For non Aussies: "Wedgetails" are a high soaring Australian eagle, up to 2.8m/9ft wingspan, 8x better eyesight than humans (they can change the shape of their eyeball) and a hunter of a large range of prey (small kangaroos, lambs, lizards, feral cats...)
Thanks, Australia, for commissioning, funding and working to create the Wedgetail and bringing it and its community to maturity. As I understand this issue, USAF was trying for years to get a ground-up AWACS replacement funded and couldn't get the US Congress to play ball, especially in light of F-35 and other development programs going over budget. The E-3s have, as I've understood it, become alarmingly decrepit (the airframes are based upon Boeing 707s!) and well, guess what? While USAF would have undoubtedly preferred to develop it's own super, next-generation replacement for the E-3s, the fact of the matter is because USAF has been forced to burn airframe hours across its fleet for more than 2 decades now and Congress hasn't kept up with funding replacement aircraft, the USAF now finds itself in a back-against-the-wall situation. Simply put, it needs lots of new aircraft, rapidly, if it's to deter China and other authoritarian regimes around the world. . This means, in the case of a replacement airborne command and control ("AWACS") capability for the E-3, it's out of time. It urgently needs an E-3 replacement, years ago. Therefore, if the Congress is finally willing to fund E-3 replacement, USAF now doesn't have the time or money to home brew their own perfect platform. Instead, it needs that hole plugged right now, and therefore it needs something that's off the shelf, ready to go, with the bugs all worked out, and of course, manufactured by US companies, that it can just buy and get into service. Bonus points if it's also compatible with the military forces of US allies like Australia, South Korea, Japan, UK, Israel, etc. . And voila! That's how the Wedgetail (and the F-15EX, btw) gets purchased by USAF. Not because it was the organization's preferred platform or way of doing things, but because it's out of time and needs something that works immediately. The story for the F-15EX is similar and, of course, the people in uniform will do the best they can with the tools they have.
As an Australian I'd like to say, firstly, "you're welcome" and, secondly, you're exactly right about procrastinating in the face of an absolutely predictable problem. The development of the Wedgetail was a logical choice for Australia, a very big island with an Air Force inventory including 737-based aircraft like the P-8A Poseidon maritime aircraft and Boeing BBJ executive transports, and need to maximize the use of a moderately sized but high quality fleet including F-35s, Growlers, Super Hornets, etc. The problem for the United States is not that it is acquiring a useful number of a particulat AWACS aircraft but whether that leaves some gaps in capacity required which still needs another new AWACS aircraft to be developed.
@@IntrospectorGeneralGday the Wedgetail was the first RAAF asset that was 737 based. It was chosen over an Airbus bid in the late 90’s. The other 737 based stuff came later.
RAAF flew 1 along the NATO border with Russia and Ukraine earlier this year. And the RAAF E-7's have been rotated to the Middle East for the last 10 years.
@@michaelw6173 NATO begged for that AWAC support, and Australia relented when Washington upped the request. However the request to provide another six months worth was rejected by Australia, and so it should be until the punitive trade embargo the Europeans have inflicted on Australia for generations is brought to an end.
@@biddyboy1570 End the trade war and everyone is happy, except the Russians because then the Europeans could for instance buy Australian grains, instead of the €1.4Bn they spend on Russian grains each year. The genius of the Europeans eh, expecting food security from the Russians.
@@biddyboy1570 it's either free trade or a trade war. Sean has a valid point and one the AUS can't afford, especially as they are a pillar in our defence of the CCP taking control of everything
It only does 360° coverage by flying in a shallow "slalom" pattern due to some gaps in coverage if it flies in purely straight lines. Light-years better than the E-3 however now that the E-3 airframes and systems are rapidly becoming a nightmare to maintain and support due to the age of the systems. USAF needs to buy at least 40 of the new E-7s, maybe more, to keep from grossly over-tasking the airframes as has been the case for the E-3 since the day they were built.
Hi from Adelaide South Australia as a large part of this platform is sourced from the USA, I hope they won't have too many cost and performance problems when they customise it for USAF service
Large part!? Most of the platform is Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon. Australia developed the requirements and may have demanded local sourcing. The E7 isn’t really what the USAF wants but it is what it can get today. They would prefer it as a stop gap until they can develop and get full funding for an advanced replacement for the E3. The USAF wants a generational improvement over what is out today. A generation past the E7 is what they really want. They can’t have that today so they will settle on something because the current E3 airframes are clapped out. They need an E3 replacement and a E4 replacement. The E4 is going to be even harder for them to get what they truly want…4 engines.
