Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[south]

The way you are describing the various platforms is, to me, confused. It feels as though because a platform has an ESM system, that you now see it as an EW asset. Broadly speaking this is true - but then that makes a ARH or a MH-60 an EW asset.

At present the EA-18G Growler is the only ADF platform capable of Airborne Electronic Attack. F/A-18F, F-35, E-7 and P-8 cannot perform that function.

Replacing the entire Superhornet platform capability (which includes Growlers and Fighters) would need to replace total capability, not just an individual capability of just the F-18F or the EA-18 Growler. Unless you think the RAAF is going to keep all the logistical support for the EA-18 just for 12 airframes? Unique engines, unique airframe, unique upgrades, unique maintenance and technical facilities. They are tied together.

I am also confused by the way you are talking about SH and Growler doing missions separately. AFAIK that is not how they are intended to operate in the battle space. You are not just flying 2 growlers into theatre by themselves, nor do you just fly 2 F-18F as some sort of wonderweapon. Neither is going to go it alone. Wouldn't it then make sense to talk about the capability of a combined platform rather than "mOrE SuPaHoRnEt for the win!". I don't see the acquisition of more of one type, adjusting the ratio, for the Superhornet platform.

Documents such as the the IPP already define separate projects to replace the capabilities. There are separate funding lines, with separate projects. While there is some commonality between SH and Growler (broadly speaking - engines/airframe/ejection seat/some avionics) they already have separate maintenance facilities, training, pods, and other installed equipment (ALQ-218). It is entirely possible that the Growler could be replaced on a completely different timeline to SH - because it is a unique capability that replacement capabilities will probably come on a different timeframe. There's already a precedent - look at 10SQN retaining AP-3C.

The missions that the SH and Growler perform are complementary, but not interchangeable. Joining them together as "36 Fighters" obfuscates this - you may as well put F-35 into the same basket as well.

EA18 was a fast and great way to get EW capability at the time, we were acquiring the same platform for other reasons. Now however, much of those capabilities could be transferred to more effective platforms (MC-55 and E7) which are bigger, longer ranged, have more growth potential, cheaper flight hours, better able to handle the workload and F-35 IV block IV and future blocks making the embedded F-35 EW capability much greater on F-35. Its not here today, but in 5 years it will be.

Given the Growlers unique capabilities at AEA/SEAD/D-SEAD - how does a MC-55 and/or E-7 assume their role in the fight, while managing to be as survivable?

 

[old faithful]

The MC 55 will carry out the SIGINT role as well as EW and the EEW etc roles.
It much more that an EW platform.
Have a read of the included link, as the article, while probably simplified, will give a better idea than I could possibly know or explain.

Australia's New MC-55 Peregrine Electronic Warfare Jet Breaks Cover (Updated)

Peregrine aircraft will bring Australia's electronic attack and surveillance capabilities up to par with the U.S. and allies in the region.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Volkodav]

The way you are describing the various platforms is, to me, confused. It feels as though because a platform has an ESM system, that you now see it as an EW asset. Broadly speaking this is true - but then that makes a ARH or a MH-60 an EW asset.

At present the EA-18G Growler is the only ADF platform capable of Airborne Electronic Attack. F/A-18F, F-35, E-7 and P-8 cannot perform that function.



Documents such as the the IPP already define separate projects to replace the capabilities. There are separate funding lines, with separate projects. While there is some commonality between SH and Growler (broadly speaking - engines/airframe/ejection seat/some avionics) they already have separate maintenance facilities, training, pods, and other installed equipment (ALQ-218). It is entirely possible that the Growler could be replaced on a completely different timeline to SH - because it is a unique capability that replacement capabilities will probably come on a different timeframe. There's already a precedent - look at 10SQN retaining AP-3C.

The missions that the SH and Growler perform are complementary, but not interchangeable. Joining them together as "36 Fighters" obfuscates this - you may as well put F-35 into the same basket as well.



Given the Growlers unique capabilities at AEA/SEAD/D-SEAD - how does a MC-55 and/or E-7 assume their role in the fight, while managing to be as survivable?

If I recall correctly the RAAF were quite keen to classify the Growlers as a EWIS capability, separate and additional to the aircombat capability to ensure it was retained post replacement of the Rhinos with additional F-35s or whatever.

There will eventually be a replacement for the Growler, or even multiple replacements, i.e. USN and USAF, manned, and or unmanned. Potentially the USAF mission could even be asigned to a B-21 variant.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The way you are describing the various platforms is, to me, confused. It feels as though because a platform has an ESM system, that you now see it as an EW asset. Broadly speaking this is true - but then that makes a ARH or a MH-60 an EW asset.

