RSAF. RAAF never had AEWs or E2Cs previously.
Just stating that the G550 CAEW will double the number of control stations of the E-2C. If RSAF could manage with just 1 E-2C and 3 stations in the air previously, then the G-550 doubles that capacity ie 6 stations can mean crew taking turns if only 3 needed.
RAAF has a lot more ground to cover but I doubt if the wedgetail radar coverage exceeds the G550. Altitude plays a significant part in radar range limits and the G550 can operate at much higher altitudes.
Also, wedgetail endurance is not more than the G550. If RAAF needed endurance, they should have gotten the B767 version or the larger B747 but cost outweighed endurance as a factor, hence the choice of the 737 platform.
Australian local radar coverage is also supplemented by ground stations.
The best part for RSAF is that if the E2C can be put into reserve and maintained in serviceable condition. RSAF actually has more AEW platforms than RAAF that can be used in wartime!
Regionally, RSAF and RAAF have overlapping interests and both are more likely to operate together than apart. Together they project very strong capabilities and should be seen as complementary rather than competing. Outside the region, RAAF has never participated without US/UK participation so their need is again complemented by others.
SGstar your argument does not justify, there is 11,000 over private jets all over the world. They are smaller jets, because your 737 economical of scale and maintance is false. The jets owner will tell you that smaller jet is still cheaper to buy, operate and maintance.
So there are no figures for a definitive comparison at all. As well, it is speculative and unlikely that the same observers(plus who are the observers?Boeing and good company?) in the DefenceNews article have access to the figures.
but the wedgetail has outsold the G550. the only two buyers are singapore and israel.
So there are no figures for a definitive comparison at all. As well, it is speculative and unlikely that the same observers(plus who are the observers?Boeing and friends?) in the DefenceNews article have access to the figures.
Originally posted by storywolf:SGstar your argument does not justify, there is 11,000 over private jets all over the world. They are smaller jets, because your 737 economical of scale and maintance is false. The jets owner will tell you that smaller jet is still cheaper to buy, operate and maintance.
Thats not really true. There was quite a bit of fuss kicked up by private jet owners who were petitioning to CAA to clear private jets to enter FL250 (or was it 280) and above citing fuel economy issues.
They were burning more fuel than anyone else becaue they weren't allowed to enter the higher altitude blocks where the bigger aircraft were allowed to cruise. The fuel consumption rate decrease between FL250 and FL300 is not marginal, hence the debate. The debate was slightly leaning to the operators of small jets at that point simply cause there seemed to be a lot of them popping up. Not sure if that will be the case given the current economic situation.
Originally posted by storywolf:SGstar your argument does not justify, there is 11,000 over private jets all over the world. They are smaller jets, because your 737 economical of scale and maintance is false. The jets owner will tell you that smaller jet is still cheaper to buy, operate and maintance.
hmm, i wonder why saab 9-5 parts are more expensive than a mitsubishi lancer or toyota altis part/corolla.
and i wonder why 737 is being used in the P8I, P8 poseidon and the wedgetails.
i wonder why so many budget airlines using 737 ? i wonder why so many airlines operate 737 if its uneconomical.
even though there are various models of the 737 series, there are definitely part commonalities throughout the entire fleet. the exact percentage, i cant tell you, the synergies to be exploited, are plain to see.
i simplified the concept of economies of scales to explain it to you. but there is a firm reason why the trend in military technologies are going for COTS and adapting commercial components and declining employment of exclusive military only platforms.
think of reasons why platforms like the nimrod are slated for future replacement and why commercial jets like the A330 and the 767 and 777 have been offered for the next generation tanker. Japan is the only oddity with its production of the kawasaki P-2 (correct me if i get this wrong) but they have special reasons for maintaining and supporting such an exclusive platform.
but sometimes, i wonder, is the issue really pertaining to a lack of evidence ? or is it more of a matter of individual perspective ? or is it something personal?
dont get me wrong, i have never said the 737 wedgetail will be cheaper than the gulfstream to run. On a platform to platform comparison basis, the 737 as a platform offers FAR greater benefits and potential than the gulfstream.
immediate operational costs not equals to economies of scale and runtime costs. sometimes you must look into what platform offers the best performance. why does the US M1 abrams tank use JP-8 when it can use diesel ?
lets look at it 20 years over a long run period/expected service life. will the 737 offer greater value and options in terms of parts, engines and potential upgrades ? will the cost to operate the 737 increase over the years as it becomes an increasingly outdated platform ? or will the g550, with a smaller fleet cost more ?
go figure. i can only convince you so far. the final decision rests in your mind anyway.
