Testing recently started on the MESA sensor destined for the UK’s 1st E-7.

According to the manufacturers here, the MESA radar electronically scans the skies around the Boeing 737-based aircraft, “providing the warfighter with an unrestricted 360-degree view. The powerful MESA sensor provides mission crews with the tools needed to track airborne and maritime targets while maintaining continuous surveillance of the operational area”.

They add:

“The MESA radar for the AEW&C system provides critical domain awareness for warfighters and allows them to see farther and make accelerated and informed decisions to meet mission objectives.”

Last year I reported that the first two of three E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft for the Royal Air Force were starting to take shape.

Air Marshal Andrew Turner of the Royal Air Force tweeted the following:

STS Aviation is converting three Boeing 737 airliners into E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft at its facility at Birmingham Airport.

An E-7 Wedgetail of the Royal Australian Air Force. Photo by Bidgee [CC BY-SA 3.0], from Wikimedia Commons.

Wedgetail is an airborne early warning and control system, commonly known as AWACs or AEW&C. They are designed to track multiple targets at sea or in the air over a considerable area for long periods of time. This aircraft is replacing the E-3D Sentry, pictured below.

FILE PHOTO: E-3D Sentry

The plan, previously, was five aircraft but the recent ‘Defence Command Paper’ reduced the order from five to three. The Defence Command Paper released, titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’, stated:

“We will retire the E 3D Sentry in 2021, as part of the transition to the more modern and more capable fleet of three E 7A Wedgetail in 2023. The E 7A will transform our UK Airborne Early Warning and Control capability and the UK’s contribution to NATO. The nine P 8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft will help to secure our seas.”

The first of the E-7 Wedgetails purchased by the UK to replace the E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning And Control aircraft will arrive in 2023.

It is also understood that the U.S. Air Force is expected to purchase the E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft at some point next year. You can read more about that by clicking here or clicking below.

U.S. Air Force to buy E-7 Wedgetail early warning aircraft

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

72 COMMENTS

  1. I do wonder if the British iteration will be an improved version (taking in all advancements since the orginal came on line (Aus) in 2012

    • The RAAF E-7A fleet has undergone regular upgrades.

      For example Project AIR 5077 Phase 5A is valued at A$582.5m and due for completion mid this year:

      https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/marise-payne/media-releases/minister-defence-minister-defence-industry-joint-media-release

      Further upgrades are in the pipeline with the Government here in Oz budgeting multi-billion dollar allocations for those additional capability upgrades too.

      Put simply, the Wedgetail of today is a very different bird to when it originally entered service, and it will continue to evolve.

      One would assume you Poms would follow the current RAAF configuration.

      Cheers,

      • John, thanks for that, the only thing I worry about with the British MOD is it’s penchant for saving money by not upgrading stuff resulting in expensive kit becoming unfit for purpose.

        • No problem mate,

          Yes well, if they don’t lock in an upgrade path for the E-7A during their RAF service life they will find themselves in the same boat again (eg, an orphan E-3 fleet out of step with the other E-3 users).

          You might find the attached PDF interesting, it’s is a plan for new and upgraded RAAF capabilities from 2020 onwards:

          https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/Factsheet_Air.pdf

          You’ll notice that the RAAF Wedgetail fleet has a ‘capability upgrades’ budget allocation of between A$2.3b-A$3.5b, which spans from 2022 to the late 2020s.

          You’ll also notice the Government here in Oz has also set out a future budget allocation of between A$14b-A$21b for the eventual replacement, and expansion, of the RAAF E-7A fleet.

          Cheers,

          • RAF/MOD is looking more at the USAF Standard E-7s and going forward, the current planned 3, could be sold off quite quickly once the USAF spec is approved.

          • And you don’t think the USAF version won’t be closely based on the 10+ years of RAAF E-7A operational service and experience?

            We are yet to see what the USAF version will look like, the more they change from the current RAAF configuration, the longer the delay in entering service.

    • Its the same as the current RAAF, with updated software and hardware, the big step will be the development now for the USAF.

    • Certainly different crew at the operator consoles. Completely different mission set. I imagine the pilots will also need separate training.

    • Could you ever get the Wedgetail sensor on the same base Boeing as a p8 rather than having two base types in the RAF. Seems a bit odd we don’t just standardise one 1 platform unless there are major operating cost differences between the two (I.e. operating a wedge tail from 737 base model is significantly cheaper. )

      Any thoughts or wise musings?

