Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions

[John Fedup]

Still though, France chose it "over competitors like Boeing's Wedgetail E-7A". That does suggest quite strongly that the French view this as a very capable platform, and should not be ruled out as an option for Canada's AEW project because of any perceptions about the clear superiority of the E-7. With regards to the questions about Link 22 posted earlier, France (and Canada) was one of the development nations for this technology, virtually guaranteeing it will be included in the GlobalEye.

Technologies l Naval systems

Rohde & Schwarz contributes actively toward the optimization and standardization of LINK 22, and provides input to various working groups in NATO.

www.rohde-schwarz.com

.

France is championing Euro defence solutions so the GlobalEye had a political advantage over the E-7.

 

[John Fedup]

However, unrefueled range advantage would appear to go to the GlobalEye. The Wedgetail, from the sources I could find, seems to have a maximum range of ~3500nm. That makes sense, because it is based on the 737-700ER, with some loss attributable to drag from the radar and other "protrusions". I have found no ranges published for the GlobalEye, but the Global 6500 upon which it is based has a range of 6600 nm. Even assuming a loss to drag from the radar of 1000nm, it would still outrange the Wedgetail, so AAR may not be as big an issue, given Canada is looking to buy these for Arctic patrols within Canada only.

https://bombardier.com/en/aircraft/global-6500#bba-pdp-section-4

Agree, there is likely a significant range advantage for the GlobalEye. It should also be possible to buy more aircraft, an additional advantage.

 

[seaspear]

Agree, there is likely a significant range advantage for the GlobalEye. It should also be possible to buy more aircraft, an additional advantage.

This article shows a picture of aerial refuelling of a Wedgetail from some years ago but does also go into the differences of the respective radars a question might be of having both aircraft in the fleet for different roles

Next-generation AWACS – Boeing’s E-7 Wedgetail

Boeing’s E-7 Wedgetail was expected to take over from the E-3 AWACS as it departed, but this hasn’t happened. Delays and cost overruns have meant the aircraft has not yet reached its full potential.

www.key.aero

 

[Todjaeger]

Still though, France chose it "over competitors like Boeing's Wedgetail E-7A". That does suggest quite strongly that the French view this as a very capable platform, and should not be ruled out as an option for Canada's AEW project because of any perceptions about the clear superiority of the E-7. With regards to the questions about Link 22 posted earlier, France (and Canada) was one of the development nations for this technology, virtually guaranteeing it will be included in the GlobalEye.

Technologies l Naval systems

Rohde & Schwarz contributes actively toward the optimization and standardization of LINK 22, and provides input to various working groups in NATO.

www.rohde-schwarz.com

.

I would respectfully disagree regarding any guarantee that Link 22 will be integrated into GlobalEye. Yes, both Canada and France were (and continue to be) among the seven nations which initially had a MOU to develop Link 22 to overcome/replace Link 11 due to some of the potential deficiencies of that set of systems and technologies. IMO there are a couple of key parts of that, with one being that the host nation for the MOU was the US which I read as the US being essentially the prime. One of the other (and related) key parts is that the source of the radars and avionics which make up the AEW portion of GlobalEye is Sweden, which is not part of the MOU to develop Link 22.

As I understand it, this would leave a couple of potential scenarios if Link 22 were to be fitted. Either Sweden (not Saab) would need to purchase Link 22 systems from the US via FMS and provide them to Saab for integration into GlobalEye, or Canada/France would need to purchase Link 22 systems via the MOU and then oversee their integration aboard completed GlobalEye AEW aircraft.

It could still happen, but the impression I have been left is that there are a few additional hoops which would need to be jumped through and approvals granted, before integration could be done. These sorts of things could result in things not getting approved which would stop integration, or end up having anticipated costs and difficulties be greater than is deemed worthwhile.

As a side note, the kinematic performance of a civilian airliner might not mean much for AEW platforms derived from those airliners. I suspect mission endurance or loiter time would be one of the key metrics and not range. An airliner or freighter range is important because that can determine the max point to point distances which can be traveled for a route or airlift, but for an AEW mission the important part is how long can the aircraft conduct surveillance in the assigned patrol area. Even with in-flight refueling and alternate/secondary aircrews onboard, MPA and AEW aircraft can only effectively conduct missions for a certain duration before needing to be replaced.