Your country is not only in the club -- it's a leader in the EW, SIGINT, ELINT club. You guys developed the E-7A Wedgetail; are the only other operator of the EA-18G Growler; are cooperating with the US Navy to develop the Next Generation Jammer pod; are acquiring MC-55A Peregrine SIGINT/ELINT aircraft based on the Gulfstream G550; and developed the Nulka decoy.
@@zampano808 Australia does a lot more too even hypersonics we are ahead of everyone in scramjet technology and helped USA develop HAWC and HACAM scramjet missiles. JORN radar tech sold to USA and target identification and tracking systems are all through USA equipment...
One point being overlooked is it being based on the 737NG. I live near a regional airport rated for 737s. Wedgetails fly training in and out of it. That gives them plenty of options if they want to disperse or deploy- if it can handle a 737 it can handle a Wedgetail. There's been more than a couple of times I've had to hold while a Wedgetail did a touch and go
We need upgrades/ growth across the totality of our Forces. Push the subs, buy off the shelf, maybe Sweden, easily double our Navy, push the F35 and double, air defence, tank replacement, double the Army. That would be a good start.
@@jeffho1727 Canada is like Australia, with a huge land and maritime environment in a challenging part of the world. It desperately needs a 'white ocean' navy and aerial control
I’ve been seeing the Aussie and other country E7s for years at Seattle’s Boeing field! I’m surprised it took the USAF this amount of time to contract their own E7 variant! I guess they wanted to try to get maximum years of service from their E3s!!🇺🇸
Congress wanted the money to go to other programs. Look at how many littoral combat ships congress bought, even after the navy said stop, there are too many faults.
Yeah, we worked out all the kinks. So much so, that at one point, the aircraft was on our "Endangered Species" List (more formally known as the "Projects of Concern" list). Once something gets on this list, it has to be fixed & brought into line very quickly, both operationally & financially, or it gets the chop. There was nothing wrong with the proven B737 aircraft, but just getting everything in it to work properly was a bit of a challenge at first. I think part of America's problem in acquiring the aircraft sooner was that, compared to the E-3, you had trouble conceptualising how something half the size could be twice as effective. But that's just the way things are these days.
As a basic aircraft, a Boeing B737 is much lighter than the old B707. Therefore, the maximum takeoff weight of the E-7 is less than half that of the E-3. You only need to maintain 2 engines and fuel consumption is also much lower. Therefore, the flight hour prices should be significantly lower. Since the B-737 is still a mainstream aircraft, spare parts shouldn't be that expensive. Furthermore, the cockpit + mission crew is also much smaller, which leads to a further reduction in costs.
@@EvoraGT430 When all running engines failed, either volcanic dust was sucked in or a flock of birds flew into the engines. More engines don't help either.
@@EvoraGT430 The US needs an AWACS now, not in 40 years and they want the best available now, that is Wedgetail. If the USAF really thought 4 engines were critical, they'd have started a replacement program for the E-3 back in the mid 80s. They didn't. Now they will have to settle for an aircraft with a massive global logistic support network, off the shelf and with all the development done, kinks ironed out and a significant number of allied instructors available to get the training going fast. and 4 engines makes it more expensive to maintain, fuel and operate, plus adds more points of potential failure that could ground an aircraft.
The 707 was a beast and it can now go to the bone yard. This 737NG variant is so much less costly to acquire and operate than the old 707's we finally are getting some long overdue game changing equipment🎉🤔😤😀⚡
Military aircraft as a rule tend to have kept them, its something built into that generation of 737s its just most commercial airlines don't take up the option for cost saving purposes, I forget how much the maintenance costs but over the lifetime of the plane it was a not insignificant figure, the disadvantage it reduced cockpit visibility
It’s becouse when it was built, Boeing was building 737’s with cockpits like that ….don’t forfeit it was developed from the late 1990’s (Or early 2000’s)
There are photos of at least a few RAAF E-7s without eyebrow windows so it doesn't look like a required fit. The comment that they would be useful during aerial refuelling sounds plausible but the position of the refuelling receptacle is well out of sight of the eyebrow windows.
My claim to fame is that I am good mates with and best man for the lead project engineer for the E-7 program (well at least he was for a significant part of it). Hey, I never said I was famous 🤣 He did good, along with all the other RAAFies he worked with in the project.
The capability of these type planes is totally unappreciated by the general public and the uninformed. The problem with them is over information processing. So much information is coming in that has to be processed in an intelligent way, for tasking. The US has been at the forefront of managing the EM spectrum for over 70 years now.
Yes, you're right. Not only did Australia develop the E-7A, it's: the only other operator of the EA-18G Growler; cooperating with the US Navy to develop the Next Generation Jammer pod; acquiring MC-55A Peregrine SIGINT/ELINT aircraft based on the Gulfstream G550; developed the rocket propelled Nulka decoy.