      • the cost of doing the engineering/testing/approval work for just a couple of airframes would be prohibitive. It might be viable if the USAF pushed Boeing for it though for their expected much larger order/needs – but the USAF don’t operate P8s so don’t have the need for commonality .

      • They are quite different platforms. Completely different operator consoles internally, plus the P8 has a bomb bay and sunobouy dispensers that would be dead weight on an E7.

    • Same civilian type rating yes. BUT in a military sense P8 and E7, are structurally and aerodynamically different aircraft and entirely different operational flight envelopes. So lots of added training.

      DRS
      As ETH points out E7 would be carrying a wing, weapons and buoy tubes it won’t need, whereas P8 would be flying around without the wings needed for the added fatigue stresses of operating in the low altitude environment and no way of of deploying weapons as the weapons bay is part of the wing modifications too.

      Theoretically they could make a joint P8/E7 training aircraft utilising synthetic technology in the back for the operators, with deployable air brakes and vortex strakes to simulate aerodynamic changes. There arse some cheap airframes coming on the market Still probably not worth the financial outlay though.

  3. The Royal Navy is hoping to move from.a helicopter based Crowsnest to an unmanned AEW,/C system under Project Vixen by the mid 2030s
    If a sensor can be placed on unmanned platforms and networked to QE or a Type 45 , then a similar drone fleet might actually be a way of mitigating what seems to be insufficient numbers of Wedgetail.
    Whether large manned AEW airline based systems will be viable with the next generation of extended range AAMs coming online in the next decade is debatable.
    If wedgetail could place several networked unmanned systems 250km upthreat , that would keep the crews out of harms way.

    • David, Afraid you are slightly confused. The P8A Poseidon is a Sea Surveilance platform. The E7A Wedgtail (replacing E3D Sentry), is a Land/Battlefield overwatch and communications management platform. The respective radars are optimised for their respective roles.
      I believe the Crowsnest replacement date is around 2030. I would imagine that we will have a clearer view of the available platforms in 2/3 years time when various decisions are made in the US and in regard to Vixen.

      • Merlin with Crowsnest radar system provides air, land and maritime tracking.
        E-7A in Australian use with the MESA provides target tracking in the air maritime and land environments ( RAN also hinted that when deployed over Syria it could provide a moving target indication role of insurgent supply routes as well as some inbuilt ELINT capability within yhe sensor , the sensor actually shared some DNA with the original programme that led to sentinel)
        E-3 customers , at least those that funded upgrades, had limited surveillance roles over water.
        Yes ,P8 is a different mission, primary ASW and maritime surveillance ( although the US AIS pod has been used to ground map swathes of Chine around their Hainan naval facilites- allegedly)

  4. It still seems odd every time I read a purchase of ‘ three ‘ …I know they are way more potent, but as a former aircraft tech, we had about 20ish (memory might be generous) Nimrods at RAF Kinloss when I joined in 2001, about 7 max were operational at any one time (excluding training and 1st line maintenance). I know these are new and spanking, but one airborne, one in reserve, one in maintenance…in optimal conditions. Time will tell.

    • Yes it will. The UK will have a world leading capability if and when an airframe is actually available…….

    • Taffybadger, I agree, one airborne, one ready and one in maintenance and that is only from the tec side (sensor suite) of things which I understand. Then comes the engine, airframe maintenance which for me is a bit gobbilygook, if I can’t walk there or swim there then hell no. It also appears to this ground hugger that as good as the E-7 might be we do not have the numbers to operate anywhere in the world as they would be tied to a UK airbase. What needs to be remembered is time to get to where you need to be, time on station, time for a second E-7 to take over and time to return. No matter how I work it it seems that we need five E-7s as a minimum. Three operational, one training and one in the repair shop. With the commitments of the UK Government, British airspace, overseas territories as well as NATO tasking etc then seven would be ideal.

      Due to finacial constrains I do wonder if we should have a mix of three E-7s and 9-12 SAAB GlobalEye’s. The reason for 9-12 is that we could then base some out of NE Scotland, Cyprus, Falklands, Oman etc and leave the E-7s to do the main task of fighter control. God even the UAE will have 5 GlobalEye’s the RAAF have six E-7s. Is the UAE Air Force or the RAAF more combat involved than the RAF? The GlobalEye can also detect surface vessels and balistic missiles so they could aid in the balistic missile defence system and assist the P-8s.

