The U.S. has joined the United Kingdom and other nations in selecting the E-7A airborne early warning aircraft.
On February 28th, The Department of the Air Force (DAF) awarded a $1.2 billion contract to Boeing for the development of the E-7A system.
The E-7A was selected by the DAF to replace the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System, and will provide advanced Airborne Moving Target Indication and Battle Management, Command and Control capabilities. The DAF established an E-7A Program Management Office in fiscal year 2022 and chose the E-7A to replace the E-3 AWACS.
The first two E-7As will be acquired using the “rapid prototyping acquisition pathway”.
“The E-7A will be the department’s principal airborne sensor for detecting, identifying, tracking, and reporting all airborne activity to Joint Force commanders,” said Andrew Hunter, assistant secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, in this press release.
“This contract award is a critical step in ensuring that the department continues delivering battlespace awareness and management capabilities to U.S. warfighters, allies and partners for the next several decades. The E-7A will enable greater airborne battlespace awareness through its precise, real-time air picture and will be able to control and direct individual aircraft under a wide range of environmental and operational conditions.”
The USAF plans to begin production in fiscal 2025, with the first E-7A expected to be fielded by fiscal 2027.
The service anticipates procuring 24 additional E-7As by fiscal 2032. The E-7A total aircraft inventory is projected to be 26.
Several countries operate the E-7. The Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal Saudi Air Force, the Turkish Air Force, and the Republic of Korea Air Force all operate versions of the E-7. The Royal Air Force has also ordered three E-7s to replace its current E-3D Sentry fleet.
It will be interesting to see what extra goodies, the USAF put on their E-7.
Hopefully the UK will be able to take advantage of the scale of the US order and re-instate the two aircraft cut from the original programme at a good price.
Surely if we are partnering we are both buying & contributing?
Not on this occasion Mark, any sale to the UK would be a simple FMS to HM government, with 2 tagged on the US order.
As mentioned elsewhere, if NATO (and France) replaced their E3 fleets too, then we could put together a great group buy….
The article mentions that a development contract has been awarded, with a prototype being developed. It sounds as though the USAF version will be rather different to the 3 we have in build. Do we want a mixed fleet or can we realise the error of our ways and build another 2 here before the manufacturing facility closes?
Apparently, the UK and US Rivets are almost identical in their kit. Wasn’t there an article somwhere about a joint US/UK crew on a Rivet mission in Europe somewhere?
Rivet joints are identical, USAF is said to have incorporated some RAF kit in its aircraft.
You have no clue about any of that.
As usual a negative post not pointing to any facts countering what Jim said.
If u know better please share.
I know that there are some aspects of project helix that were incorporated into the river joint aircraft. Project helix was developed by an American company for the U.K.
the USA rivet joints may have taken the raf spec mouse mats and that would make Jim’s statement correct. Ur comment doesn’t say anything.
More than you do comrade 😀
Oh, not another Russian morse tapper…..
UK and US RC-135’s are a pooled fleet. So RAF RC-135’s are the same standard as USAF aircraft. RAF crews have recently performed sorties using a USAF aircraft in the states.
Are you replying to your own posts? It would seem so with that statement. Good lad, you know your limitations 👜
Do you EVER have any info on backing up your stupid one liners? I mean you did tell me all your info came from stuff you have read (comics) so please do share your insights with some facts!
I’ll say what everyone is to polite to say, you sir are an absolute helmet..
I would think prototyping in this case is more about manufacturing in the US, rather than particular differences in the aircraft.
The RAF’s only shot at fleet expansion, is hooking into the US buy. I’m sure NATO and France will follow suit.
The USAF contract to Boeing for the E-7A Rapid Prototype program for development of two new variants. Understand one variant due to the US Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) insisting on military open-systems software to ensure component interoperability in new systems and therefore Boeing funded to replace their propriety architecture system (which RAF locked into) with new open-systems software with the USAF owning the data rights. Reflecting the history of sometimes stupendous software costs incurred to integrate new hardware into current operational aircraft (US Army similarly pushing their Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA), which allows systems from different manufacturers to… Read more »
It is still just about possible to run another two frames through the UK facility for prep before that winds down.