Originally posted by Fratboy:So there are no figures for a definitive comparison at all. As well, it is speculative and unlikely that the same observers(plus who are the observers?Boeing and good company?) in the DefenceNews article have access to the figures.
well you could be cynical about it or you can choose what you want to believe.
1) defence news plainly stated the number of buyers and who bought what. dont think you can read too much into that
2) regarding the doubts over the observers, i think that is a good point save for the fact that defence news also criticized boeing in a subsequent link. its lobby groups and the need for US congressional approval to transfer technology as a clear kind of unfair commercial pressure/tactic that boeing is employing.
somewhat brazenly if i might add.
should be pretty safe to eliminate an element of bias and accord the article a certain degree of journalistic balance.
3) why did the USAF use big awacs like the E-3 that uses the 707 as a baseline aircraft to carry the radar and equipment ?
why did Japan choose the 767 for its E-3 sentries ? could have chosen a smaller aircraft but chose to go with the 767.
all interesting questions to why compress the equipment and manpower needed into such a small airframe. such as the G550.
granted, the E-2C is a small aircraft, but it functioned in a lesser capacity, covering lesser radius and performing fewer functions compared to a full sized awacs.
its clear anecdotal evidence that larger aircraft are usually preferred for AWACs role.
should be pretty interesting to see what choice will the US and nato make when the E-3 sentries come up for replacement sometime in 2020. likely that the wedgetail would be in prime position for that as it would be a proven platform by then.
Tests prompt fears of further delays for Australia's Wedgetails
A
series of tests being carried out on Australia's Wedgetail airborne
early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft are likely to result in
further delays to the delivery of the platform to the Royal Australian
Air Force (RAAF), a source from the Australian Department of Defence
(DoD) has revealed to Jane's . The source said on 22 January that the
government's Wedgetail project team has indicated that the trials -
which are being carried out in the United States over the next six
months - "could cause a minor delay"
[first posted to http://jdin.janes.com - 22 January 2009]--EOQ
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The 737 engines will use more fuel than the BR710s simply because of its higher thrust (bigger engine, more fuel needed). Also, more people = more staff cost. That will be the bulk of costs.
The G550 is not a saab more like a picanto. Smaller engine, smaller vehicle compared to the B737. The saab has a more powerful engine compared to the altis.
Replacing a kia picanto engine will always be cheaper than an altis, even though there are fewer picantos. Same thing between CFM-56 (higher thrust) and BR-710 (lower thrust). Parts for a smaller vehicle will normally be cheaper than parts for a larger one. Higher cc engine normally use more fuel.
G550 = 6038 gal fuel load for 6750nm. B737-700ER 6875 gal fuel load for 5375nm.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=34&article_id=5421
Also, bigger plane= more parts to maintain.
Gulfstream actually operates Gulfsave which provides parts at cost-effective prices.
http://www.gulfstream.com/news/releases/2003/102803.html
Unless business jets disappear altogether which won't happen, the G550 shouldn't cost more than the B737 to maintain in both initial and life-time cost.
Even the USAF operates BR-710 engines with their C-37As.
RR is a brilliant manufacturer of engines (typical german efficiency) and the BR710 is probably the quietest and most reliable in its class.Overall, its another coup for DSTA in cost management.
1) defence news plainly stated the number of buyers and who bought what. dont think you can read too much into that
I was not able to post my full post for some reason? I had wanted to add that the Phalcon radar system has India, Singapore, Israel and Chile(first generation Phalcon) as buyers. This is against (what?) Australia, Turkey and South Koreaf or the Mesa radar system. Of course the Phalcon radar system is configurable on various platforms and currently found on the Streams and the II-76s. Does that mean that the Phalcon has a higher turnover and it is better?
regarding the doubts over the observers, i think that is a good point save for the fact that defence news also criticized boeing in a subsequent link. its lobby groups and the need for US congressional approval to transfer technology as a clear kind of unfair commercial pressure/tactic that boeing is employing.
which leaves us no where clearer as to whom these observers are. And no, it is not pretty safe to eliminate the possibility of journalistic bias at all since the lad`s sources are not revealed. You can still be cheeky albeit appearing serious; especially when they prefer to use generic terms. There is nothing in the article which show proofs exclusively and definitively that the Phalcon is better than the MESA anymore than the converse is truer.