They are. But they have different capabilities and built on different platforms to perform different missions. But a Venn diagram of EW they would be on the outer edge with just portions touching. Infantry can be EW. A ship certainly can be a EW asset, pumping out megawatts and with processing to match.

In the modern battlespace, electronics is not just for the big shiney platforms, its for everyone.

I certainly don't think all of Australia's EW capability come from the growlers. Or more specifically, the ALQ-99. I don't think it is helpful to think like that. They offer strong EW capabilities and unique ways to insert EW capabilities, but they aren't the only EW platform in the ADF. The logic that growlers are the only EW platform, and EW is becoming more important, so there for we need a lot more growlers, is I think false. We need more EW capabilities on many platforms.

This blurring isn't due to lack of understanding, its because this is very fast moving area and the technologies and platforms are blurring.

Given the Growlers unique capabilities at AEA/SEAD/D-SEAD - how does a MC-55 and/or E-7 assume their role in the fight, while managing to be as survivable?

E7 has massive receive/transmission capabilities. It can perform its mission from 500+ km away, travelling 1000kmph in the other direction.
MC-55 has similar advantages, it doesn't need to be on top of the system for it to perform its mission.

Neither is going perform the whole mission by itself. Thinking about the future and the F-35 having more capable EW capabilities embedded in in blk IV. But that capability won't be the same as the Growlers, it won't work that way for that platform. These are partner aircraft for that capability. No you won't see a E7 flying in hot and low firing Mavericks into a S400 setup. That isn't how it works.

However, this is moving space. The US thought it could do everything from space. Which it can't. Which it shouldn't, as space is vulnerable to state actors like China and Russia, and space is far away and you have huge limitations on power budgets and upgradability.

Hence why the UK and US are now frantically acquiring E7's and MC-55 like aircraft (EC-37B). EW moved so fast it nearly passed the US and UK by and they were watching it closely. They aren't just acquiring E7's, because they need traffic manage F-35's. They aren't worried about that, its the other capabilities of the E7 that are of interest to it. Ukraine showed you still need systems on planes against peers.

Officially E7, no one will talk about its capabilities, but they exist.

‘The ability to stare’: Why the US Air Force is eager to get the E-7

With the aging E-3 AWACS becoming increasingly out of date and hard to maintain, top Air Force leaders say they want the new E-7 as soon as possible.

www.defensenews.com

The E-7 also has a new situational awareness feature, which the AWACS lacks, called the flight deck tactical display, which alerts the pilot to what’s going on in the battlespace and what may be flying nearby. Elmore said the display is tied into the E-7′s electronic warfare self-protection capabilities, but would not go into more detail.

But the E7 certainly has EW capabilities. It has the biggest and most powerful radar in the air, and the most processing power and man power in the sky.

On G-550 platforms, like MC-55/CA-37B, its complimentary. Australia has a mostly sigint focus, but that isn't to say its exclusive.

US Air Force receives first new Compass Call electronic warfare plane

The Air Force's planned tests will make sure the new Compass Call's electronic warfare capabilities have been properly integrated into the Gulfstream jet.

www.defensenews.com

It has even been described as a Electronic Warfare aircraft.

Ascent Professional Services secures an Australia-first deal - Australian Defence Magazine

Australian engineering consultancy Ascent Professional Services has secured an Australia-first deal.

www.australiandefence.com.au

Giffard said other nations also used G550s as the basis for their EW aircraft and L3Harris was now on the global lookout for suitable used platforms.

 

[Todjaeger]

However, this is moving space. The US thought it could do everything from space. Which it can't. Which it shouldn't, as space is vulnerable to state actors like China and Russia, and space is far away and you have huge limitations on power budgets and upgradability.

Hence why the UK and US are now frantically acquiring E7's and MC-55 like aircraft (EC-37B). EW moved so fast it nearly passed the US and UK by and they were watching it closely. They aren't just acquiring E7's, because they need traffic manage F-35's. They aren't worried about that, its the other capabilities of the E7 that are of interest to it. Ukraine showed you still need systems on planes against peers.

Officially E7, no one will talk about its capabilities, but they exist.

Umm... What?!

