Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Sign in to follow this  
Julien

UK purchases five Boeing E-7 early warning aircraft

Recommended Posts

Good old bubba boeing - KC46- disaster, 737max - falling out of the sky and how late was the turkish wedgie?

The word is that the USMC are about to specify KC330 because they need something that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2019 at 4:34 AM, oggy4624 said:

Good old bubba boeing - KC46- disaster, 737max - falling out of the sky and how late was the turkish wedgie?

The word is that the USMC are about to specify KC330 because they need something that works.

We all know the Americans wanted KC-30 (KC-45 back then) in the first place. I wouldn’t want to use the Turkish Wedgetail as a comparison as there are lots of other issues in play. 

 

737Max comparison is irrelevant, unless we used it as leverage to get a discount and give Boeing a “good news” story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wedgetail is maturing nicely and the only reason ours would be delayed is paying the Bill........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2019 at 12:34 AM, oggy4624 said:

 

The word is that the USMC are about to specify KC330 because they need something that works.

LOL...  never, ever going to happen.   Whoever provided that "word" to you was full of BS.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 4:50 PM, junglierating said:

Agree

 

Still when all else fails we can rely on crowsnest 😂😂😂when it eventually turns up....and that is a snakes wedding from what I have gleaned

 

Snakes Wedding - Bagging that one for future use. !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Think I saw some photos of a test Merlín flying with the “bag” installed recently.

Edited by Agent K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2019 at 5:57 PM, Agent K said:

Think I saw some photos of a test Merlín flying with the “bag” installed recently.

thales_crowsnest_merlin.jpg?auto=compres

 

Credit to whomever UK Defence Journal credited on the page from which I've borrowed this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some pics on the EH101 Facebook group of the first flight, complete with nose probe. ZH831. Photo: Michael Coombes

 

56547344_577668729405289_120025329833921

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news for Australia, they own half the E-7 as it was build to Australian req and Australia paid the development cost (didn't that make the news here for years!) they are now getting a return , Turkey, Korea and now the UK, goes some way to recouping the Billions spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/8/2019 at 12:45 AM, Dave Fleming said:

There were some pics on the EH101 Facebook group of the first flight, complete with nose probe. ZH831. Photo: Michael Coombes

 

56547344_577668729405289_120025329833921

 

 

 

 

Interesting.  Get a lot of Merlins flying over me in various forms and colours (some in primer).  Haven't spotted one of these yet though. The nose probe is new to me.  Will the Navy be allowed to refuel its own aircraft or will that be the preserve of Air Tanker Consortium (or whatever they're called)?

Edited by Meatbox8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Meatbox8 said:

Interesting.  Get a lot of Merlins flying over me in various forms and colours (some in primer).  Haven't spotted one of these yet though. The nose probe is new to me.  Will the Navy be allowed to refuel its own aircraft or will that be the preserve of Air Tanker Consortium (or whatever they're called)?

 

It's an instrument probe for the test flights. (The Merlin IFR proble location more to the starboard side) - the HC3/4 always had the capability to carry the probe, but it was never used. The first HC4 rebuild was fitted with one at roll out.

 

getasset.aspx?itemid=73812

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Meatbox8 said:

  Will the Navy be allowed to refuel its own aircraft or will that be the preserve of Air Tanker Consortium (or whatever they're called)?

Read quite some time ago that the terms of the Tanker Lease prevent the RAF/RN using non-contracted aircraft as AAR donors , might have been a possibility with the A400 apparently but the UK has ruled that out for their ones . . . . .  was a while back so maybe that has changed although imagine if it has the government will have paid heavily to change the contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2019 at 12:45 AM, Dave Fleming said:

There were some pics on the EH101 Facebook group of the first flight, complete with nose probe. ZH831. Photo: Michael Coombes

 

56547344_577668729405289_120025329833921

 

 

 

 

Not a lot of radar on it though....still progress.

Also IFR not cleared for use iaw the RTS 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2019 at 9:20 AM, Des said:

Read quite some time ago that the terms of the Tanker Lease prevent the RAF/RN using non-contracted aircraft as AAR donors , might have been a possibility with the A400 apparently but the UK has ruled that out for their ones . . . . .  was a while back so maybe that has changed although imagine if it has the government will have paid heavily to change the contract.