Therefore, I would be more interested in knowing what the absolute max mission endurance is possible (and how it is achieved) as well as what the potential options are for onboard power generation and cooling, and what if any future growth options might be.

 

[seaspear]

A R.A.A.F Wedgetail set a seventeen hour record over Iraq and Syria

RAAF E-7A sets new endurance record during mission over Iraq, Syria – Alert 5

This article states that at the rear is a crew rest area this can of course can provide rotation and optimal performance of crew for endurance, does a smaller aircraft provide this for endurance?

Next-generation AWACS – Boeing’s E-7 Wedgetail

Boeing’s E-7 Wedgetail was expected to take over from the E-3 AWACS as it departed, but this hasn’t happened. Delays and cost overruns have meant the aircraft has not yet reached its full potential.

www.key.aero

 

[Todjaeger]

A R.A.A.F Wedgetail set a seventeen hour record over Iraq and Syria

RAAF E-7A sets new endurance record during mission over Iraq, Syria – Alert 5

This article states that at the rear is a crew rest area this can of course can provide rotation and optimal performance of crew for endurance, does a smaller aircraft provide this for endurance?

Next-generation AWACS – Boeing’s E-7 Wedgetail

Boeing’s E-7 Wedgetail was expected to take over from the E-3 AWACS as it departed, but this hasn’t happened. Delays and cost overruns have meant the aircraft has not yet reached its full potential.

www.key.aero

IIRC the estimated max mission endurance for an E-7 Wedgetail is 18 hours on station, and a P-8A Poseidon has a max on station mission endurance of up to 15 hours. As I understand it, these aircraft could fly into an assigned patrol area, get tanked up and then loiter on station for 15 or 18 hours (depending on which aircraft) and tank again and fly back to base.

As I understand it, the mission endurance limit is not due to onboard fuel but something else which cannot be replenished in flight. My personal suspicion is that the consumable is some sort of coolant for the emitters, avionics, or both. Therefore one of the questions to ask is how long could a GlobalEye remain on station.

 

[swerve]

Good question. Published information says "over 11 hours of operational endurance", but not how much over, & nothing about the conditions. Nor is it clear whether that's the current production version based on the Global 6000, or the version for future orders, based on the Global 6500, which SAAB says will have slightly (unquantified) more endurance.

I wonder if It may be worth asking SAAB. I once asked Leonardo (before it was called Leonardo) a question about one of their radars, in the faint hope of resolving a disagreement on an online forum, & got a very nice email back which firmly settled the matter in my favour.

P.S. I found a report from AINOnline saying that SAAB staff had said that Global 6500-based Globaleyes would have "typical" endurance of about 13 hours, compared to 11-12 hours for current ones.

 

[John Fedup]

IIRC, Canadian AWACs will be for use over Canadian (perhaps Alaska approaches) airspace only. Range and endurance will also depend on where these jets are based. The LINK issue and overall performance are more important. Politics will still be the primary factor….unfortunately.

 

[Sender]

IIRC, Canadian AWACs will be for use over Canadian (perhaps Alaska approaches) airspace only. Range and endurance will also depend on where these jets are based. The LINK issue and overall performance are more important. Politics will still be the primary factor….unfortunately.

I completely agree John. The point I'm trying to make is Canada could do a lot worse if the GlobalEye is selected. I still think the RCAF, for many reasons (commonality with the P8, and interoperability with the USAF), will recommend the E-7, but Bombardier will fight this tooth and nail, so what the RCAF wants and what the RCAF gets....

 

[Sender]

I would respectfully disagree regarding any guarantee that Link 22 will be integrated into GlobalEye. Yes, both Canada and France were (and continue to be) among the seven nations which initially had a MOU to develop Link 22 to overcome/replace Link 11 due to some of the potential deficiencies of that set of systems and technologies. IMO there are a couple of key parts of that, with one being that the host nation for the MOU was the US which I read as the US being essentially the prime. One of the other (and related) key parts is that the source of the radars and avionics which make up the AEW portion of GlobalEye is Sweden, which is not part of the MOU to develop Link 22.

