Britain Could Buy up to SIX of Boeing’s E-7 airborne early-warning and control aircraft
- Thread starter BMD
- Start date
Don't tempt them they may very well do it. These days swadeshi is picking up pace in UK.
TLDW;
I thought RAF would hang on to E-3 Sentry until US comes up with its replacement for its own airforce. Considering the fact Sentry radar is not an AESA it's not hard to see why one would want to replace it, but the choice of E-7A seems more of a hurried and/or cost-conscious approach rather than one that delivers full capability replacement.
Just how much of a blind spot does E-7 have? For lower-tier air forces like RAAF it might be just fine but I always imagined USAF, RAF & AdlA were the type to go for the better capability, even if it costs a bit more and might take longer to deliver....at least when it comes to all-important airpower.
As I said TLDW so let me know if I'm going over something already said in the video but he actually does have a point. How much more would it have cost to buy a few ELW-2090 systems from IAI and put it on an A330/B737? Or if off-the-shelf buys were indeed on the agenda, the latest Israeli 2085 or 2090 in a Conformal side & nose AEW config on a G550 seems simply a much better well-rounded platform than the E-7's beam radar.
Everyone's buying G550 CAEWs...including US Navy (telemetry ranging), Italy, Singapore (and Israel itself). The E-7 was developed more as a budget solution for lower-tier militaries like ROK & Turkey.
In the earlier part of the vid its said they considered a lot of options so I guess the E-7 was compared with all these and decided to be cheaper option. Pretty strange they'd compromise on cost for a pretty central piece of the airpower puzzle like an AEW platform.
Not Tejas but DRDO AWACS (I) program.
AERO INDIA: New Delhi set to sign off on A330 AEW&C platform
But I don't think Britain has the guts to go alone on a military project of this size. (This is not Brexit ! )
It's cheap enough, so congrats? I guess.
I agree with @Parthu though. The US itself isn't interested in the E-7 and instead went for a mix of revitalized E-3s and unmanned aircraft, but is using a G550 mod:
Granted that aircraft, the first operational unit, is for range telemetry, missile testing and jamming purposes as a replacement for the NP-3D "Billboard":
But its basically a G550 CAEW without out the mission and with Raytheon subsystems instead.
Overall there are far better alternatives to the E-7A.
...
Just to toot my own horn for a minute, anyone want to guess who got to get up close and personal with NATO E-3s during Trident Juncture 2018
?
So cool. I can't wait to tour their replacements
.
I agree with @Parthu though. The US itself isn't interested in the E-7 and instead went for a mix of revitalized E-3s and unmanned aircraft, but is using a G550 mod:
Granted that aircraft, the first operational unit, is for range telemetry, missile testing and jamming purposes as a replacement for the NP-3D "Billboard":
But its basically a G550 CAEW without out the mission and with Raytheon subsystems instead.
Overall there are far better alternatives to the E-7A.
...
Just to toot my own horn for a minute, anyone want to guess who got to get up close and personal with NATO E-3s during Trident Juncture 2018
?
So cool. I can't wait to tour their replacements
.
Last edited by a moderator:
After the MRA4 we'll need to have the national debt paid down a long way before attempting such a thing.
The figures suggest otherwise. The G550 is capable of tracking 100 targets and guiding over a dozen intercepts at a range up to 370km. The E-7 can track 180 targets and guide two dozen intercepts at a range of 600+km.
Everyone's buying G550 CAEWs...including US Navy (telemetry ranging), Italy, Singapore (and Israel itself). The E-7 was developed more as a budget solution for lower-tier militaries like ROK & Turkey.
In the earlier part of the vid its said they considered a lot of options so I guess the E-7 was compared with all these and decided to be cheaper option. Pretty strange they'd compromise on cost for a pretty central piece of the airpower puzzle like an AEW platform.
IAI EL/W-2085 - Wikipedia
Boeing 737 AEW&C - Wikipedia
Granted the number of targets tracked (important metric for a battlefield-management platform) is in favor of the E-7, but the range figures, even from the quoted Wiki articles, are not as drastically different as you say:
E-7:
" The radar is capable of simultaneous air and sea search, fighter control and area search, with a maximum range of over 600 km (look-up mode). When operating in look-down mode against fighter-sized target, the maximum range is in excess of 370 km. When used against maritime targets, the maximum range is over 240 km for frigate-sized targets. "
The 'fighter-sized target' is the point to watch out for and it doesn't say what kind of RCS it can find at 600km in look-up. Could mean anything.