3) why did the USAF use big awacs like the E-3 that uses the 707 as a baseline aircraft to carry the radar and equipment ?
why did Japan choose the 767 for its E-3 sentries ? could have chosen a smaller aircraft but chose to go with the 767.
all interesting questions to why compress the equipment and manpower needed into such a small airframe. such as the G550.
granted, the E-2C is a small aircraft, but it functioned in a lesser capacity, covering lesser radius and performing fewer functions compared to a full sized awacs.
its clear anecdotal evidence that larger aircraft are usually preferred for AWACs role.
Seriously, these large AEW & C and AWACs planes were concieved in an entirely different time period. Were miniturization techniques good enough or should I say cool enough to put these manual rotating radar domes on planes the size of the Streams? Hardly a viable comparison would you not think? Current anecdotal evidence seem to point the way of smaller frames as well; Gulf-streams, Erieye, Bombadiers for the Astor, etc. What does that say about smaller frames ? Even South Korea had originally wanted the Gulf-streams.
So, what`s the current score on the Phalcons and Mesa;
1) Radar Range -> Phalcon radar
2) Endurance -> CAEW Phalcon(more loiter time)
3) Altitude - > CAEW Phalcon(Not to mention attitude ;)
4) Ruggedness -> CAEW Phalcon with its ability of taking off from smaller and shorter(?) runaways
5) Radar print(RCS) -> CAEW Phalcon versus the fatter and slightly longer Boeing plane
6) Others -> CSM/COMINT and ELINT integrated for Phalcon
7) Space for crew -> Boeing MESA.
8) Ease of ability to configure radar for future threats and growth -> Uncle Israel and Phalcon. And not Grandfather US who can be very grumpy and touchy with such items.
Missed out any?
Ricketts’ report quotes Air Vice Marshall Chris Deeble as being unconvinced the system will work as advertised by late 2012, which in itself is yet another 18 months later than Boeing previously promised, after a string of broken deadlines.
Deeble is quoted as saying Australia has called in the MIT Lincoln Laboratory in the US to "help Australia understand the baseline performance of the system and to indicate any path forward for remediation of any shortfalls."
What! We now need help to understand what we bought! A Boeing spokesman flatly denied that it was going to cancel the project, but this is the company that promised Qantas it would have Dreamliners flying by now, and then by late next year, and now claims it doesn’t know when they will fly, or even how far. And it got off the hook with a trifling $291 million in liquidated damages to Qantas.
What does the over promising and under delivering of the Wedgetail and the Dreamliner say about the promises accepted by Brendan Nelson when he impulsively ordered $6 billion worth of F/A -18F Super Hornets to make up the defence gap caused by the delays to the Lockheed Martin lead JSF project?
Or of new defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon in confirming the order for a second rate jet that some critics claim will be as useful against Indonesia’s Russian built jets as the Polish Cavalry was in dealing with Hitler’s Panzer tanks.
Fitzgibbon has already written off $1 billion of taxpayer funds in the ludicrously inept Seasprite helicopter project. It would be chicken feed beside the consequences of a failure of the Wedgetail program.
In 2008, three years after it was due, we need help to understand the manifestly untrue line we were sold year ago. WTF.
]MIT Lincoln Laboratory is a federally funded research and development center chartered to apply advanced technology to problems of national security.
www.ll.mit.edu/
@@@@@@@@
Is there any conflict of interest by letting a USA Lab to check on Boeing's product?
-Chicago-based Boeing has twice taken charges for costs because it missed deliveries of the surveillance plane. In June 2006, the company said it would record $300 million to $500 million in pretax costs due to delays in the Australia and Turkey programs. In July 2008, it took a $250 million pretax charge for the Australia program.EOQ
Good thing we did not opt for the MESA then
Originally posted by Fratboy:Good thing we did not opt for the MESA then
MESA is relatively newer than Phalcon and is bound to have teething troubles at the start.