As I understand it, this would leave a couple of potential scenarios if Link 22 were to be fitted. Either Sweden (not Saab) would need to purchase Link 22 systems from the US via FMS and provide them to Saab for integration into GlobalEye, or Canada/France would need to purchase Link 22 systems via the MOU and then oversee their integration aboard completed GlobalEye AEW aircraft.

It could still happen, but the impression I have been left is that there are a few additional hoops which would need to be jumped through and approvals granted, before integration could be done. These sorts of things could result in things not getting approved which would stop integration, or end up having anticipated costs and difficulties be greater than is deemed worthwhile.

As a side note, the kinematic performance of a civilian airliner might not mean much for AEW platforms derived from those airliners. I suspect mission endurance or loiter time would be one of the key metrics and not range. An airliner or freighter range is important because that can determine the max point to point distances which can be traveled for a route or airlift, but for an AEW mission the important part is how long can the aircraft conduct surveillance in the assigned patrol area. Even with in-flight refueling and alternate/secondary aircrews onboard, MPA and AEW aircraft can only effectively conduct missions for a certain duration before needing to be replaced.

Therefore, I would be more interested in knowing what the absolute max mission endurance is possible (and how it is achieved) as well as what the potential options are for onboard power generation and cooling, and what if any future growth options might be.

Thanks for this. The FMS aspect is interesting. However, according to this older post, the "GlobalEye is equipped with a comprehensive communications suite, with Link 11/16/22 and other datalinks, satcom and voice comms." I would also note that Saab's marketing touts the GlobalEye as being "fully NATO compliant", which strongly suggests Link 22 integration.

Saab launches GlobalEye for Swing-role Surveillance | AIN

New flexible Bombardier Global 6000 platform and Erieye radar make for a highly capable surveillance platform.

www.ainonline.com

 

[Sender]

More on Link 22: About

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for this. The FMS aspect is interesting. However, according to this older post, the "GlobalEye is equipped with a comprehensive communications suite, with Link 11/16/22 and other datalinks, satcom and voice comms." I would also note that Saab's marketing touts the GlobalEye as being "fully NATO compliant", which strongly suggests Link 22 integration.

Saab launches GlobalEye for Swing-role Surveillance | AIN

New flexible Bombardier Global 6000 platform and Erieye radar make for a highly capable surveillance platform.

www.ainonline.com

Again, I would disagree with that interpretation. There are currently seven NATO participants in the Link 22 MOU, with Spain having replaced the Netherlands which previously had been a participant. This in turn means that 25 NATO member-states are not participants in Link 22. With less than a third of NATO members being involved in Link 22, that strongly suggests to me that, whilst a Link 22 system is going to be NATO-compliant, a system can still be NATO-compliant without possessing Link 22.

Lastly, consider the second to last paragraph from the Link 22 page. I have quoted it below for ease of reference.

The Link 22 system is centered around its core component, the system network controller (SNC). This software exists as a single implementation, produced by the NILE PMO and owned by the NILE nations. To ensure compatibility across Link 22 implementations, all participants must use this SNC software. Each implementing nation will acquire this software and will implement it in a hardware environment suitable for its own application. Therefore, the SNC is not available as a commercial product, and is supplied by NILE PMO to NILE agreed Third-Party Sales nations with an annual maintenance fee.

The last two sentences would seem to be key. The way I read that, if Canada and/or France were to wish to have Link 22 aboard GlobalEye, then those respective nations would be responsible for implementing it. The other alternative would be for a non-MOU participant nation like Sweden to seek to purchase portions of the Link 22 system from the US (as program managing nation), which would then need to be approved by the MOU participants, and then once the purchasing nation had the components, could then work to integrate Link 22 capabilities. From my reading of things, it does not seem like Saab could purchase and then fit Link 22 aboard a platform and then offer that for sale or export to other end-users.

