside a stand-off blimp? Does altitude benefit the ability to pick up the signal?
Would the UAV need a decent power system to achieve this transmitter role, and does this add cost over having those UAV being a swarm of ears instead, as surely it would limit their loiter?
I was thinking along the lines of detecting that scenario of back scatter by better placement of the ears, through the UAV providing that function, as you see with radio telescopes like ALMA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Large_Millimeter_Array where the flexibility allows you to zoom by changing the configuration to suit the target.
Then a transmitter mothership could potentially carry a wider range of bands to be more flexible in theatre. With UAV having modular receivers that could be swapped, or multi band packages, unsure of course the practicality of that.