Anyhow, Rolls Royce is a British company. Yes, they produce some of the best gas turbine engines around
@slim10
dude, im impressed with your knowledge about aircraft.
i stand corrected about engine and airframe.
but even then, be it more of a picanto or a 9-5. surely there are plenty of Commercial synergies to be had with the 737 platform.
i.e can expect continued development, easy access to MRO operators, plenty of MRO facilities, plenty of trained pilots/ use of reserve pilots.
all these do help in cost savings for a particular aircraft right ?
furthermore, with a large family of existing aircraft, potential future development, is definitely going to be very important. look at the botched up KC135 replacement tanker programe. look at the projected service life for the E-3 and the joint stars after the blcok 20/25 SLEP.
the potential service life for such a platform may be far greater than the 20 years our E-2C lasted us. would the 737 last longer or the gulfstream ? Im not as familiar as you in aviation matters but i think the 737 buy by aus/korea is looking at a very long term projection.
Well, in the US, aircraft are worked very hard, and assuming they are maintained well, you could operate them for 20 years or so. Probably 30.
@fratboy
I was not able to post my full post for some reason? I had wanted to add that the Phalcon radar system has India, Singapore, Israel and Chile(first generation Phalcon) as buyers. This is against (what?) Australia, Turkey and South Koreaf or the Mesa radar system. Of course the Phalcon radar system is configurable on various platforms and currently found on the Streams and the II-76s. Does that mean that the Phalcon has a higher turnover and it is better?
which leaves us no where clearer as to whom these observers are. And no, it is not pretty safe to eliminate the possibility of journalistic bias at all since the lad`s sources are not revealed. You can still be cheeky albeit appearing serious; especially when they prefer to use generic terms. There is nothing in the article which show proofs exclusively and definitively that the Phalcon is better than the MESA anymore than the converse is truer.
was just citing a reference i read about the korea E-X awacs procurement program.
i personally think that there is alot of potential in the MESA system but im not against the g550 CAEW in any case. im neutral on this one. read the thread further back ? i was initially for the wedgetail, but the more i read up (ironically thanks to lionnoisy) the more i realized, the CAEW dosent seem too bad.
just wanted to inject some of the links ive read that seems to indicate that the MESA radar is superior to the phalcon.
in any case, if we had ordered the wedgetails like australia, we could be sitting on a hefty "rebate" in terms of contractual penalties. i dont have any sources to prove it but i recall boeing declaring a 770 million dollar penalty on their balance sheet related to wedgetail development.
comparing this with the korean 1.5 billion USD deal for 4 awacs, the aussies could be getting something like nearly 50% discount on the AWACS. silver lining in a dark cloud ? i dont know.
So, what`s the current score on the Phalcons and Mesa;
1) Radar Range -> Phalcon radar
2) Endurance -> CAEW Phalcon(more loiter time)
3) Altitude - > CAEW Phalcon(Not to mention attitude ;)
4) Ruggedness -> CAEW Phalcon with its ability of taking off from smaller and shorter(?) runaways
5) Radar print(RCS) -> CAEW Phalcon versus the fatter and slightly longer Boeing plane
6) Others -> CSM/COMINT and ELINT integrated for Phalcon
7) Space for crew -> Boeing MESA.
8) Ease of ability to configure radar for future threats and growth -> Uncle Israel and Phalcon. And not Grandfather US who can be very grumpy and touchy with such items.
Missed out any?
i m not here to bitch or pick a fight with you but point 6 is plain wrong.
the SIGINT/ELINT version is known as the shavit/comet and the convetional awacs is known as the Eitam. dont think the G-550 comes equipped to do both simulteneously.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_108_231/ai_n29316617
http://aerspace.blogspot.com/2008/12/n643ga-delivered-to-israeli-mod.html (not really related but somewhat interesting)
point 1 . 2 and 3 are somewhat contestable.
point 1 cant be substantiated unless you have concrete proof of the radar's performance. and this would depend on atmospherics and location. im sure you are familiar with how israel was unhappy with its E-2Cs because they didnt work out too-well over land due to radar clutter.
point 2 is somewhat negated by the 737's ability to carry a larger payload and more sensor gear.
point 3 is also somewhat negated by point 2's factor isnt it ? besides, no operational doctrine calls for an awacs to be operating over hostile SAM territory. its usually safely behind the CAP/enemy bird zone. if an AWAC did that, its asking to be shot down. why send such a valuable target in harm's way ?
point 8) may also be highly contested. if uncle sam decides to make the wedgetail its future AWACS platform. which platform will be in greater global use once NATO , england , Japan and france decide to buy it ? turkey has already bought it.