 

[John Fedup]

It would seem France and Sweden in conjunction with Saab (Canada and others approved by the US) need to sort the Link 22 issue with some cash.

 

[seaspear]

Australia as per this article is planning on introducing link 22 to its Wedgetails in the early 2020,s amongst other upgrades

Keeping Wedgetail at the top of its game - Australian Defence Magazine

Though it lacks the anticipation and excitement surrounding the forthcoming Phase 6 capability upgrade planned for the RAAF’s E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) fleet, the Phase...

www.australiandefence.com.au

 

[Todjaeger]

It would seem France and Sweden in conjunction with Saab (Canada and others approved by the US) need to sort the Link 22 issue with some cash.

If end-users want to have Link 22 integrated into GlobalEye (or Swordfish, for that matter) then yes, cash and tech personel/resources would be needed, simply because systems integration and testing are never free and rarely easy. If a Link 22 partner is the nation wishing for the inclusion of Link 22, then as I understand it no additional approvals are required because they are already partners for Link 22 development, however it would be up to the individual nations to they carry out integrating Link 22 onto the platform(s) they desire.

Where things get tricksy (and I suspect Saab might be playing a little fast and loose with marketing) is if Saab or another vendor not from a Link 22 partner-nation wanted to sell platforms with Link 22 already integrated. Similarly, if a vendor, even one from a partner-nation, wanted to export kit with Link 22 integrated to non-Link 22 partner nations, then approval from the partner-nations would be needed.

Canada in some respects might have an even more complicated integration issue, if there is NORAD-specific comms and/or datalink systems which would need to be integrated, apart from anything to do with Link 22.

 

[Pusser01]

Australia as per this article is planning on introducing link 22 to its Wedgetails in the early 2020,s amongst other upgrades

Keeping Wedgetail at the top of its game - Australian Defence Magazine

Though it lacks the anticipation and excitement surrounding the forthcoming Phase 6 capability upgrade planned for the RAAF’s E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) fleet, the Phase...

www.australiandefence.com.au

I remember reading that the RAAF was going to fit its E-7's with CEC, I wonder if this has occurred yet.

 

[John Fedup]

If end-users want to have Link 22 integrated into GlobalEye (or Swordfish, for that matter) then yes, cash and tech personel/resources would be needed, simply because systems integration and testing are never free and rarely easy. If a Link 22 partner is the nation wishing for the inclusion of Link 22, then as I understand it no additional approvals are required because they are already partners for Link 22 development, however it would be up to the individual nations to they carry out integrating Link 22 onto the platform(s) they desire.

Where things get tricksy (and I suspect Saab might be playing a little fast and loose with marketing) is if Saab or another vendor not from a Link 22 partner-nation wanted to sell platforms with Link 22 already integrated. Similarly, if a vendor, even one from a partner-nation, wanted to export kit with Link 22 integrated to non-Link 22 partner nations, then approval from the partner-nations would be needed.

Canada in some respects might have an even more complicated integration issue, if there is NORAD-specific comms and/or datalink systems which would need to be integrated, apart from anything to do with Link 22.

iIRC, it was NORAD requirements that were deemed too expensive to implement on Gripens that resulted in Saab withdrawing from the Canadian fighter replacement albeit there were other factors as well.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I remember reading that the RAAF was going to fit its E-7's with CEC, I wonder if this has occurred yet.

Its not clear, Link22 is outside of Phase5 as a separate project for link22 on multiple platforms. Phase 5A didn't specifically include it.
Keeping Wedgetail at the top of its game - Australian Defence Magazine

Phase 6 is a bit more mysterious. It basically includes all the final upgrades to Wedgetail, as the platform because EOL for Australia 2035.Basically it is everything under the sun, and should include CEC, link22, as well as software and hardware upgrades and logistics to see out the program.

AIR7002 will acquire new AEW&C aircraft for Australia starting 2029 and delivering aircraft 2035. However, one imagines the formula would be very similar, with perhaps the 737-800/P8 airframe being selected. Allowing hardpoints, a common military platform, for the E7/P8.