Boeing Australia is Boeings largest subsidary outside the US, its an American built aircraft with an American built Radar.but a lot of the less obvious work was done in Australia. I assure you its in the the US's best intrests to have strong and capable defence manufacturing partners on this side of the pacific
This is one of those rare occasions where the tail wags the dog (US allies driving demand) which will likely result in a US aircraft procurement on budget and on time.
It doesn't, the old E-3 is aerodynamically cleaner than the E-7 that had to get massive extra ventral fins to offset the big flat slab they put on. The E-3 saucer and its thin supports are aerodynamically very neutral and streamlined
I recall hearing a few years back a prediction of the E-3 not being replaced; modern AC (F22 & F35) and networking felt was not necessary. Also for the navy Side - For several years "last decade" we had nothing but continual resolution - NO true and approved budget - which was making several items very hard to do/ agree get made.
The USAF also thought dedicated EW would be unnecessary with stealth aircraft. Then a F-117 got shot down, and they were forced to rely on USN aircraft for EW. Read somewhere that Boeing is thinking of developing an EW version of the F-15EX. It’s a good idea that I hope is pursued.
I'll miss the E-3a. As one of the 1st pilots assigned to the 964th I loved the airplane, it's mission, and the places it was assigned. Sometimes with barely enough time for crew rest Before going TDY to Riyadh for 30 days. Still don't know where the "Black Hole" was that some crews went. 😳
And so changing it from an E-3 to a level E-7 does that mean it has several new tech advanced capabilities as well? Obviously, since it is all electronic steering and no longer needs a rotating dome, the electronic steering is much more precise
It can keep track of many objects simultaneously without any latency that comes from the rotating dish on the E-3. How valuable that is in practice I will have to leave to some expert to describe but I have read that it can be valuable in some circumstances.
Compare home electronics from 1975 to home electronics in 2024. Do you think modern electronics have more capability? The answer is YES! Listen to your grandfather talking about his Commodore 64 computer being the best home computer on the planet, then compare that with your smart phone. That's how much difference there is between an E-3 and an E-7. When the E-3 was first deployed it didn't have much more computing power than a Commodore 64.
And I guess with everything being state-of-the-art electronics, the latency was due to the slow rotation of the dish antenna, which has been replaced with the tall wedge.
Good grief! When I saw the guy in the blue sweat shirt at 6:36 I thought I was looking at a picture of myself. That guy could be my twin brother. Nice work on the bus.
Seems everyone is forgetting the smaller but very efficient Swedish Saab 340 AEWCS, in service since 1994, which were (2) given to Ukraine and to soon be replaced with the SAAB GlobalEye multi-role airborne early warning & control (AEWC). Both versions not in disc shape but in the "new" one USAF is implementing, the nicknamed "surfboard antenna".
Awesome news for Ukraine, but might mention the deployment of an Australian RAAF E7 to the Ukraine border for the last 12 months. Not even vagely near our opperational area, but we did it anyway, and did it well. same as when it was deployed to over see opps over Syria.
@@michaelpowell6023 great news indeed. but still a RAAF plane, like many others of French Airforce, USAF, RAF... don't take me wrong, Ukraine should be appreciative of your support. but running their own surveillance and EW planes where and whenever they want is upping up the game a bit, don't you think? Thanks for the support, I'm PT, and I do have a great respect for Australia at least since their operations in Europe during WWII, including your actions in combat during D-Day. For many years now that I see ROK, Japan, New Zealand and ofc Australia as our brother allies in the Pacific and I always defend NATO should have turned into a broader alliance not only to include the Northern Atlantic Countries but also those allies in the Pacific. Cheers from Portugal.
If it's what I'm thinking, it's to accomodate some protrusion on the engine (eg another generator, an accessories gearbox, or A/C for electronics, etc) that may or may not be necessary on an equivalent civilian aircraft. There would most likely be a bulge on the starboard engine, but in the same location, not as a mirror image. The engines, and I stand to be corrected, should be interchangeable with minimal reconfiguration. That's my guess.
Well done to RAAF for investing in something future proof and worthwhile instead of waiting for the us to get rid of their old gear to us for cheap. Weve all seen the consequences of the Army rotary wing purchases and preventable deaths.
This system should tell the public something about airborne radar and what the state of the art is as far as this technology is concerned. This new system consists of two flat planes providing 120 degrees of coverage each plus two additional units located at each end of the assembly. The smaller units are designed to cover areas the larger units are unable to scan but, given the fact that they are smaller, their range must be compromised as well as their capabilities. Now compare that with the Boeing E3, the aircraft this system is designed to replace. Instead of having two flat panels covering 240 degrees the E3 has a single, rotating unit providing a full 360 degrees of coverage. As a result, for the Wedgetail to provide the same coverage as the E3 it would have to be flying in circles. The question then arises: Why would you replace an older radar with a new one providing reduced coverage? Obviously there must be some benefit derived from having 240 degrees of non-stop coverage over 360 degrees of intermittent coverage because rotating radars has, by the nature of the system, a gap in making a complete rotation. I am assuming that the primary attraction to this design has to do with the ability to target specific threats on a continuous basis.