The US and UK have operated AEW aircraft for decades with the USAF receiving it's first E-3 Sentry in 1977 and the last production (for the US) E-3 in 1984. The UK's RAF received it's first production E-3 back in 1991, towards the end of E-3 Sentry production (production ended in 1992). So, we are talking about aircraft where the youngest airframe in service is 31 years old and has not been in production in decades. Furthermore, the civilian airliner which served as the base for the airframe was the B707 (production ended 1978) which has also been out of production for decades.

The US and UK are moving towards the E-7 in part because of the new capabilities which are available, but also because the platforms they have been using for decades are old, out of production and include components which are likewise out of production. Yes, there is a programme to provide NATO E-3's with a SLEP to keep them in service until ~2035, but at a certain point one needs to be practical and determine whether capabilities of an existing platform justify the resources to keep it in service, or whether it has become time to replace it.

Similarly the USAF is acquiring EC-37's to replace existing, in service EC-130H Compass Call aircraft which have been in service since ~1982. Once again, at a certain point decisions would need to be made on whether or not it would be worthwhile to rebuild or refurbish airframes of that age, or whether it might be better to get a new aircraft which can provide all the currently in service capabilities, but then either have additional ones, or room for future additions.

The story IMO would be a bit different if the UK and/or US was acquiring brand new platforms to cover an entirely new role in service. This is not what the US or UK are doing, but rather they are acquiring new, modern replacements for platforms which have already seen a generation of service.

 

[DDG38]

Just for clarity, I think you guys should expand your acronyms, it's easy to get AEW (Airborne Early Warning - active radar) and EW (Electronic Warfare - exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum) confused so maybe be a bit clearer when bouncing around these terms and specific platforms.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The US and UK are moving towards the E-7 in part because of the new capabilities which are available, but also because the platforms they have been using for decades are old, out of production and include components which are likewise out of production. Yes, there is a programme to provide NATO E-3's with a SLEP to keep them in service until ~2035, but at a certain point one needs to be practical and determine whether capabilities of an existing platform justify the resources to keep it in service, or whether it has become time to replace it.

Sort of. Yes the E3 are old, but everybody knew that, its not like they suddenly got old, and then everyone had to crash build 737 base E7's. There was a replacement program at the turn of the century.

The E10 was meant to be the replacement. Back in like 2002. It was to replace the E3, E8 E4B and the RC-135. Based on the 767 like Japan's E-767.

Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Spiral 1 was AMTI airborne moving target indication
Spiral 2 was meant to use the E7 radar, but on a 767.
Spiral 3 was the Sigint platform.

It was all cancelled. Airforce was not too upset, because it had E3's/E8/RC135 and it believed everything was going into space or drones so maybe wait until things develop before launching the program. The capabilities of the US military satellites aren't public knowledge, but tracking aircraft seems entirely doable. It was assumed, that there wasn't really a peer threat anymore anyway. That acquiring an air platform wasn't really required.

Raymond Unveils Classified Target Tracking Space Radar Effort - Breaking Defense

"The space-based GMTI system will replace a portion of the JSTARS sensing capability" and "will support all combatant commands," Space Force spokesperson Col. Catie Hague explains.

breakingdefense.com

Drones didn't go the way everyone expected. Manned platforms are more important than ever.

Australia's needs are a bit different from the US and UK. We don't have a huge number of multiple movable military sats. We have a huge territory. We however, have JORN which covers basically everything for Spiral 1 AMTI and GMTI, but needs E7 to provide tactical data. We didn't have E3's, we used to have C2's which were more appropriate for a middle power with a huge tech lead and no peer regionally.

E7 and MC-55a are separate platforms so your mostly listening platform is different from your loud broadcasting platform. Its advantageous to have two seperate platforms, in different locations, flying missions that best allow them to do their different but related functions.

The story IMO would be a bit different if the UK and/or US was acquiring brand new platforms to cover an entirely new role in service. This is not what the US or UK are doing, but rather they are acquiring new, modern replacements for platforms which have already seen a generation of service.

Why the sudden scramble for airframes then? Why create a program, start it, cancel it, if the plan all along was to life extend older C130 and 707's for another 20+ years?

Why is an Australia E7 flying out of Germany? Why did the US & NATO only order E7 this year if they have already started to decommission them?

South Korea, Australia and Turkey face a similar capability hole, so addressed it in a timely manner with the E7 acquisitions over a decade ago. The US and UK could have ordered them nearly 2 decades ago. The US really hoped it could migrate to just space sensors and on fighter EW capability, however, we now know that isn't a good strategy. Its only part of the strategy. The enemy has LO and EW platforms. There are enemy peers on the same tech level as the US. We are not really fighting wars against low tech insurgents anymore.