      There is however an out there thought from my tecy head, airships. What would happen if you took an airship say from Airlander couple a Crowsnest to it, a AEW platfrom that could stay five days on station rather than hours. I only mentioned Crowsnest as that would be quite simple but there could be better solutions. As far as I understand Airlander 10 can carry a payload of ten tons so an one ton Erieye- ER that is used in the GlobalEye should not be a problem. This idea might only give the same area covarge as a Merlin with Crowsnest but for days rather than three to four hours. My understanding is that by 2030 Merlins with Crowsnest will be gone from the fleet, if that is correct then there will be ten sets of the radar system available looking for a platform to fly from so why not put them on a big airship with three crews and use them in UK airspace. The dammend radars will only be 10 years old, with updates they could give a further 10-15 years of service. I am not 100% sure but I would think that the Crowsnest has a range of about 400 miles or 800 miles diameter at 16,000 ft. So imagine two Airlander 10s out of the Shetlands, a further two from Glasgow, then two out of Yeovilton. These airships could also carry sonar bouys to assist the P8s.

      • This was tried in the UK in the1980s by Airship Industries. They hooked up with Westinghouse and their AWACS radar to have such loitering mid-Atlantic for long-endurances (1-week+). This was as part of a requirement for a hush-hush huge US Navy contract. Trouble is it needed a big airship (lots of development £££s). I don’t think anybody ever solved the show-stopper problems of ground handling and what to do in strong winds/storms? Good luck to Airlander though.

        • I always wondered why Airlander used diesel engines rather than cover the top surface with solar panels and use electric motors? At 20,000ft it would be above most of the heavy cloud.

          • Dunno. For military use the original Airship Industries (Skyships) had a bad IR signature from the envelope due to solar superheat effect. I wonder if solar panels/film would help reduce that problem if ever used for Airlander?

          • At the time the weight penalty would have been huge. Even now an issue with thin film.

            I’m not sure there is enough area to harvest enough power for peak pulse output in a high power radar. Otherwise you end up with heavy batteries……you need those at night…..so you have a daytime only early warning radar system….

          • That would need flexible solar panels, or an interesting mounting system.

            It would also need a solution for nighttime and winter, which would then need some kind of storage system for over night, and in practice could require a nearly complete duplicate systems to cover the gaps.

            I just don’t think we are their yet technologically.

      • I believe I have proposed this before. However, there is the issue of buoyancy weight versus max take-off weight. If we took the current Airlander 10 hybrid air vehicle, covered it in solar panels. It still wouldn’t generate enough electricity to power the propulsion, as well as the radar system, radios, hotel system etc. You will still need a/or a set of high powered diesel generator/s to produce the bulk of the power. The Airlander 10 can carry a 10,000kg payload for 5 days (or 4000 NM) at an altitude of 20,000ft.

        The airship could easily operate the mechanically scanned Searchwater radar plus the Crowsnest battle management system. Whilst hosting a small crew. Its radar performance will be no better than when it’s fitted to a Merlin. The detection range issue is that the Searchwater radar is an X-band radar and is effected by atmospheric attenuation, more than a radar operating at a lower S-band frequency for example. Therefore, its maximum detection range will be marginally better, when operating at 20,000ft compared to the Merlin’s 15,000ft

        The Saab Erieye radar AESA array weighs 900kg and is 9m long. it operates in the lower S-band. When operating from the same 20,000ft, its maximum detection range against a fighter sized target is 450km (279 miles). This radar is very good, but it still has its limitations, especially when trying to detect very small targets against choppy seas. This is where X-band really shines.

        Airlander are looking to build the larger Airlander 50. Which is some 4 to 5 bigger than the current version. More significantly, is with the increased dimensions, the airship will have better buoyancy, so it can lift more, i.e. 50,000kg for 2,200km, but at a lower altitude! However, if you dropped the max payload to 40,000kg you will let the airship cruise at 20,000ft, as well as increase its range and duration. With 40,000kg you have more capacity for carrying more powerful diesel generators for more electrical power. Which means you could carry more radars and enough crew for 24/7 operations.