For the 2085, the only citation available for that range data leads to a StrategyPage article, which actually doesn't say anything about radar detection ranges at all. Electronic Weapons: Singapore Gets New AWACS
I've also looked at the official IAI brochure for the 2085, doesn't say anything about range. Not surprising, IAI was never big on revealing such metrics. http://www.iai.co.il/Sip_Storage//FILES/9/41159.pdf
Honestly, I don't expect there to be anything but marginal differences between the two radar systems. Not drawing any conclusions yet though, given how hard this data is to come by. Still, it doesn't seem like the choice for E-7 was anything other than a cost-driven decision. I think even the reason for not upgrading the E-3s till US develops their replacement was also the involved costs.
That' 370+km is for for look-down mode, which is more limited, e.g. the range of the MiG-31BM's Zaslon-AM against cruise missiles in look-down is only 40km. The maximum at altitude is actually stated at 850+km for 30,000ft.
370km is what all internet sources say for the 2085. This source also suggest 380-400km for the 2085 and suggests tracking of thousands of targets for the E-7 radar.
Asian Airborne Early Warning Programmes | Asian Defence News Articles | Defence Review Asia
I would also point at that the elevated position of the array on the E-7 means the wings won't be in the way as much.
Northrop Grumman radar beats all. Hardly a budget choice. How is Italy in a position to afford anything other than a budget choice pray tell?
We're comparing different metrics. Yes, 370+ km is in look-down against fighter-sized target, but what's the RCS size in consideration for that 600km look-up range? It doesn't mention. Look-down range is limited yes, but really depends on how high the AEW is flying. If it can spot a fighter at 370km in lookdown while the fighter is still against the horizon (not flying against the backdrop of the Earth making it harder to detect among the ground clutter), then that metric should still hold true more or less for look-up mode against a target of similar RCS.
Really hard to say from these figures which mention X criteria for one metric and Y for the other. Companies are clever like that.
I believe the 850+km figure is in its capacity as an ELINT platform, where the range is dependent on the strength of the enemy's transmission, not that of your own radar.
If you scroll down to the Singapore section, it says G550 CAEW is 500km. But still nobody says if thats the look-up, look-down or against what kind of target.
Real hard to make arguments when each source gives different figures. Again not surprising, I've heard range figures for our 2090 Phalcon (not the 2075/85) varying from 450km to 850km or more. Heard of them being able to monitor Pakistani airspace almost up till the Afghan border without even having to leave the airspace of their home base near Agra (which itself is around 500km from Pak border). But you won't find IAI ever publicly mentioning anything like that. So one has to imagine how these small sites probably run by 20-something year olds can reliably state X range for a system.
Possible. But Grumman radar still does not defy physics. A Grumman radar of a certain form factor is not going to give x2 or x3 the performance of an Elta radar of that same size and same generation. At most it might give a ~10-15% increase realistically. That's if we assume its better in the first place.
And IAI Elta was among the first (or the first?) in the world to develop an AESA-based airborne early warning system.
Neither E-7 nor G550 are 'cheap' systems per se. But the decision to go for either of these is the budget choice. Otherwise the approach would have been to pay whatever it takes to upgrade & maintain the E-3s until their replacement (which will ofcourse be infinitely superior to E-7 or CAEW) comes from the US. Whole reason for this purchase is that it would cost too much to pay for the upkeep of E-3s, at least that's what I took away from I've read about the issue.
As of E-7 choice, ofcourse cost has to be factor, if not the most important factor. Also the platform (B737) being a widely used commercial aircraft (Gulfstream doesn't even come close) and also the platform for the P-8As which RAF will also operate, there has to have been considerable money saved in this platform keeping cost of spares & Life-cycle costs in mind.
It mentions fighter control when stating 600+km. Look-down does include clutter though.We're comparing different metrics. Yes, 370+ km is in look-down against fighter-sized target, but what's the RCS size in consideration for that 600km look-up range? It doesn't mention. Look-down range is limited yes, but really depends on how high the AEW is flying. If it can spot a fighter at 370km in lookdown while the fighter is still against the horizon (not flying against the backdrop of the Earth making it harder to detect among the ground clutter), then that metric should still hold true more or less for look-up mode against a target of similar RCS.
Really hard to say from these figures which mention X criteria for one metric and Y for the other. Companies are clever like that.
I believe the 850+km figure is in its capacity as an ELINT platform, where the range is dependent on the strength of the enemy's transmission, not that of your own radar.
If you scroll down to the Singapore section, it says G550 CAEW is 500km. But still nobody says if thats the look-up, look-down or against what kind of target.