To perform effect EW you need the whole chain. The fighter platform delivering its EW package is just part of it. What is going into the package (sigint), where do they need to go, how are they going to get there, do they need just AEW or the AEW platform performing some EW covering them from afar. If you are using low observable aircraft, you probably don't want to light up your own LO fighters with your own AEW (or OTH or Sat) radar. AEW isn't completely isolated and separate from EW anymore.

Edit: Link providing more background on E3/E7 and the hoped E3 replacement on drones/sats and using the fused ABMS concept. It also references the E7 stand off jamming capabilities. Although it appears here, that Jamming, deceptive jamming, blip enhancement, sigint may not be considered EW. But in modern battlespaces, airborne radar systems have to also provide many of these capabilities. But again, the E7 isn't going to fly in with mavs and take out S400's. I wonder if people are confusing EW and SEAD.

US Air Force Request for Funds to Buy E-7 Should Prompt a Rethink on RAF Fleet Size

As the US Air Force looks to the E-7 Wedgetail as its next AWACS, the RAF needs to increase its own order to generate a viable long-term fleet.

rusi.org

 

[south]

EW isn’t a mission - and you’re confusing its application between AirPower Roles, missions and capabilities. Further - by calling everything EW - the picture is substantially confused. About the only thing that is correct is that EW is ubiquitous.

RAAF Air Power Manual.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

EW isn’t a mission - and you’re confusing its application between AirPower Roles, missions and capabilities. Further - by calling everything EW - the picture is substantially confused. About the only thing that is correct is that EW is ubiquitous.

RAAF Air Power Manual.

Page 58? By the way, not sure if relevant, but we didn't get our first Growler until two years after that version was published.

I do agree though that there's a lot of confusion when talking about EW. Hard to follow.

 

[StingrayOZ]

EW isn’t a mission - and you’re confusing its application between AirPower Roles, missions and capabilities. Further - by calling everything EW - the picture is substantially confused. About the only thing that is correct is that EW is ubiquitous.

Clearly on different pages here.

I quote

Given the Growlers unique capabilities at AEA/SEAD/D-SEAD - how does a MC-55 and/or E-7 assume their role in the fight, while managing to be as survivable?

Again. I think we are on different pages. The RAAF and RAF and USAF believe the E7 is survivable. If its not survivable, why would be rushing to acquire them?

We have an E7 deployed to Germany to do patrols over NATO territory. Turkey was performing missions before that. The E7 can operate at significant distance. Around 300km in public documentation, but perhaps as much as 500 to 850km doing Sigint. Its sensors are very advanced, and being electronically controlled operates in a way that the E3 can and will never be able to achieve. Which is where I think people are getting hung up on, that the E7 is just like a newer E3, and that Growler does all the work.

From the air power manual

3.31 Electronic warfare (EW) is military action to exploit the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS), encompassing: the search for, interception and identification of electromagnetic emissions the employment of electromagnetic energy , including directed energy, to reduce or prevent hostile use of the EMS and actions to ensure its effective use by friendly forces.

The E7 and MC-55 don't have roles in electronic support, Electronic protection or Electronic attack?

I quote from the article below:

The E-7s also have passive sensors, says Elmore, “just like our other AWACS fleets out there, it has the passive ability to listen for RF signals called Electronic Support Measures (ESM). That's the gray lines you see coming out there (on the display). And where we can locate, geolocate, triangulate, pick up things on the ground, and locate them or look at the emissions that are coming off a moving target and help us characterize and identify that based on a classified library…”

The E3 is a fairly basic and very old platform with a very limited capability. E7 is a much more capable animal, it fits within that new definition of battlespace management which includes EW. Ultimately it is very important one of the key nodes, isn't just EW resistant, but EW capable and has capabilities that compliment 5th gen aircraft.

I think there seems to be a belief that the E7 does exactly the same job and has the same limitations as the E3. That it is an AWACS that lights up the sky with a powerful radar beam that rotates to identify targets, which are then plotted on a CRT which refreshes every 30 seconds. That it is all it needs to do.

Most LO won't give good radar returns. Most drones are a fraction the size of manned platforms and made out of things like carboard so melting those with radar isn't going to work. The radar isn't a big rotating beam anymore, its a general purpose coms array and can do IFF as well as ELINT.

With the US UK and NATO acquiring E7, there are some good explanations of what it can do and how its a game changer over the E3.