You said "given the fact that they are smaller, their range must be compromised as well as their capabilities." That's faulty logic. The size of the radar "dish" does NOT determine it's range. In 1946 the U.S. Army used the SCR-270 radar to detect the moon 240,000 miles away. That was the radar that detected the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor in 1941.
@@michaelrunnels7660 If the technology of the front and rear arrays were superior to the flank arrays to compensate for their smaller size they would have applied the same technology to the larger arrays. Certainly the US Air Force would have considered itself short changed if the Wedgetail didn't maximize the best technology available.
@@zoperxplex You still don't get it. Extremely small antennas, small antennas, large antennas, and extremely large antennas all have one thing in common. They DO NOT determine the detection range of the radar. The small end cap arrays have nothing to compensate for because they can detect objects just as far as the large side antennas. What's the maximum detection range of any radar? Beyond 240,000 miles, which is what the SCR-270 did. The maximum range of a radar is determined by the power of the signal, the time that the radar waits for a signal to return, and the sensitivity of the receivers, not the size of the antenna. The size of the front and rear cap arrays on the E-7 is more than large enough to detect objects hundreds of miles away. The size of a radar antenna is mostly important to the frequency of the radar signal. The physical size of a single electromagnetic wave MUST be the same size or smaller than the antenna in order for the antenna to "catch" it. The frequency of the radar electromagnetic wave of the E-3 at 3 Ghz is physically 4 inches long. As long as the antenna is bigger than 4", size is almost irrelevent. The total power can be increased by using a larger antenna, but since an E-7 end cap radar signal can already reach thousands of miles, there is little reason to increase the power.
@@michaelrunnels7660 I am sure there is some relationship between size and capability of the radar otherwise the flank arrays would be the same size as the forward and rear arrays. Otherwise why assume the weight penalty if it was unnecessary?
Already did the E-2D has been updated a lot. I hope the US version has the wing stations of the P-8 You could add extra equipment like sensors or even AIM-174b or AIM 260s for a flying SAM site. And for goodness, sakes make them wet You could use it as a tanker as well.
@@ictpilot I thought so, but some people aren't that intelligent also, the new NG hulls are still coming from the same Spirit Aerosystems factory that has problems (which makes the UK using second hand hulls for their first 2 Wedgtetails look prescient).
The E7s will be around for at least another decade. The USAF and Boeing just agreed in August on the pirce agreement. The first two prototypes jets won't be delivered till FY28. That's if it doesn't get delayed because of the issues Boeing is currently having. Once the two prototype jets are delivered, then another 2 or maybe 3 years of testing. By that time, it'll be something around 2031. Then Boeing will start mass production. Like i said, the E7s will be around easily for another 12+ yrs.
You seem to think USAF and Boeing developed the E-7? Haha, close... RAAF and Boeing Defence Australia have been testing out the kinks for years now in the RAAF, I guess it's now at a stage of maturity that we let the AUKUS agreement do it's thing and share with US & UK
What about range though, I don't like the idea of going to a smaller airplane and not having as much endurance..............Update LOL Ok thank you for the info, I looked it up, very glad the new plane will have more endurance. E7 has my approval now. I love airplanes even though I'm no expert. Thank you for sharing video.
As it stated, the vertical element provides 120° of coverage per side, the "top hat" picks up the forward looking and aft aspects of coverage, providing a full 360°.
No, the radar elements are in the Top section, the pylon probably contains sub systems like cooling and such, there are also antenna in the small black knob under the tail and under the nose.
Its in the video 1:45 - two broadside side arrays give 120° coverage on either side and one end-fire array in the tophat provides 60° of coverage both fore and aft
I asked the same question once when they started selling to other countries and someone said they did but I don’t know any details. It looks like this will be preferred platform for much of the “West” so it could add up
@@Iain1957 The RAAF didn’t bring it to operational capability, Boeing did. Boeing did however have to pay penalties for not achieving timeframes to meet IOC. There is no reason to pay the RAAF nor the Australian Government any royalties.
@@foxgaming1767 No the Wedgetail are based on the 737 Max. You let a decades old trick fooled you? Comet/ Nimrod Electra /Orion/Aurora, seasonal flu/ Covid 19.