Real hard to make arguments when each source gives different figures. Again not surprising, I've heard range figures for our 2090 Phalcon (not the 2075/85) varying from 450km to 850km or more. Heard of them being able to monitor Pakistani airspace almost up till the Afghan border without even having to leave the airspace of their home base near Agra (which itself is around 500km from Pak border). But you won't find IAI ever publicly mentioning anything like that. So one has to imagine how these small sites probably run by 20-something year olds can reliably state X range for a system.
Possible. But Grumman radar still does not defy physics. A Grumman radar of a certain form factor is not going to give x2 or x3 the performance of an Elta radar of that same size and same generation. At most it might give a ~10-15% increase realistically. That's if we assume its better in the first place.
And IAI Elta was among the first (or the first?) in the world to develop an AESA-based airborne early warning system.
Neither E-7 nor G550 are 'cheap' systems per se. But the decision to go for either of these is the budget choice. Otherwise the approach would have been to pay whatever it takes to upgrade & maintain the E-3s until their replacement (which will ofcourse be infinitely superior to E-7 or CAEW) comes from the US. Whole reason for this purchase is that it would cost too much to pay for the upkeep of E-3s, at least that's what I took away from I've read about the issue.
As of E-7 choice, ofcourse cost has to be factor, if not the most important factor. Also the platform (B737) being a widely used commercial aircraft (Gulfstream doesn't even come close) and also the platform for the P-8As which RAF will also operate, there has to have been considerable money saved in this platform keeping cost of spares & Life-cycle costs in mind.
Nope, it says '12 500km' which is the range of the aircraft not the 2085 radar.
Only 310 miles or 500km for the ELM 2090, so probably around the stated 370-400km for the ELM 2085. 2090 is UHF band not L-Band. 2085 is L-Band at side and S-Band nose and tail, so may not give the same range all round.
IAI Unveils UHF Radar
First has nothing to do with it. NG is chosen for nearly every airborne radar. They have a far bigger budget and most IAI stuff is borrowed US tech.
I don't know, the E-7 is vastly superior to the E-3 as regards coverage and scan rate and number of targets. Seems more like an upgrade. The E-10 MCA2 was cancelled, so right now the E-7 is the best there is. There is no word of other replacements.
Ah yes.
Yea E-7 is an upgrade, its developed several decades after the E-3 was. But it was never meant to be its replacement, more as an interim solution for smaller militaries (very possibly a purely commercial development by Boeing/Grumman to try and grab some of the market share which would otherwise have gone to the likes of Saab Erieye).
The idea was always to maintain the E-3 until its replacement (which will obviously be far better than E-7) arrives, which ideally shouldn't be more than 10 years away, considering Grumman already has the tech and can put it on any suitable platform like B767 (commonality with KC-46 tanker) or newer 787. This is the approach that other Sentry radar operators like France and Japan are taking:
Boeing receives contract for French E-3F AWACS upgrades
Japan Orders Upgrades for its 4 E-767 AWACS
When the replacement comes (which it will and has to, USAF won't keep up with a non-AESA AEW forever), these countries will get that but then RAF won't be in a position to do so as by then you'd have already committed billions to the E-7.
If this choice was really made necessary by spending considerations, nothing anyone can do about that but can't help but look at this as a possible setback due to a decision taken in haste without considering what the future might offer. Sure USAF has been quiet about E-3 replacement and its possible this silence may have prompted RAF to make a decision quickly.
But is this is a done deal (I mean, has E-7 been officially selected), or is it still a "may buy E-7"?
The only known replacement - the E-10 - was cancelled. The E-3F is virtually identical to the UK E-3D. The range of both is the same, as stated in your link.
Boeing E-3 Sentry - Wikipedia
The E-767 AWACS is the same equipment as the later E-3s but on a different plane.
There is no replacement though, not even one in the works. The E-7 is the only game in town but there has been no commitment yet. They'll probably have discussions with the US. It depends on how soon the replacement will come but right now it looks like 2035.
UK nearing final stages of deal for E-7 Wedgetail aircraft
Right now the E-3 is pretty much outdated, and is cheaper to replace than maintain for another 20 years, at which point it will be useless anyway. If it's cheaper to buy an upgrade for that 20 year period, how would that put us in a worse position for getting the alleged E-3 replacement? We haven't committed more money by upgrading. The article says it's £2bn to sustain the E-3s and ROK paid only $1.6bn (~£1.2bn) for four E-7s. So we should be able to buy 6 for ~£1.8bn, save £200m and still buy the E-3 replacements in 2035, whilst also having a vastly superior AEW capability to France and Italy over the next 2 decades. The airframes will be junk by 2035 anyway (they'll be 50 years old), so there's no point hanging on to them. Seems like the decision ticks all boxes - better capability and cheaper in the interim and long-term. If the US were to say that the E-3 replacements would be ready in 5-10 years, then that would be a different matter.