The E-3 Sentry Vs the E-7 Wedgetail

The US Air Force has recently announced the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail as a replacement for the venerable Boeing E-3 Sentry. Combat Aircraft Journal compares the two aircraft

www.key.aero

This Is What USAF's Future E-7 Radar Jet Is Actually Capable Of

The E-7A Wedgetail is now set to replace the Air Force's aging E-3 Sentry AWACS and we got a very in-depth look at its capabilities.

www.thedrive.com

But in saying that, even with 300Kw+ it can't jam or spoof peer level radars from 850km when it is getting returns from a fighter aircraft directly in front of it only a few km away. Hence Growler. Growler can go where fighters go, into contested airspace. But the E7 can help growlers and F-35 get there, it can setup its huge radar to manage hundreds or thousands of targets.. A huge concern is work load on growler crews, the E7 can take a lot of that on, freeing the crew to focus on their mission, rather than trying to manage/defeat the whole electronic battlespace across 1000km radius.

But eventually the F-35 should be able to do the Growler role, in blk IV or perhaps blk V.

The concern/misgivings about E7 capabilities are exactly what UK and US people in air forces had before they really got to know what the E7 is capable of today and what it can do tomorrow. It is fast moving. Even if you were on the first Wedgetail back in 2010, its quite likely you would be blown away what the new updates can do. With the US acquiring so many more airframes, no doubt it will be receiving more developments.

 

[Todjaeger]

Sort of. Yes the E3 are old, but everybody knew that, its not like they suddenly got old, and then everyone had to crash build 737 base E7's. There was a replacement program at the turn of the century.

The E10 was meant to be the replacement. Back in like 2002. It was to replace the E3, E8 E4B and the RC-135. Based on the 767 like Japan's E-767.

Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Spiral 1 was AMTI airborne moving target indication
Spiral 2 was meant to use the E7 radar, but on a 767.
Spiral 3 was the Sigint platform.

It was all cancelled. Airforce was not too upset, because it had E3's/E8/RC135 and it believed everything was going into space or drones so maybe wait until things develop before launching the program. The capabilities of the US military satellites aren't public knowledge, but tracking aircraft seems entirely doable. It was assumed, that there wasn't really a peer threat anymore anyway. That acquiring an air platform wasn't really required.

Raymond Unveils Classified Target Tracking Space Radar Effort - Breaking Defense

"The space-based GMTI system will replace a portion of the JSTARS sensing capability" and "will support all combatant commands," Space Force spokesperson Col. Catie Hague explains.

breakingdefense.com

Drones didn't go the way everyone expected. Manned platforms are more important than ever.

Australia's needs are a bit different from the US and UK. We don't have a huge number of multiple movable military sats. We have a huge territory. We however, have JORN which covers basically everything for Spiral 1 AMTI and GMTI, but needs E7 to provide tactical data. We didn't have E3's, we used to have C2's which were more appropriate for a middle power with a huge tech lead and no peer regionally.

E7 and MC-55a are separate platforms so your mostly listening platform is different from your loud broadcasting platform. Its advantageous to have two seperate platforms, in different locations, flying missions that best allow them to do their different but related functions.


Why the sudden scramble for airframes then? Why create a program, start it, cancel it, if the plan all along was to life extend older C130 and 707's for another 20+ years?

Why is an Australia E7 flying out of Germany? Why did the US & NATO only order E7 this year if they have already started to decommission them?

South Korea, Australia and Turkey face a similar capability hole, so addressed it in a timely manner with the E7 acquisitions over a decade ago. The US and UK could have ordered them nearly 2 decades ago. The US really hoped it could migrate to just space sensors and on fighter EW capability, however, we now know that isn't a good strategy. Its only part of the strategy. The enemy has LO and EW platforms. There are enemy peers on the same tech level as the US. We are not really fighting wars against low tech insurgents anymore.

To perform effect EW you need the whole chain. The fighter platform delivering its EW package is just part of it. What is going into the package (sigint), where do they need to go, how are they going to get there, do they need just AEW or the AEW platform performing some EW covering them from afar. If you are using low observable aircraft, you probably don't want to light up your own LO fighters with your own AEW (or OTH or Sat) radar. AEW isn't completely isolated and separate from EW anymore.

Edit: Link providing more background on E3/E7 and the hoped E3 replacement on drones/sats and using the fused ABMS concept. It also references the E7 stand off jamming capabilities. Although it appears here, that Jamming, deceptive jamming, blip enhancement, sigint may not be considered EW. But in modern battlespaces, airborne radar systems have to also provide many of these capabilities. But again, the E7 isn't going to fly in with mavs and take out S400's. I wonder if people are confusing EW and SEAD.