The US has a wide cross-section of equipment: the most modern (F-22, F-35) and some of the most classic (B-52, E-3). Such a large organisation as the five services that make up the armed forces (incl USCG) means that some equipment remains in service far longer than anticipated, and when the politicians start reducing the budget, then some items that work satisfactorily end up not being replaced until much later than planned when money becomes available. Regardless, the men and women that operate the less up-to-date equipment work hard to keep them running.
Dumb question... how do technicians take a break, go to the bathroom, eat, and sleep during a 17-hour mission. The electronic bits and pieces are still dependent on a crew member being able to function. Nothing is shown about how the aircraft is configured for crew concerns.
There is a bathroom and a kitchen, but as far as rest... You are supposed to be in top physical condition and able to stay awake and function for that period of time just like hospital staff on long rotations do.
I see only 4 minor problems: 1: It's a Boeing 2: It's not superduper stealthy 3: It can't land on an aircraft carrier 4: It's not expensive enough for the US military. Other than that, a fine AWACS for sure.
@@Habdabi I don't know. I am not a radar expert. I do know that both the F-22 and the F-35 have rather large radars on board, though. And they are supposedly stealthy aircraft.
@Conclusius68 tiny radars compared to the edgetail, link to the edgetails for target data, and they turn off the fighter bomber on plane radars when going "dark" and can rely on edgetail and on missle radar. Different roles, edgetails are a big i am here but i see you!
Lets not forget this was first in service in 2009 and was a project started in 1997. So it is now nearly 30 years on!!! Also as @grahambaker6664 says many 737's are in RAAF service and commonality is more important than a single outstanding platform. If it was a project started in a few years with the then in service population of A321 XLR being significant a different decision may have been made.
Power, cooling and overall systems weight are significant issues to balance in an AWEC aircraft. You can't just swap in different sub-systems or the newest tech without significant impact.
Not really, carrying around excessive on-board fuel is detrimental to weight and maneuverability, and fuel tanks you don't need is a wasted space and later maintenance complexity. Mission profiles using IFR is already more efficient. Also, the Airbus is costlier, and a lot more restrictive to both ITAR and multinational treaty restrictions as a warplane. Having NATO pick it, proves the Europeans are not that worried about it.
0:45 "B737 a platform renowned for its reliability and efficiency" 😂😂😂😂😂 OH REALLY? On which planet have you been living for the past 5 years? Does that mean there at least one Boeing military contract that had mo technical problems, is ovef budget and late? Wow! That is one for the little black book!
@@foxgaming1767 not talking about the MAX. Talking about the recent issue with the frozen aileron actuators that were supposed not to be fitted and magically are installed in Aircraft that had them "disabled". That issue had been know for 20 years, but was not fixed until serious problems arose. Naturally the Pilots were kept jn the dark. That was an issue since the intfoduction of NGs. The Boeing problems are due to a very bad corporate culture and ethics, resulting in a bad climate om the shop floor, lousy build quality, documentation and quality control issues. Not least caused by cutting corners in Wichita during airframe assembly. Do you really think such issues will magically disappear just because an older model air frame is assembled? The shop floor management and workers are working under the same constraints to maximise profits assembling airframe, as those in the commercial aurcraft division. Look at Starliner! That is ancient technology that needed to be warmed up and repackaged into a new air frame. They can't even do that! The rot sits too deep. So, I hope nobody needs these planes in earnest any time soon, otherwise we might see the collapse of yet another military super power, like Russia in Ukraine, under the strain of a real war.
@@helmutzollner5496 yeah, i studied project quality and risk at uni last year. one of the project failures we looked at was the boeing engine resize fiasco. airbus added bigger engines to its twin engine fleet for better ecomony. boeing felt the need to do the same. prob was airbus craft had enough ground clearance that the new engines bolted straight on. beoings couldn't so they moved the engines forward and up. which altered the aircraft takeoff characterstic. controlled by a new sensor. issue was the sensor was easy to ice over. training was a quick youtube video. so what happened. in africa two aircraft crashed killing all onboard because the sensors failed, giving pilots a false nose up reading caused by the engine placement, pilots would react and the aircraft stalled and crashed.
Is someone who grew up around Nimrods back in the 70/80s(my father being a squadron commander) if you have said that the airframe that would replace the Nimrod, P3. E3 would have been the 737 I would have never believed you. I guess the issue is that the options are really quite limited, but as an airframe it really is pretty underwhelming performance wise.
It's a lot of eggs in one basket if anything goes wrong with the base platform And with the way Boeing is going these days ... Airbus should look into modding say an A321XLR for maritime patrol and AEW / EW
This is an Australian developed aircraft and for the Australians there were significant logistics and training benefits at the time the specifications were confirmed from using the same family of aircraft for the P7, the P8 and the BBJ that Australia used as its VIP transport aircraft.. Also, at that time, the 737-800 was the most common single aisle passenger jet in commercial service in Australia and many reservists were able to maintain currency in their civilian employment saving the RAAF from the time and financial cost of maintaining the reservists' currency.