Finding the used low miles commercial frames isn’t really the issue there are plenty of ex lease ones about that are between leases.
The issue is more about the long order parts that won’t have been….ordered…..so are on a……long lead time!
Doing this thought the neck lock of FMS (FMS tax + pork barrel costs) would be insane given that we have done the first three here and have paid to build a workforce with knowledge and experience.
The issue being SB, is for a continuation of the UK line, that order would have to come very soon and Abbey wood won’t be making that call, as we all know. Caveat, There is a ‘slim’ chance the new defence review reinstates the missing 2. If the RAF want to top up in say 4 or 5 years, then reopening a UK facility would be considerably more expensive than a direct FMS from Uncle Sams production line. So the RAF, NATO and France tabbing on to the USAF order would make sense. I would think France would want 5,… Read more »
John All aircraft (at least if the military is at NATO level) will have country specific kit. There will be US specific comms while still maintaining commonality, there will be connections to US Battle Management Systems (seperate to the one onboard) while still connecting to any NATO system it is supposed to. There could be connections to other systems as well. If I remember correctly, the RAAF version (the base version) has room for slightly more consoles. If US adds something that needs its own console (or not), there is no guarantee that any other country gets that gear. Currently… Read more »
Sorry John, I was sort of combining you & Rob together.
No problems, always interesting replies mate…
US Defence press report that the USAF are looking to piggy-back on UK E7 testing to accelerate their programme on the basis that the two variants will have essentially the same mission system. Evidently the UK and US have had related discussions at ministerial level. I would expect the the communications and self defence suites of the USAF E7 to be very different to the UK version as it was with the E3s On reuse of old 737s its not as easy as it might appear. The RAF will not want to have “fleets within fleets” especially as they have… Read more »
No chance, John – that’s too sensible.
Not in this case, we ordered it first and the planes are coming from China ( old 700 series) and being rebuilt in the UK. It’s not like P8 that’s rolling out of a US factory.
Uk E7’s are being built before the US even ordered it.
Ah yes, but the UK aspect is already being rolled up. E7 long lead items already ordered, final assembly of airframes underway etc. The only way to procure more E7’s at a sensible price, is a direct FMS from the US. It’s only in buying in quantity that savings can be applied. If NATO, France and the UK placed orders over the US 26, then savings of scale would be realised, reducing the unit cost for all. Uncle Sam is sensibly taking advantage of the Australian tax payer, as did the UK, they paid the substantial development costs, we are… Read more »
b(u)y when….
Order the radar now. The aircraft & the radar are the longest lead time items. You can convert an old (suitable) 737. Radar, you don’t have that option.
In an article on defensenews.com it mentioned that a lack of suitable airframes for conversion would slow down the US project
We hoped all of that “jointness” would work with the USAF and NATO and French fleets when the E3Ds were purchased. Unfortunately, the MOD in its wisdom and so called ‘smart procurement’ rapidly diverged from that route and look where it left the RAF. .
Unfortunately mate, the sandbox war years left the E3’s high and dry and starved of upgrade money….
More MOD shortsightedness…..
Saudi Arabia does not operate or ordered the E7
Meanwhile in Russia
That is….amazing! 😄
Pity it didn’t blow it up. Maybe for next time.. 😆. Ukraine needs to keep watching out for Russian forces doing the same thing back to them if they get hold of drones from Iran and possibly China.
just needs nice blob of hi acidic gel drop on top nobody would notice slowly eat into dish the sudden catastrophic fail in flight 🙂
What a missed opportunity to take out that airfcraft while stationary. Unless they tagged it with a tracking device? Lol 😁
Two more please.
Absolutely Mate. 5 is the minimum number needed. Anyhow, in my humble opinion -having been in Air Force Ops for a few years.
The War Zone has a more in-depth article on this. See: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/air-force-orders-first-e-7-jets-to-replace-aging-e-3-sentry
From the article above:
The Saudi Airforce operate the E3 and not the E7
And the RAF’s fleet of E3’s went some time ago, so not a great item of accurate info really. 🙁
Sometimes there are little errors on the site but on the whole it’s articles are a good read.
The pump out a lot of articles from what seems like a small team.
Them and George get the hard work award.