US Air Force Request for Funds to Buy E-7 Should Prompt a Rethink on RAF Fleet Size

As the US Air Force looks to the E-7 Wedgetail as its next AWACS, the RAF needs to increase its own order to generate a viable long-term fleet.

rusi.org

It seems we have rather different perspectives on at least some of what is going on regarding US & NATO AEW, EW & ISR aircraft.

For instance, there is a program to life extend NATO E-3 Sentries until 2035 (though some/all might be retired earlier). There had been a RFI issued last year for an IOC by 2031 for a replacement for the NATO E-3's, and there was an order placed with Boeing for six E-7A Wedgetails with the first aircraft to be ready for operations in 2031. I would not consider seven or eight years to deliver a new/replacement aircraft particularly rushed. Especially considering that the airframe itself is based upon a widely used commercial airliner. TBH I suspect the reason it will take so long for the NATO order to be be fulfilled has to do with how long it takes to build and test the radar, before installation aboard an airframe.

As a point of interest, one might also want to contemplate how much additional flight time US E-3's have likely been getting over the last decade or so, given deployments to the Mideast as well as keeping an eye over Eastern Europe. I suspect this is part of why the US has been moving towards replacing them, although it will be years before they are completely out of US service.

As for why the E-10 programme ended up getting scrapped, it has been my understanding that there were two related issues. One of them being technical, in that by attempting to make an all-in-one platform covering different roles, technical limitations were encountered. This leads into the second issue, in that in attempting to overcome some of the technical issues with fitting so many different RF emitters and receivers in such close proximity, the costs associated with trying to develop deconfliction solutions so that the different systems did not overwhelm each other caused programme costs to spike, before workable solutions were found. This was also coming at a time when some of the financial costs of US involvement overseas was starting to bite, and just ahead of the major financial crisis in 2008. Given that by this time it looked as though certain threats were receding and that the existing fleets of aircraft the USAF had been using would still be useful for a few more decades, launching an AEW replacement programme in 2007 would have been considered a low priority. As it is now, it has been two decades since the E-10 SDD (system design & development) got started.

 

[swerve]

With regard to your last paragraph: Italy has two G550-based AEW airfraft, & has acquired several more G550 ISR aircraft which it's having converted into more AEW, Joint Airborne Multisensor Multimission System (JAMMS) (at least two of each), & IIRC a third configuration, reportedly a total of 10 aircraft. No attempt at doing everything in one airframe.

 

[hauritz]

Actually with the E7 about to go back into serial production maybe Australia should take the opportunity to pick up a few extra for themselves. With the likelihood that we may soon be operating sizeable numbers of uninhabited aircraft, airborne command and control could become an increasingly important role over the coming decades.

The Wedgetail is an incredible force multiplier and for a medium sized nation having to defend huge swaths of territory with really just a handful of assets acquiring as many as you can afford is a no brainer.

 

[StingrayOZ]

For instance, there is a program to life extend NATO E-3 Sentries until 2035 (though some/all might be retired earlier). There had been a RFI issued last year for an IOC by 2031 for a replacement for the NATO E-3's, and there was an order placed with Boeing for six E-7A Wedgetails with the first aircraft to be ready for operations in 2031. I would not consider seven or eight years to deliver a new/replacement aircraft particularly rushed. Especially considering that the airframe itself is based upon a widely used commercial airliner. TBH I suspect the reason it will take so long for the NATO order to be be fulfilled has to do with how long it takes to build and test the radar, before installation aboard an airframe.

There isn't a rush on the NATO side, there is never a rush in NATO, but there is a huge rush on the US/UK side. The US looked at accelerating the entire project of the order of 26 planes before 2032.

The US is mass decommissioning E3s. They have decommissioned 13, and the USAF wanted at least 15 decommissioned.

Tinker AFB bids farewell to more E-3 Sentry AWACS

A further two E-3B/G Sentry aircraft have taken off from Tinker AFB for the final time, having been flown from the Oklahoma base to Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, to be placed in long-term storage as the

www.key.aero

This currently leaves the US with 16 E3's which has halved their fleet. They are intending to decommission more. With no in-service replacement. We may see single digits operational by 2025.

It would be interesting if NATO intends to Life extend the E3 if the US gets out of the E3 business by 2027..

The E3 isn't just an old platform to fly that is unreliable, expensive with an at risk supply chain. Its technologically outdated. I don't understand NATO think. I don't get it.