Lets not forget this was first in service in 2009 and was a project started in 1997. So it is now nearly 30 years on!!! Also as @grahambaker6664 says many 737's are in service and commonality is more important than a single outstanding platform. If it was a project started in a few years with the then in service population of A321 XLR being significant a different decision may have been made.
For non Aussies: "Wedgetails" are a high soaring Australian eagle, up to 2.8m/9ft wingspan, 8x better eyesight than humans (they can change the shape of their eyeball) and a hunter of a large range of prey (small kangaroos, lambs, lizards, feral cats...)
Aussie to Aussie, no one gives a fk
Mostly they just eat dead kangaroos on the side of the road.
@@MichaelSmith-fg8xh And ducks and chickens. 😞
But they can't attack drop bears 🐨😂
Hunter 😂😂😂😂
Thanks, Australia, for commissioning, funding and working to create the Wedgetail and bringing it and its community to maturity. As I understand this issue, USAF was trying for years to get a ground-up AWACS replacement funded and couldn't get the US Congress to play ball, especially in light of F-35 and other development programs going over budget. The E-3s have, as I've understood it, become alarmingly decrepit (the airframes are based upon Boeing 707s!) and well, guess what? While USAF would have undoubtedly preferred to develop it's own super, next-generation replacement for the E-3s, the fact of the matter is because USAF has been forced to burn airframe hours across its fleet for more than 2 decades now and Congress hasn't kept up with funding replacement aircraft, the USAF now finds itself in a back-against-the-wall situation. Simply put, it needs lots of new aircraft, rapidly, if it's to deter China and other authoritarian regimes around the world.
.
This means, in the case of a replacement airborne command and control ("AWACS") capability for the E-3, it's out of time. It urgently needs an E-3 replacement, years ago. Therefore, if the Congress is finally willing to fund E-3 replacement, USAF now doesn't have the time or money to home brew their own perfect platform. Instead, it needs that hole plugged right now, and therefore it needs something that's off the shelf, ready to go, with the bugs all worked out, and of course, manufactured by US companies, that it can just buy and get into service. Bonus points if it's also compatible with the military forces of US allies like Australia, South Korea, Japan, UK, Israel, etc.
.
And voila! That's how the Wedgetail (and the F-15EX, btw) gets purchased by USAF. Not because it was the organization's preferred platform or way of doing things, but because it's out of time and needs something that works immediately. The story for the F-15EX is similar and, of course, the people in uniform will do the best they can with the tools they have.
As an Australian I'd like to say, firstly, "you're welcome" and, secondly, you're exactly right about procrastinating in the face of an absolutely predictable problem. The development of the Wedgetail was a logical choice for Australia, a very big island with an Air Force inventory including 737-based aircraft like the P-8A Poseidon maritime aircraft and Boeing BBJ executive transports, and need to maximize the use of a moderately sized but high quality fleet including F-35s, Growlers, Super Hornets, etc. The problem for the United States is not that it is acquiring a useful number of a particulat AWACS aircraft but whether that leaves some gaps in capacity required which still needs another new AWACS aircraft to be developed.
If the USAF funded it, it would have cost ten times the price, and taken an extra ten years to complete.
The 707 could fly for a 100 years...the AF let them fail.
@@IntrospectorGeneralGday the Wedgetail was the first RAAF asset that was 737 based. It was chosen over an Airbus bid in the late 90’s. The other 737 based stuff came later.
@@KellyR-qx7wn🐂💩
i have never heard anyone call the Radar a tophat ive commonly heard it referred to as the Surfboard by RAAF personel
RAAF flew 1 along the NATO border with Russia and Ukraine earlier this year. And the RAAF E-7's have been rotated to the Middle East for the last 10 years.
@@michaelw6173 NATO begged for that AWAC support, and Australia relented when Washington upped the request. However the request to provide another six months worth was rejected by Australia, and so it should be until the punitive trade embargo the Europeans have inflicted on Australia for generations is brought to an end.
@@seanlander9321do you want more cutting edge weapons or are you happy building your own nuclear subs?
@@biddyboy1570 End the trade war and everyone is happy, except the Russians because then the Europeans could for instance buy Australian grains, instead of the €1.4Bn they spend on Russian grains each year. The genius of the Europeans eh, expecting food security from the Russians.
@@biddyboy1570 it's either free trade or a trade war. Sean has a valid point and one the AUS can't afford, especially as they are a pillar in our defence of the CCP taking control of everything
@@biddyboy1570 Yeah black mailing your friends goes well!