but this is a potential moot point. 5th generation fighters and their Onboard AESA radars may even eliminate the need for a future potential awacs to provide sit awareness and increased LR detection. future AWACS may be more like airborne traffic controllers and data hubs to coordinate downstream and upstream data flows.
if UCAVs appear somewhere in the next 30 years, the awacs might become some kind of data motherlode. (but thats a little farfetched and lets not go into that)
like ive mentioned before, the 737 has the space to mount more consoles and additional equipment. utilizing the awacs as a multi-purpose utility aircraft like fuel-tanker, SIGINT, ELINT concurrently. this is a technical possibility. unlike the G550 with a limited payload.
like shotgun mentioned. it has the potential to do this with increased capacity, meaning it might be possible for an aircraft to have crew rest facilities and improve operating conditions/crew conditions. G550 seems a little cramped to me.
whereas the G550 can possibly do these things, it comes at compromises like modular packages and necessity to strip the aircraft and prepare it before its next mission (speculation on my part)
point being, i think technically, the wedgetail and its MESA radar is probably more geared to the future than the Phalcon. but the phalcon's ability to fly high and out of SAM envelopes is pretty useful.
point 1 cant be substantiated unless you have concrete proof of the radar's performance.
Reports available quote 370km for MESA and 400km for Phalcon. ST`s own report lists the current E-2C as having a radar range of 370km. Of course, no one has actual figures. However, RSAF has already mentioned that the new CAEWs will come greater range than the old E-2C. By inference, that is more than 370km. Still needs more qualification though.
point 2 is somewhat negated by the 737's ability to carry a larger payload and more sensor gear.
So point 2 is very valid. The Gulf-streams have a much higher endurance and longer loiter time. :) There is certainly more space on the 737 but you will probably reduce the loiter time further by adding more equipment. And we really do not know how much more systems the Gulfstreams can carry.
point 3 is also somewhat negated by point 2's factor isnt it ? besides, no operational doctrine calls for an awacs to be operating over hostile SAM territory. its usually safely behind the CAP/enemy bird zone.
No where did I mention anything remotely associated with enemy space. As a matter of fact, higher altitude would translate into more radar coverage; which incidentally supports Point 1. :)
point 8) may also be highly contested. if uncle sam decides to make the wedgetail its future AWACS platform. which platform will be in greater global use once NATO , england , Japan and france decide to buy it ? turkey has already bought it.
Which is not the case now. Think NOW. :) I expect the current AWACs to be the workhorse for forseaable future with upgrades in the pipeline. So, point 8 is certainly a valid point now.
but this is a potential moot point. 5th generation fighters and their Onboard AESA radars may even eliminate the need for a future potential awacs to provide sit awareness and increased LR detection. future AWACS may be more like airborne traffic controllers and data hubs to coordinate downstream and upstream data flows.
Again, you are dabbling with possibilties which are not even manifested now. Not unless you can give me definitive proof that this will be the case within the life-time of the Phalcons. Also, I would rather have AEW/AWACs do thier job and fighters do thiers. But of couse, my views hobbled by what i see now since no one can really predict the future well.
like ive mentioned before, the 737 has the space to mount more consoles and additional equipment. utilizing the awacs as a multi-purpose utility aircraft like fuel-tanker, SIGINT, ELINT concurrently. this is a technical possibility. unlike the G550 with a limited payload.
There is no reason to believe that the current Gulf-streams cannot be equipped with similar equipment. I know there is more space on the 737. But the issue is whether the Gulf-streams has scope for more stuffs. And I think that is the case seeing as such the RSAF has almost always planned with the future in mind. AEWs do not come cheap and the RSAF intends to use them for a long time with upgrades along the way.
Originally posted by Fratboy: Reports available quote 370km for MESA and 400km for Phalcon. ST`s own report lists the current E-2C as having a radar range of 370km. Of course, no one has actual figures. However, RSAF has already mentioned that the new CAEWs will come greater range than the old E-2C. By inference, that is more than 370km. Still needs more qualification though. So point 2 is very valid. The Gulf-streams have a much higher endurance and longer loiter time. :) There is certainly more space on the 737 but you will probably reduce the loiter time further by adding more equipment. And we really do not know how much more systems the Gulfstreams can carry.No where did I mention anything remotely associated with enemy space. As a matter of fact, higher altitude would translate into more radar coverage; which incidentally supports Point 1. :)
Which is not the case now. Think NOW. :) I expect the current AWACs to be the workhorse for forseaable future with upgrades in the pipeline. So, point 8 is certainly a valid point now.