Even if the airframes weren't going to be 50 years old by 2035, the E-3 replacement might not be based on anything remotely similar. A lot can change with such a long lead-time. We might be talking about a series of unmanned aircraft with conformal radars acting as a composite array, or an airship. Heck, maybe fighter radar will be so good by 2035 and aircraft so stealthy and EW so good, that dedicated AEW will be pointless. 20 years and £2bn is a long time and a lot of money to be wasting on a POS in the meantime. Consider an E-3 vs an F-22. 400km against a fighter-sized target, notionally 2.5-3m^2, is less than 50km against an F-22. Not even worth calculating accurately, by that range, either fighter cover has shot down the stealth aggressor, or the large AEW has already been plugged full of MRAAM. It's basically become the equivalent of an observation balloon in WWI against advanced threats.
Boeing E-3 Sentry - Wikipedia
The E-767 AWACS is the same equipment as the later E-3s but on a different plane.
There is no replacement though, not even one in the works. The E-7 is the only game in town but there has been no commitment yet. They'll probably have discussions with the US. It depends on how soon the replacement will come but right now it looks like 2035.
UK nearing final stages of deal for E-7 Wedgetail aircraft
Right now the E-3 is pretty much outdated, and is cheaper to replace than maintain for another 20 years, at which point it will be useless anyway. If it's cheaper to buy an upgrade for that 20 year period, how would that put us in a worse position for getting the alleged E-3 replacement? We haven't committed more money by upgrading. The article says it's £2bn to sustain the E-3s and ROK paid only $1.6bn (~£1.2bn) for four E-7s. So we should be able to buy 6 for ~£1.8bn, save £200m and still buy the E-3 replacements in 2035, whilst also having a vastly superior AEW capability to France and Italy over the next 2 decades. The airframes will be junk by 2035 anyway (they'll be 50 years old), so there's no point hanging on to them. Seems like the decision ticks all boxes - better capability and cheaper in the interim and long-term. If the US were to say that the E-3 replacements would be ready in 5-10 years, then that would be a different matter.
Even if the airframes weren't going to be 50 years old by 2035, the E-3 replacement might not be based on anything remotely similar. A lot can change with such a long lead-time. We might be talking about a series of unmanned aircraft with conformal radars acting as a composite array, or an airship. Heck, maybe fighter radar will be so good by 2035 and aircraft so stealthy and EW so good, that dedicated AEW will be pointless. 20 years and £2bn is a long time and a lot of money to be wasting on a POS in the meantime. Consider an E-3 vs an F-22. 400km against a fighter-sized target, notionally 2.5-3m^2, is less than 50km against an F-22. Not even worth calculating accurately, by that range, either fighter cover has shot down the stealth aggressor, or the large AEW has already been plugged full of MRAAM. It's basically become the equivalent of an observation balloon in WWI against advanced threats.
Last edited:
USAF has to be crazy if they're planning to use Sentry till 2035. They aren't that negligent when it comes to maintaining a relevant AEW capability.
As of fighter radars being good enough, sure they're going to get better & better but they'll still fall short of an array that is 10 times their size and where the throughput power as well is that much more (provided both radars are of a similar tech). Besides, AEW&C's job isn't just AEW but C as well.
You need a dozen or so workstations on board to crunch & dissect the data, and manage the battlespace. A fighter can't replace that.
The problem is that if I have a radar that's 10x the area and assume it has 10x the power, then I get a 5.62x increase in range. But if the aircraft carrying that radar has an RCS of 20m^2, that's 200,000 times that of an F-22. So if we assume the F-22 radar half the size can detect another F-22 at 30km, then the AEW radar can detect it at ~170km. But the F-22 radar can detect the AEW at 634km, or whatever the maximum range of its radar is. 170km is inside Meteor range, or R-37 range. So there's been a shift from the days of Desert Storm where AEWs could detect fighters from at least 4 times the distance they could shoot from to a situation where the AEW is in danger, and arguably a new solution is needed.
To &C, first you must see.
Newer data links allow them to do just that. Maybe there is role for an AEW-type aircraft to collect information from distributed sensors in the battle-space and relay it back to base but don't expect early warnings from it. Maybe quantum radar will change that, who knows.