Phased array is a game changer in weight reduction and mechanical simplicity.
while the US are implementing them, Sweeden gave two to Ukraine they've been using for some time now
It only does 360° coverage by flying in a shallow "slalom" pattern due to some gaps in coverage if it flies in purely straight lines. Light-years better than the E-3 however now that the E-3 airframes and systems are rapidly becoming a nightmare to maintain and support due to the age of the systems. USAF needs to buy at least 40 of the new E-7s, maybe more, to keep from grossly over-tasking the airframes as has been the case for the E-3 since the day they were built.
Hi from Adelaide South Australia as a large part of this platform is sourced from the USA, I hope they won't have too many cost and performance problems when they customise it for USAF service
Large part!? Most of the platform is Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon. Australia developed the requirements and may have demanded local sourcing.
The E7 isn’t really what the USAF wants but it is what it can get today. They would prefer it as a stop gap until they can develop and get full funding for an advanced replacement for the E3.
The USAF wants a generational improvement over what is out today. A generation past the E7 is what they really want. They can’t have that today so they will settle on something because the current E3 airframes are clapped out.
They need an E3 replacement and a E4 replacement. The E4 is going to be even harder for them to get what they truly want…4 engines.
nice to see my country Australia , is in the club
Your country is not only in the club -- it's a leader in the EW, SIGINT, ELINT club. You guys developed the E-7A Wedgetail; are the only other operator of the EA-18G Growler; are cooperating with the US Navy to develop the Next Generation Jammer pod; are acquiring MC-55A Peregrine SIGINT/ELINT aircraft based on the Gulfstream G550; and developed the Nulka decoy.
@@zampano808 and developing the MQ28 Ghostbat drone
Don't worry trump will have kicked out of the club should it serve his self worshipping addiction.
@@zampano808 Australia does a lot more too even hypersonics we are ahead of everyone in scramjet technology and helped USA develop HAWC and HACAM scramjet missiles.
JORN radar tech sold to USA and target identification and tracking systems are all through USA equipment...
Australia is family
One point being overlooked is it being based on the 737NG. I live near a regional airport rated for 737s. Wedgetails fly training in and out of it. That gives them plenty of options if they want to disperse or deploy- if it can handle a 737 it can handle a Wedgetail. There's been more than a couple of times I've had to hold while a Wedgetail did a touch and go
737? have they already got out of the infirmary?
We regularly see them visiting Albury for some reason. Must be a good training environment.
I've come across an article saying that the RCAF might be interested in buying a few of these. Would definitely be an upgrade for our airforce.
We need upgrades/ growth across the totality of our Forces. Push the subs, buy off the shelf, maybe Sweden, easily double our Navy, push the F35 and double, air defence, tank replacement, double the Army. That would be a good start.
@@jeffho1727 Canada is like Australia, with a huge land and maritime environment in a challenging part of the world. It desperately needs a 'white ocean' navy and aerial control
The Wedgetails are soon entering service with the Royal Air Force will be operated by No.8 Squadron.
I’ve been seeing the Aussie and other country E7s for years at Seattle’s Boeing field! I’m surprised it took the USAF this amount of time to contract their own E7 variant! I guess they wanted to try to get maximum years of service from their E3s!!🇺🇸
Congress wanted the money to go to other programs. Look at how many littoral combat ships congress bought, even after the navy said stop, there are too many faults.
Yeah, we worked out all the kinks. So much so, that at one point, the aircraft was on our "Endangered Species" List (more formally known as the "Projects of Concern" list). Once something gets on this list, it has to be fixed & brought into line very quickly, both operationally & financially, or it gets the chop. There was nothing wrong with the proven B737 aircraft, but just getting everything in it to work properly was a bit of a challenge at first.
I think part of America's problem in acquiring the aircraft sooner was that, compared to the E-3, you had trouble conceptualising how something half the size could be twice as effective. But that's just the way things are these days.
Top hat? No no, it's the surfboard!
Since hey screwed up that well known point, don’t you think they’ve also intentionally misled on other pints of interest?
As a basic aircraft, a Boeing B737 is much lighter than the old B707. Therefore, the maximum takeoff weight of the E-7 is less than half that of the E-3. You only need to maintain 2 engines and fuel consumption is also much lower. Therefore, the flight hour prices should be significantly lower. Since the B-737 is still a mainstream aircraft, spare parts shouldn't be that expensive. Furthermore, the cockpit + mission crew is also much smaller, which leads to a further reduction in costs.
You can also operate it from smaller airfields.
However, 4 engines is always better than 2.
@@EvoraGT430 When all running engines failed, either volcanic dust was sucked in or a flock of birds flew into the engines. More engines don't help either.
@@EvoraGT430 The US needs an AWACS now, not in 40 years and they want the best available now, that is Wedgetail.