In saying that, NATO members Turkey, UK, and US all believe the E3 is deader than disco.

As a point of interest, one might also want to contemplate how much additional flight time US E-3's have likely been getting over the last decade or so, given deployments to the Mideast as well as keeping an eye over Eastern Europe. I suspect this is part of why the US has been moving towards replacing them, although it will be years before they are completely out of US service.

Well I am betting they are all decommissioned by 2027 from US service. So by years you mean perhaps 3. At the rate they are currently decommissioning, they won't make 2027. I don't see NATO starting up 707 production capabilities to keep their E3s flying independently. Technologically they are essentially irrelevant now. Flight efforts over Ukraine basically broke the entire support chain and their inability to really manage the battle space over Ukraine showed they are just not the right tool.

The E3 is technologically undermining of 5th and 6th gen platforms. It is also unable to deal with LO enemy fighters and drones and munitions, and lighting up your own 5th gen platforms with radar is completely counter to the design concepts of using them.

As for why the E-10 programme ended up getting scrapped, it has been my understanding that there were two related issues. One of them being technical, in that by attempting to make an all-in-one platform covering different roles, technical limitations were encountered. This leads into the second issue, in that in attempting to overcome some of the technical issues with fitting so many different RF emitters and receivers in such close proximity, the costs associated with trying to develop deconfliction solutions so that the different systems did not overwhelm each other caused programme costs to spike, before workable solutions were found.

Well we all have opinions. But the E7 exists. The MC-55a and the CA-37B exist. I would be surprised if that the US wasn't able to overcome the issues that the E7 overcame. I find it more believable that the USAF overestimated its move to sats (and possibly the creation of space force), more than there are just impossible technical things on the E10 program that the E7 program overcame.

I would be really surprised to see anyone flying the E3 past 2028. It would be like sailing a battleship with 6" guns in 2028.

As part of the US acquisition of the E7, they are completely re-writing all the software, basically from scratch, to meet new US open requirements. The US sees huge potential and greater levels of integration and capabilities. Australian E7 have double screens per console, which the UK and US are getting as baseline, which should give an idea of how much these roles have evolved since the E7 first flew, and the original goals of the E7 were drawn up.

 

[At lakes]

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_219907.htm

I think NATO is getting in on the bandwagon this article talks of NATO ordering 6 e7's

 

[swerve]

It's not really "talking of" it. It's an announcement by NATO. on NATO's website, that it's going to order the aircraft, & that has been agreed by the consortium of NATO members which owns & operates the current E-3 fleet. It would have been in preparation for some time. with discussions between the consortium members.

Six seems a rather small number, considering the number it's replacing. Perhaps there'll be a follow-up order.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Six seems a rather small number, considering the number it's replacing. Perhaps there'll be a follow-up order.

NATO acquisitions is complicated. The French may want to make their own. The Italians think they already have their own with their deal with Israel. Getting unified agreement on NATO acquisitions isn't obvious or easy. UK and Turkey and the US already have or are ordering E7s.

Its possible Germany or and Poland may buy directly.

Its a very key aircraft. Because it basically coordinates and manages everything. If NATO members ever have disagreement, having your own sovereign capability is important. So it becomes about influence. Turkey is a case study.

 

[swerve]

France already has its own, as do Turkey, the UK, Italy & Greece.

The 6 new E-7 aren't replacing the British, Italian, French (4 E-3) & Greek aircraft. Poland is buying a couple of used (but refurbished) SAAB 340 Erieyes: I don't know how that affects Poland's participation in the NATO AWACS consortium. It's a limited capability, with small turboprops with relatively short range & low service ceiling. Italy only has 2 G550 AEW (more capable) but is buying at least 2 more. The UK & & Turkey between them have 4 operational (Turkish) & 3 on order (UK) E-7, with 2 more possibly to be bought by the UK. That's more than the NATO fleet of E-7 will be, which has to cover a much bigger area. Sweden is joining NATO, & currently has 2 SAAB 340 Erieyes, but has ordered 2 Globaleye (Bombardier Global 6000 with Erieye-ER & other sensors: a big jump in capability) with an option for two more.

The NATO AEW organisation has 16 full members, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Turkey and the United States. Greece, Italy & Turkey are members despite having some AEW aircraft of their own. France & the UK aren't, but they cooperate with it.