Again, you are dabbling with possibilties which are not even manifested now. Not unless you can give me definitive proof that this will be the case within the life-time of the Phalcons. Also, I would rather have AEW/AWACs do thier job and fighters do thiers. But of couse, my views hobbled by what i see now since no one can really predict the future well.
There is no reason to believe that the current Gulf-streams cannot be equipped with similar equipment. I know there is more space on the 737. But the issue is whether the Gulf-streams has scope for more stuffs. And I think that is the case seeing as such the RSAF has almost always planned with the future in mind. AEWs do not come cheap and the RSAF intends to use them for a long time with upgrades along the way.
ok.
so point 1 is a moot point since no one really knows.
for point 2 i was thinking of Slim10's comment that incidentally the gulfstream's operational ceiling/cruising altitude (cant remember which, think its the latter) is outside of most SAM missile envelopes in the region. in that sense, yes, the G550 is a value buy.
i cant reconcile this two points. they contradict each other.
Which is not the case now. Think NOW. :) I expect the current AWACs to be the workhorse for forseaable future with upgrades in the pipeline. So, point 8 is certainly a valid point now.
There is no reason to believe that the current Gulf-streams cannot be equipped with similar equipment. I know there is more space on the 737. But the issue is whether the Gulf-streams has scope for more stuffs. And I think that is the case seeing as such the RSAF has almost always planned with the future in mind. AEWs do not come cheap and the RSAF intends to use them for a long time with upgrades along the way.
so on one hand you are postulating that 737 cannot be considered for the forseeable future with no upgrades and on the other hand you are saying RSAF procurement is always planned out with the future ?
the phalcon radar technology has been sold on a larger 707 (kc135 was based on this civillian jetliner) aircraft
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/phalcon/Phalcon.html
i cant find the link but i was reading up about how the US and congressional action actually forced Israel to halt of pause phalcon radar development after the Israel-china fiasco where the israelis tried to sell the chinese 4 phalcon radar equipped il-76.
bottom-line is that technological transfers have proven difficult subsequently after the china debacle. i wont be so sure of planned future pipeline developments for the phalcon radar.
really ? i think the wedgetail radar offers far more service life potential. just look at the E-3 sentries. still soldiering on after something like 35 years and expected to carry on in service well into 2020, which, by then make the wedgetail right for entry into american service.
cant see how RSAF would not have seen the future potential of the wedgetail. its more likely a case of bo he hae mah ho. no wedgetail offered to us, then CAEW lor.
besides, wedgetail has only been offered to select US allies. not every country gets it.
"but this is a potential moot point. 5th generation fighters and their Onboard AESA radars may even eliminate the need for a future potential awacs to provide sit awareness and increased LR detection. future AWACS may be more like airborne traffic controllers and data hubs to coordinate downstream and upstream data flows."
Again, you are dabbling with possibilties which are not even manifested now. Not unless you can give me definitive proof that this will be the case within the life-time of the Phalcons. Also, I would rather have AEW/AWACs do thier job and fighters do thiers. But of couse, my views hobbled by what i see now since no one can really predict the future well.
really, im surprised you arent aware of this. the F22 uses its AESA radar to exchange data.
The F-22 has several unique functions for an aircraft of its size and role. For instance, it has threat detection and identification capability along the lines of that available on the RC-135 Rivet Joint.[41] While the F-22's equipment isn't as powerful or sophisticated, because of its stealth, it can be typically hundreds of miles closer to the battlefield, which often compensates for the reduced capability.[41]
The F-22 is capable of functioning as a "mini-AWACS." Though reduced in capability compared to dedicated airframes such as the E-3 Sentry, as with its threat identification capability, the F-22's forward presence is often of benefit.[38] The system allows the F-22 to designate targets for cooperating F-15s and F-16s, and even determine if two friendly aircraft are targeting the same enemy aircraft, thus enabling one of them to choose a different target.[41][38] It is often able to identify targets "sometimes many times quicker than the AWACS."[41
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor
F35 is supposedly able to do the same. this isnt just a pipe dream. its already happening. either way, the MESA radar on the 737 may offer greater future upgradability and longer service life.
we might eventually get a MESA radar/whatever the US acquires sometime in the near future.