        With the additional capacity you could carry both S-band and X-band radars. This will give you long range detection along with shorter range higher resolution detection, e.g. for detecting slow moving small UAVs. It also means that the airship could carry a four panel radar configuration, to give it a true 360 horizontal view. Or you could put two Erieye radars, in a double decker configuration, to generate a greater side looking detection range and better receiver sensitivity. (One of the benefits of an AESA radar).

        There are a lot of benefits of using a Airlander type hybrid airship as an AEW platform. The question is whether the UK’s MOD has the balls to make the leap?

    • The main Guide i would look at is E-7s are quoted as being a far superior to the E-3s.
      USAF is planning on replacing 1 in 3 of its E3s fleet.

  5. seeing those guys in the cherry picker next to the radar really gives you a sense of scale of just got big that thing is. Wouldn’t want to be next to that when it’s switched on.

  6. Do AEW assets fit seemlessly into a distributed kill chain, or are threats just presented on a screen for command and control to say: there’s a bad guy over there? Or something in the middle?

    What’s the difference in capability between the air detection capabilities of a multi-domain radar system like the Osprey 30 and dedicated AEW radar? Is it purely range and the ability to pick out targets at a distance, or is there something specific that AEW radars do that multimode radars don’t/can’t?

    Ignoring Command and Control, could you fit a MCA Beechcraft with the right datalinks and use its Osprey radar for AEW, albeit with limited range and discrimination, or would there be some mode/function of the AEW radar that is completely missing?

    • Weight, range, altitude, endurance, radar power, cooling…….

      Two totally different aircraft systems for different applications…..

    • You could use the Coastguard’s King Airs fitted with the Osprey 30 radar as a complimentary AEW platform. Though, I don’t believe they have the full air to air software patch. It would be an easy fix if needed.

      As far as I can tell, the Osprey is directly replacing the Sea Spray radar within the under fuselage radome on the King Air. They are keeping it mechanically rotated, but using a single panel Osprey 30 array instead of the traditional pulse doppler Sea Spray. Which means it will still have a 360 degree horizontal view/scan. But have all the benefits AESA brings (forwards/backwards scanning, multi-beam transmission/receiving etc)

      The under-fuselage location will mean that it will have a obscured view looking up. However, looking down and to the horizon will be really good. It is an X-band radar, so its detectable range will be relatively limited to around 200 miles, depending on the radar cross sectional size of the target. It will also have a limited signal processing capability, especially when compared to the E7’s.

      This is one of the main strengths and perhaps weaknesses of the E7’s MESA radar operating in the L-band, that has a relatively long wavelength of 30 to 15 cm. This means it can generate a long range transmission for relatively low effective radiated power. However, when detecting targets against sea clutter it could struggle. The Wedgetail gets round this problem by using very expensive signal processing. But then being based on the B737, there is plenty of space for the blade signal processing racks. It’s the E7’s vastly superior signal processing that makes the significant difference.

      • Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. I’ve seen historic examples of L, S and X band AEW radars, so it’s nice to get an explanation of the trade off of lowering frequency apart from the antenna size.

        I’m curious where lower power radars can take us, given the vulnerability of shorter range AEW like Crowsnest.

        We know that the MoD expect to replace Crowsnest with a drone, and the Fire Scout C has an Osprey 30 radar and costs about £10m including sensors and datalinks. So I wondered: if you stuck in IFF and maybe some ESM, might you have a cheap and cheerful AEW backup unit for a fraction of the price that can be flown from B2 Rivers on up? Might it help sort out the practicality of separation of C2 from airborne sensors before we really need it for the CSG?

        • You have to remember that Crowsnest was built on the foundations of the Sea King’s ASAC. The ASAC’s primary mission was to detect sea skimming missiles. Hence why it was put on the side of the aircraft and then deployed below it. This gave it an excellent view downwards and to the horizon. It could do look-up searches but only to the port quadrants due to the airframe blocking the field of view. The Navy I believe, felt that its ship based long range radars could do the high level search adequately enough.

          Sea Skimming missiles are still a very dangerous threat. In my opinion more so, than supersonic/hypersonic high diving missiles. This is because with the high flyers the ship has more time to prepare countermeasures, whilst a sea skimmer popping over the horizon does not. Especially, as it will be presenting its frontal nose profile to the ship’s radar, which will have the lowest radar cross section, so could be lost in the sea’s background clutter.