I don't think an A330 could refuel a helo.  Too big of a difference in speeds.   It would have to be A400 (if they ever get their AAR issues resolved) or a C-130.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2019 at 2:20 PM, Des said:

Read quite some time ago that the terms of the Tanker Lease prevent the RAF/RN using non-contracted aircraft as AAR donors , might have been a possibility with the A400 apparently but the UK has ruled that out for their ones . . . . .  was a while back so maybe that has changed although imagine if it has the government will have paid heavily to change the contract.

IIRC the RAF cancelled their last two Atlases as they were to be fitted out to KC standard.

 

Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

IIRC the RAF cancelled their last two Atlases as they were to be fitted out to KC standard.

 

Trevor

Quite correct, though it was the last three aircraft. Original requirement was for 25, but only 22 being delivered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Truro Model Builder said:

Quite correct, though it was the last three aircraft. Original requirement was for 25, but only 22 being delivered. 

Really? Four foot snakes wonder what the bigger picture was for that decision 😬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, junglierating said:

Really? Four foot snakes wonder what the bigger picture was for that decision 😬

Officially, the reason was cost escalation.  Airbus kept endlessly ratcheting up the price to get the thing to work at all, MoD got fed up with this, declined to cough up more readies and instead reduced the order size to fit the allocated funding.  At least that was the story for public consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't the only time the AirTanker agreement threw a spanner in the works. About three or four years ago Flight International reported on a proposal to modify a pair of BAe 146s with a sea surveillance radar and a single refuelling hose to be based in the Falklands. This would allow the Hercules and Voyager detached there to come back to the UK and carry out their primary duties. The RAF were quite interested in the proposal, as I recall, until that particular clause was pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2019 at 8:20 AM, Des said:

Read quite some time ago that the terms of the Tanker Lease prevent the RAF/RN using non-contracted aircraft as AAR donors , might have been a possibility with the A400 apparently but the UK has ruled that out for their ones . . . . .  was a while back so maybe that has changed although imagine if it has the government will have paid heavily to change the contract.

That strikes me as a terrible thing to have agreed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Procopius said:

That strikes me as a terrible thing to have agreed to.

That could quite easily be taken as the mission statement for British defence procurement over the past few decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Truro Model Builder said:

It wasn't the only time the AirTanker agreement threw a spanner in the works. About three or four years ago Flight International reported on a proposal to modify a pair of BAe 146s with a sea surveillance radar and a single refuelling hose to be based in the Falklands. This would allow the Hercules and Voyager detached there to come back to the UK and carry out their primary duties. The RAF were quite interested in the proposal, as I recall, until that particular clause was pointed out.

I’m not entirely sure how much truth there was in that rumour. With a little knowledge of “how stuff works” down south in the FI, I’m not sure how suitable a 146 based airframe would be for any of the roles. The RAF has been well aware of the clause from the outset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2019 at 10:59 AM, Dave Fleming said:

Does sound a little like one of the many schemes suggested for redundant 146s as BAE took them back from lease.

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-says-no-thanks-to-bae-146-tanker-391589/

It might have been, but the reality is that much as the Voyager might seem overkill for day to day life, it offers versatility - which is sometimes needed - that a smaller type would struggle with on the Islands. You probably lose all utility of the 146 as you’d in all likelihood need to fit extra tanks in the fuselage as it has a fairly limited fuel capacity too.

 

As for the “exclusivity clause”, which is often commented on, it’s one of those things. It loses a bit of flexibility, but ultimately the MoD has only operated large strategic tankers since the mid 90s anyway, and people forget the conversion, training and financial burden of introducing another type (with limited utility).

Edited by Vickers McFunbus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vickers McFunbus said:

As for the “exclusivity clause”, which is often commented on, it’s one of those things. It loses a bit of flexibility, but ultimately the MoD has only operated large strategic tankers since the mid 90s anyway, and people forget the conversion, training and financial burden of introducing another type (with limited utility).

 

And yet every other air force that operates such aircraft is willing to shoulder the burden. Strange, that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...