There is no reason to believe that the current Gulf-streams cannot be equipped with similar equipment. I know there is more space on the 737. But the issue is whether the Gulf-streams has scope for more stuffs. And I think that is the case seeing as such the RSAF has almost always planned with the future in mind. AEWs do not come cheap and the RSAF intends to use them for a long time with upgrades along the way.
scope ? define scope for more stuff. the 737 has much greater potential in terms of scope. its relatively unknown and its abilities are yet undisclosed.
the phalcon on the other hand , is probably pretty well known to the americans, who obviously knew of its efficiacy and went to great lengths to stop israel from selling it to china.
Wah... very intense Wedgetail vs Phalcon debate here.
Seriously, how do you guys comment on such new and sensitive systems? Both are aircraft performing rather similar roles, one would think that anyone involved in a heated debate of the 2 would have worked in them before.
Allow me to chip in a thing or two that I noticed.
The G550 Phalcon variant, though compact and capable of high endurance, does not seem to have in-flight refueling capabilities. Nor do I foresee sufficient space for such modifications.
The Wedgetail on the other hand, is expected to have a flying boom receptacle for in flight refueling. On its own, it already has a 10+ hr loiter time, and with in flight refueling and well maintained engines, it can stay up for quite some time if the crew rotates shifts.
On the other hand, from open sources, the G550 Phalcon seems to pack in an array of COMINT, and ELINT equipment as well, integrating multiple sensors with the radar into the overall picture. The Wedgetail seems to be a rather dedicated AEW&C aircraft.
Originally posted by Shotgun:Wah... very intense Wedgetail vs Phalcon debate here.
Seriously, how do you guys comment on such new and sensitive systems? Both are aircraft performing rather similar roles, one would think that anyone involved in a heated debate of the 2 would have worked in them before.
Allow me to chip in a thing or two that I noticed.
The G550 Phalcon variant, though compact and capable of high endurance, does not seem to have in-flight refueling capabilities. Nor do I foresee sufficient space for such modifications.
The Wedgetail on the other hand, is expected to have a flying boom receptacle for in flight refueling. On its own, it already has a 10+ hr loiter time, and with in flight refueling and well maintained engines, it can stay up for quite some time if the crew rotates shifts.
On the other hand, from open sources, the G550 Phalcon seems to pack in an array of COMINT, and ELINT equipment as well, integrating multiple sensors with the radar into the overall picture. The Wedgetail seems to be a rather dedicated AEW&C aircraft.
i dont know if anyone has ever speculated this before, but any chance you think that the G550s are actually for elint/comint/sigint or maybe dedicated SEMA platforms while the E2Cs will perform as dedicated AWACS as an interim solution till the F35?
with NCW and huge expected data flows, our G550s may become flying exchange servers, linking our flyboys to our formidables , to the tankies , the grunts and the arty boyz while the E2Cs serve as genuine airborne controllers. the black raven is pretty old anyway isnt it ? last airframe built of its kind.
afterall, our F15 strike eagles and their AESA radars might have some capability to function as a mini awacs. we using them with WSOs anyway right ? not inconcievable that the F15 wso detects inbound bandits, uses link 16 to talk to other F15s and F16s in the air force and vector them in to launch AMRAAMs.
i'd be the first on the line to admit i know very little about AWACs. but i dont think we should place blind faith in a single platform and accept whatever we got/acquired. plenty of questions out there that remain to be asked and answered.
Well, you know, AWACs have multiple uses, and the AEW&C tag arose from the fact that you could mount electronic warfare equipment and command and control equipment on AWACs now. The Russian A-50 is said to be capable of remote controlling MiG-31s and launching and directing missiles, and a few other possible things like Multistatic radar etc. for detecting stealth.
I think the bottom line is whether the doctrine available knows how to make full use of the AWACs because surveillance is only one of the many roles they can do. If I am not wrong, the Phalcon was also meant to function in a similar role as the US JSTARS.
Not same role as JSTAR. Different radar needed (ground radar). SAR with GMTI. JSTAR is outdated with the rise of UAVs which duplicate the capability (though not as powerful). SAR images are a lot more fine than air search radar and distinguish ground clutter a lot better.