          For a ship such as a destroyer or frigate, providing organic AEW or over the horizon targeting comes with a number of limitations. Firstly the aircraft carrying the radar must be VTOL. Until fluidic propulsion gets more mainstream, we are left with a rotor based lift system, i.e. a helicopter or tiltrotor. The helicopter can lift more from the hover, whilst the tilt-rotor offers better altitude, range and duration. This then limits what size the aircraft is and thereby limits the antenna size. The antenna size availability will then determine the operating frequency.

          For something that needs to land on the relatively small deck of a destroyer/frigate and has to take-off and land vertically. The X-band radar is probably the best to use. The wavelength being 3.75 to 2cm, means the matched antenna length can be really small, when using 1/4 wave di-poles/horns (0.94 to 0.12cm long). Thereby even with 1/2 wave spacing between each transmitter-receiver module (TRM) within an AESA array, it can be packaged quite small. Much like the Osprey 30’s, with an antenna array height of 200mm, a width of 510mm and a depth of 140mm. So it could be packing 400 to 500 TRMs, which is a relatively small TRM count, yet can still detect a target over 200NM away.

          The USN’s Firescout MQ-8C, which is based on the Bell 407 helicopter, has been fitted with a pair of Osprey 30 arrays in the nose. These are fixed and not mounted on a gimbal. They will give 180 to 240 degrees field of view in the horizontal, depending on how they have been installed. As far as I can tell the processing is done on the aircraft and the results are data-linked to the ship. This makes sense as the system is probably using Link-16, which has a by today’s standards a very low data bandwidth. Raw data will take up a huge amount of bandwidth, something even a quad stacked Link-16 could not hope to cope with. The aircraft will be able to provide both maritime and air surveillance simultaneously. But it will have a blind spot behind it.

          It might have been better, to mount a pair of antenna arrays back to back underneath the aircraft, on a rotating gimbal. Thereby providing a 360 degree field of view.

          For something like the Queen Elizabeth class carrier, there are more options. The VTOL aircraft can be bigger or using CATOBAR, a fixed wing aircraft can be used to carry the radar. CATOBAR gives a significant advantage over VTOL, specifically payload and duration. As you have separated lift and thrust from rotor blades to wings and propellers/jets which is more efficient, plus added a take-off booster through the catapult. The aircraft can be bigger, which means it can hold more fuel. It also means the aircraft has more surface area to mount a larger antenna, operating at a longer wavelength (lower frequency).

          There are a number of off-the-shelf radars that could meet the requirements. The one that immediately comes to mind is Saab’s Erieye. This is an AESA radar operating in the S-band, whose antenna array weighs 900kg and is some 9m long. The fixed wing aircraft needed to carry it will need to be quite large. My choice would be the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray UAV. Which is currently undergoing trials as a unmanned tanker aboard a USN carrier. Could be useful for our F35Bs as well! But its size (15m long) means it could carry an Erieye antenna. Plus its max take-off weight and landing weights match the MoD’s recent RFI for the CATOBAR system.

          This means that even when operating at 20,000ft, the S-band radar can see targets over 300 NM away “close” to sea level. Thereby giving the carrier force more time to prepare countermeasures, to a supersonic missile attack for instance. The larger aircraft could be unmanned. But, to compensate for the lower target resolution and issues it has with detecting targets against the sea’s background clutter, it will need a lot of expensive signal processing. This could be done back on ship, but then you will need something like the F35’s multifunction advanced data-link (MADL), to be able to cope with the very high bandwidth requirement. Which again is doable.

          So there you have it. You could have something that is about the size of Wildcat, that is unmanned and can provide a pretty good organic AEW coverage and over the horizon targeting for a destroyer/frigate. Whilst using Leonardo’s excellent Osprey 30, which also has ESM and IFF capabilities. Which I would mount either on a rotating gimbal or have 3 to 4 panels mounted around the aircraft to give an all round view. Or you could also have a large unmanned aircraft the size of the Stingray UAV mounting something like the Erieye radar (again with built in ESM and IFF capabilities), that would give you significantly better capabilities than the current Crowsnest, which would then be roughly comparable (lower max detection range but better target resolution) to the E2D Hawkeye.