AFAIK Poland bought the 2 ex-UAE SAAB 340 Erieyes because they were available more quickly than anything else, & give a very useful capability. The Poles have borders with Russia, Belarus & Ukraine. Swedish SAAB 340 Erieyes have been operating over Poland, & I think have had Polish observers aboard at times. Maybe the Poles see them as a supplement to participation in NATO AWACS, maybe as a gap filler, maybe as a precursor to a more advanced national capability. But I've not heard anything about Germany going its own way. Can you say why you think it's a possibility?

 

[StingrayOZ]

France already has its own, as do Turkey, the UK, Italy & Greece.

Sorry, my point about France wasn't very clear. They will probably want their own system. France on occasion drops out of NATO, and also tends to want itself more independent than integrated if it loses sovereignty. France seems committed to the E3 and has not seen the writing on the wall, they just purchased more E3 simulators at the start of the year.

France buys new sims for its E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft | Shephard

The full flight simulator procurement falls under the cockpit modernisation programme awarded to Air France Industries KLM Engineering and Maintenance.

www.shephardmedia.com

I would imagine France will have to decide what capabilities it feels it needs. Frances E3 are much newer than the US, and probably have much less flight hours, but that doesn't absolve their technical obsolesce. Much like japan, who has 767 based E3's, who are fine for flight reliability, but still technologically behind the game.

AFAIK Poland bought the 2 ex-UAE SAAB 340 Erieyes because they were available more quickly than anything else, & give a very useful capability. The Poles have borders with Russia, Belarus & Ukraine. Swedish SAAB 340 Erieyes have been operating over Poland, & I think have had Polish observers aboard at times. Maybe the Poles see them as a supplement to participation in NATO AWACS, maybe as a gap filler, maybe as a precursor to a more advanced national capability. But I've not heard anything about Germany going its own way. Can you say why you think it's a possibility?

Poland is in a very vulnerable position. Ukraine conflict for them has been a huge eye opener how NATO works and where Poland sees itself in NATO.
Turkey acquired its own E7 because of its own needs which NATO capability doesn't exactly prioritise. That was before Syria, and Ukraine and all of that. Turkey has its own complicated history with NATO, particularly with NATO member Greece.

But I've not heard anything about Germany going its own way. Can you say why you think it's a possibility?

There is tension between Germany and France and huge questions where Germany sees itself in NATO and the role for its military.

Germany awaits France’s signal on new sub-hunting planes

Extra P-8 Poseidon planes or not, Berlin wants to coordinate its investments with Paris, banking on the bilateral Maritime Airborne Warning System for now.

www.defensenews.com

Germany just bought 3 more P8s. Germany broke with France on a Euro antisubmarine platform, so the P8 acquisition is big news.

Germany Buying Three More P-8 Poseidons | Aviation Week Network

Germany has formally contracted for three additional Boeing P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, just days after funding was approved by the Parliament.

aviationweek.com

Germany buying P8's and Germany buying F-35 are really significant moves. I wouldn't say Germany buying E7 is a done deal or even an open project, but Australian E7 operating out of US bases in Germany is significant. Germany is looking at what it needs for the future, and Germany may want its own sovereign E7 capability. For all its talk about being self reliant, being reliant on a non-NATO member, flying out of a US airbase in Germany completely undermines German self reliance. If Germany wants to base something in former east Germany, it has to own it.

One of the things German is doing is travelling around and checking out and showing off its own capabilities and seeing how they function from afar. Now they are doing that, something like an E7 capability, even if just 3 airframes, would be significant. The NATO order is clearly small.

But we are now running into issues on 737 based platform, as with all the P8 and E7 orders, these are not available for immediate delivery. There is no urgent rush to order right now.

Some customers may want to assess the platform once it is in service with NATO and the US and the new software and capabilities are delivered. Also if the E3 is becomes unsupportable the landscape will look very different. Once F-35 are delivered with blk IV capabilities things also become more reliant on aircraft like the E7.

In a 5th generation battlespace, its not just managing air traffic, its managing the entire EMS and information flow. Its managing all the communication links, the information, cataloguing all the EM emissions from everything from a phone, a radio, to a drone to a fighter to a destroyer.

 

[ngatimozart]

For those who are easily confused. The EA-18G has a totally different mission to the MC-55 Peregrine. The Growler is used to sneakily unlock and open a gate before the strike aircraft wreck the joint. The Peregrine doesn't accompany strike packages because it wouldn't survive in a contested environment. It eavesdrops and does other sneaky electronic stuff from a safe distance. For Aussies the Growler is the wombat to the Tazzie devil. The Peregrine is the magpie.