Aardvark144
Active Member
Given the deal with Finnair I would think that QF would be hard pressed to give up two low hour -200s.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Not to mention other advantages. Newer aircraft don’t break down as much / require as much maintenance and can therefore be flown more than the older lot.
Overall fleet hours can be managed in such a fashion as I understand such things…
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Another big factor with aircraft, is the number of cycles they do, take offs and landings are hard on aircraft, an aircraft that has a thousand hours on the clock with 300 cycles will require more maintenance than one with only 100 cycles.
While your concept is right, aircraft with your numbers are some what on the low side as an aircraft with 1000 hours or 300 cycles is just about new and their would not be any difference's between the examples given. there would be between 10,000 and 20,000 depending on the quality of the maintenance. However it is also necessary to differentiate between what the aircraft is used for as cycles are very important to transport type aircraft and fatigue cycles more so with combat aircraft as their hours and cycles tend to be far less than other types, but the stresses are far higher.
Last edited:
I noticed here the ASAF is making its E7s out of 737s. I thought we used airbus airframes? Would this make rthe USAF a completely different plane. Thought it was going to be the same. We may as well start buying 737s and roll on to commonality over the next 15 years as the A330 based wedge-tails retire. US Air Force eyes advance procurement to more quickly make E-7 planes
Aardvark144
Active Member
Ours are B737 based not A330.
No, the RAAF Wedgetail is a Boeing 737 product.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
E-7A Wedgetail | Air Force
Boeing is where the 7 comes from, if it had been the unsuccessful Airbus A310 or the LM C-130J based bids, it would have been given a different designation.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,289
As others have mentioned, the E-7A Wedgetail is a Boeing product, based upon the B737-700 and fitted with a Northrup Grumman MESA radar. IIRC there is something somewhat different in the aircraft from a 'stock' B737-700, and I think (vague recollection here) that they are fitted with the wing used by B737-800's.
Mark_Evans
Member
Correct. The base plane is essentially a Boeing Business Jet, which has the 737-700 fuselage with the stronger 737-800 wing to support its extra weight and the BBJ aux fuel tanks.
737 E-7 AEWC
Technical information, sales and development news for the 737 E-7 AEWC.
A330 -
Wedgetail -
Note the obvious size difference.
The RAAF (& multiple other air forces) have A330 tankers, but there is no AEW A330.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The RAAF has also been operating two 737-700 BBJ with the -800 wing in the VIP role since 2002. Though replacements have been ordered.Correct. The base plane is essentially a Boeing Business Jet, which has the 737-700 fuselage with the stronger 737-800 wing to support its extra weight and the BBJ aux fuel tanks.
737 E-7 AEWC
Technical information, sales and development news for the 737 E-7 AEWC.www.b737.org.uk
Mark_Evans
Member
The 787 is quite a lot larger with but also costs significantly more. We are talking right size and costs for the job. The 737 is in production, has plenty of support infrastructure and meets the roles needs. I am looking forward to the investment by the US in moving to wedgetail and hope the AUKUS approach works where we can improve our own planes as well. And the UK gets its act together and actually makes the last two planes....not holding my breathe on the last.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Boeing could have offered the Wedgetail system on a 767 instead of the 737 but it would have still been the same system with the same capabilities, the only improvement would have been more internal space. How does being a larger aircraft make it any more capable?
Hmmm sorry I mixed up wedge-tails and refuellers.
The USA building a USAF mission planning centre in Darwin.
www.abc.net.au
US Air Force 'mission planning' centre to be built in Northern Territory
A new US Air Force will build a "mission planning" and operations centre in Darwin, as part of $630 million in American spending across the top end over the next two to three years.
www.abc.net.au
I wonder if any of these will make their way to the ADF? Apparently LRASM being adapted to be fired from HIMARs. Lockheed Martin Looks to Boost LRASM Production as US Rushes to Buy Anti-Ship Weapons | Air & Space Forces Magazine
It wasn't an active proposal just a simple thought in my head. While yes it would cost more and benefits of supply chain would be some what reduced the one thing that it would benefit from as best as I can tell would be power supply. Exluding what is used to run key systems in the aircraft it's self the 787/330 having a greater amount of excess power available which would actually open up more tracking options for the radar as its core limitation is power supply.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,300
Firstly, AFAIK the actual specifications for the Northrup Grumman MESA are not in the public domain, so what the power demand is and what it could be is not publicly available. Having said that, I would imagine that if it was felt necessary, some sort of APU could be installed into a B737 to provide additional power and/or Li-Ion batteries, given how much potential space and available weight vs. a commercial B737.
Secondly, having a larger physical airframe could actually make it more difficult to fit and use the MESA, as potentially bad things could happen if a beam with enough RF energy were to come into contact with a portion of the airframe, like a metallic wing or cockpit. Potentially even more interesting would be if the RF radar beam were to come into contact with something radio translucent, which then have metallic internal components like avionics and/or a wiring harness.