          You hinted about lower power radars. Maximum range can in part, be determined upon the type of transmission waveform you are using. For example with very high pulse repetition frequency (PRF) and pulse compression techniques you need a lot of effective radiated power (ERP) from the transmitter. Conversely when using much lower PRF or continuous wave the ERP can be much lower. But there is also an intriguing development that kind of went quiet 20 years ago. Which is ultra wideband (UWB) radar. The F22’s AN/APG-77 has been speculated to use UWB techniques. This is where a transmitter will spread the base frequency, so rather than operating at say 12.5GHz, it operates from 12 to 13 GHz. This was done to confuse radar warning receivers, that are tuned to recognise specific base frequencies. However, it can also use less output power as the pulses are more spread out so it doesn’t suffer from attenuation as much (there is a lot more to it than that, but would need a whole chapter to describe). The F35’s AN/APG-81 is said to build on the foundations of the F22’s radar. So it’s likely it also uses UWB techniques as well. Unfortunately, having an oscillator within an AESA’s TRM that can generate a wide spread of base frequencies simultaneously, without generating a lot of self-induced noise is very difficult (read expensive), so only very top end systems likely use it.

          • Cheers. That post will require a couple of rereadings, especially the idea of UWB.

            Original reports on the unit cost of the Stingray made it seem very expensive, but I think they lumped in the cost of converting a carrier to take them. QE carriers would require cats and traps as well as the automation system. It would be a “considered purchase”. I don’t think we’ll see them unless Vixen trials fail.

            I’d read in a couple of places that the MQ-8C has three antennas and 360 coverage so it’s a bit of a let down to discover it doesn’t. I wonder why they didn’t mount a back antenna.

      • A deal was signed for 1.98 Billion US Dollars for 5 Aircraft, that was cut to 3 as part of Defence review (we couldn’t afford it….) However, now the US is actively seeking to buy the E7, the UK could take advantage of reduced unit costs to purchase the 2 additional aircraft, or perhaps 3?

        • Again it was cut because Boeing pushed the price up, no doubt trying to offset in a very small way the 737 Max debacle and the collapse of commercial a nation due to Covid

          • Hayfever? Still stripped and supplied by Boeing. I believe the 4th nd 5th would have been new builds.

          • Maybe somewhere, someone knows more than You, and there was a valid reason for cutting the 4th and 5th. that would be obsolete on there delivery, due to the USAF development program.

          • I concur. We could well still get the other 2 aircraft in the back of the USAF interim order of E7

          • I did not say that there wasn’t a valid reason for cutting numbers.
            Your “Obsolete” argument is facile. The US is likely to purchase the system and there is a route for continual upgrade available (See RAAF plans).

            It is possible that the number was cut because the RAF is expecting to move to an unmanned platform in the near future. However it remains most likely that the reason was a simple desire to save money.

        • There is a White Paper covering the final 2 aircraft, and their delivery, and it revolves around there expected delivery and the upgrade of the E7s for USAF. 2025 and that the final 2 would be outdated.

          • It is interesting – there is clearly a new ‘something’ in the works for the USAF E7’s.

            In that regard it is interesting that we bought three at all?

          • There was no guarantee that USAF were going to buy any at all till announcement was made this year. They won’t have an operational aircraft in service till 2027. Give them a year to work out any bugs. If the RAF had waited, they would not have had an operational E7A till 2030 (conversion takes around 2 years). The E3’s are gone already.

            I am not too sure that the USAF E7A will in fact be all that different to the RAAF version. The RAAF version works on a continuous upgrade regime – something that confused Boeing for a year or two. That there will be some changes is par for the course. As George has stated, there is UK specific kit for the RAF version. There will be for the USAF as well, including NORAD specific comms. They will also want USAF common defensive aids etc. There is also space for 2 more consoles, should they add anything significant (which is certainly possible). But big changes from the base RAAF version would add years of testing.

          • Reading between the lines there is extra tech going into the USAF E7.

            USAF are not exactly new to doing things their way and discarding good proven solutions on the back of NIH?

            Hence, the comments about the final 2, of the original 5, UK E7’s being out of date by ISD never mind OSD.

            In the sensor / EW areas things are accelerating as new technologies are being pushed to the fore. More of what used to be done backend is now done on the sensor surface. I suspect some of the Captor technology is in the UK E7s.

          • While I am sure there will be extra tech, Australia is not standing still. S.Korea & Turkey also have some excellent engineers as well. UK is now adding to the mix. The RAAF E7A of 2012 is not the same as the E7A of 2022. The RAAF E7A of 2022 will not be the same as the E7A of 2027. As to RAF E7A’s quickly becoming obsolete, it will in a big part depend on them joining & contributing to the Australian continuous upgrade program (Australia initiated & paid for the E7 & treats the E7 as ‘their’ program). This is not a we will do some upgrades every 5 years type of program & is not necessarily led by Boeing (which confused Boeing for a while). This is continuous, not block style upgrades. Does the USAF join the program?

            This different way of doing things has seen Boeing sign up with RAAF on what is now called the Ghost Bat. DSTO, I am sure, also have their fingers in there (likely on the E7 as well). Boeing have admitted that the upgrade program on the E7 confused them. They thought they were being bypassed. But once they got it, they realised what could be achieved.

            John N is likely better informed as to details.

  8. As I recall, delivery to the RAF (presumably fully safety certified by the MAA ) of the the first E7 has been promised (for end?) 2023 18 months to go looks like a tight programme if the first radar is just starting factory testing.

    Meanwhile, I assume the E3Ds with their RAF trained crews are soon to depart for Chile.

    • The radar might be in testing, but it’s not exactly unknown or new territory.

      There are currently 14 E-7A in operational service with Australia (6), South Korea (4) and Turkey (4).

    • Tried and trusted system, Airframe is waiting the tested radar so program has suffered some delays due to pandemic.

      Chilean Crews have been and are being trained in the UK by the RAF, and due to take there 2 Aircraft back soon.

      UK currently has No need in its current theatres due to Nato assets

      • If we had a E7 flying over Poland/Romania it would allow us to detect airborne targets a lot further into Ukraine that we could with the Sentry.

  9. I be.lieve that these NEW aircraft are built on pre used airframes with new outer skins, how many cycles have already flown taking tourists to the med, why is the price not reflected??

    • You’d have to reasonably assume the used B737-700 airframes will be refurbished as close to ‘new’ as is possible.

      Regardless, the basic airframe won’t be the major cost of an E-7A, it’s all the other costs, all the new hardware and tech, plus the conversion process too.

    • I believe the reason the 1st 2 are used airframes is to meet the RAF’s timescale , Boeing simply couldn’t get production started quick enough so offered used airframes, hardly an issue though RAF flying hours will be a fraction of commercial airlines.

      • Also I presume take off and landings will be significantly less than a short haul civilian airliner as mission endurance will be much longer.

  10. OK We know 3 is the basic requirement, USAF is looking @ replacement of the E-3s to E-7s at 3 to 1.
    there is now a active Modification and upgrade to USAF suitability with 1st test aircraft delivered 2023 and 2nd 2024 for approval.

    Imagine if during this development a huge step was made due to a large budget from a major customer,
    which would mean your 2 Brand New Aircraft were obsolete.

    and if you tacked onto that USAF order you got another 5 aircraft rather than 2.

    Not all MOD procurements are a shite-show, just due to various restrictions the real reason cannot be announced.

  11. Maybe because of this:

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-looking-at-fixed-wing-carrier-based-drone-for-aew/

    RAF can use the UAV to supplement the three on order. If they keep 4th and 5th, aircraft, it wouldn’t be cost effective to upgrade them as well. So keep the 3 that’s been ordered, when the AEW UAV comes into service, you can upgrade the three you have. That would probably give RAF & RN, enough aircraft to keep an eye in the sky.

    or it’s just another cluster f*ck procurement with MoD.

  12. Why is it taking so long for the uk to get their equipment as it looks every other county takes half the time to get theirs and more of it we should have at least 5 w edgetails and why retire the e3sentry before getting theve7 makes no Sence how the head of our security runs the armed forces we need new goverment as this one is killing our country and why do we ever store planes tanksvetc that we don’t use just store them in hangers as the tornados harriers would be handy to make the numbers when we retire some typhoons don’t sell them put them in hangers and it a mistake having challenger 3 we should keep the 225 challanger2 and buy about 50 of one of the German France next gen tank that way we have the proven challenger 2 and a modern tank as upgrading challenger is a waste of money as by the time we get it it would be not that next gen and cutting the numbers in half is our security chief British as he depends too much on america and nato to bail us out what happens if we went to war with a nato country we wouldn’t stand a chance as we don’t even make our own missels what happens the

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here