If the USAF really thought 4 engines were critical, they'd have started a replacement program for the E-3 back in the mid 80s.
They didn't.
Now they will have to settle for an aircraft with a massive global logistic support network, off the shelf and with all the development done, kinks ironed out and a significant number of allied instructors available to get the training going fast.
and 4 engines makes it more expensive to maintain, fuel and operate, plus adds more points of potential failure that could ground an aircraft.
The 707 was a beast and it can now go to the bone yard. This 737NG variant is so much less costly to acquire and operate than the old 707's we finally are getting some long overdue game changing equipment🎉🤔😤😀⚡
🤣🤣🤣
The E-3. Flown for nearly half a 'Sentry'!
Still, the E3 looks so cool. Reminds me of the Cold War. That spinning disc. Anyway, I can fully appreciate the need to upgrade.
I just now noticed that the Australian E-7s have the "eyebrow" windows in the cockpit that have been long been removed from comercial 737 service.
They're handy for in flight refuelling.
Military aircraft as a rule tend to have kept them, its something built into that generation of 737s its just most commercial airlines don't take up the option for cost saving purposes, I forget how much the maintenance costs but over the lifetime of the plane it was a not insignificant figure, the disadvantage it reduced cockpit visibility
It’s becouse when it was built, Boeing was building 737’s with cockpits like that ….don’t forfeit it was developed from the late 1990’s (Or early 2000’s)
some do, some don't
There are photos of at least a few RAAF E-7s without eyebrow windows so it doesn't look like a required fit. The comment that they would be useful during aerial refuelling sounds plausible but the position of the refuelling receptacle is well out of sight of the eyebrow windows.
BTW Wedgetail eagle is Australia’s biggest and most common eagle.
My claim to fame is that I am good mates with and best man for the lead project engineer for the E-7 program (well at least he was for a significant part of it). Hey, I never said I was famous 🤣 He did good, along with all the other RAAFies he worked with in the project.
The capability of these type planes is totally unappreciated by the general public and the uninformed. The problem with them is over information processing. So much information is coming in that has to be processed in an intelligent way, for tasking. The US has been at the forefront of managing the EM spectrum for over 70 years now.
The rest of the world waking up to what Australia has been developing for years.
Yes, you're right. Not only did Australia develop the E-7A, it's: the only other operator of the EA-18G Growler; cooperating with the US Navy to develop the Next Generation Jammer pod; acquiring MC-55A Peregrine SIGINT/ELINT aircraft based on the Gulfstream G550; developed the rocket propelled Nulka decoy.
@@zampano808 Calm yourself, it's an American built aircraft with an American built Radar.
Boeing Australia is Boeings largest subsidary outside the US, its an American built aircraft with an American built Radar.but a lot of the less obvious work was done in Australia. I assure you its in the the US's best intrests to have strong and capable defence manufacturing partners on this side of the pacific
@@pvp64 Designed and built for Australia, not the USAF
@@pvp64 Nobody beats America, I mean you're exceptional right?
Wow , Imagine How Fast the Internet is in that thing,,
About 530 mph
But the range is limited by the length of the fibre optic cable.
we need that for sure 💚
This is one of those rare occasions where the tail wags the dog (US allies driving demand) which will likely result in a US aircraft procurement on budget and on time.
Amazing it took the U.S. so long to get this !
Because Australia is awesome. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
I am sure plenty of USAF and RAF exchange officers have had a good chance to evaluate the Wedgetail in RAAF service.
Landing that thing in a Crosswind must be fun... :D
That's really awesome! I just pray that maybe somebody in Congress or the military doesn't sell us out
I’m surprised no one mentioned or asked what a wedgetail is. (I know ‘cos I’m Australian.)
Prob 'cos they know our Wedgie makes their Bald Eagle look like the seagull that it is.....
I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but it looks like the spinning top and its support would place a lot of stress on the aerodynamics of any airplane.
It doesn't, the old E-3 is aerodynamically cleaner than the E-7 that had to get massive extra ventral fins to offset the big flat slab they put on.
The E-3 saucer and its thin supports are aerodynamically very neutral and streamlined
That looks like a movie screen that comes up from the floor of a home theater, so you can project on it.
1:22 What's that orange bench top tool?
I recall hearing a few years back a prediction of the E-3 not being replaced; modern AC (F22 & F35) and networking felt was not necessary. Also for the navy Side - For several years "last decade" we had nothing but continual resolution - NO true and approved budget - which was making several items very hard to do/ agree get made.
The USAF also thought dedicated EW would be unnecessary with stealth aircraft. Then a F-117 got shot down, and they were forced to rely on USN aircraft for EW.
Read somewhere that Boeing is thinking of developing an EW version of the F-15EX. It’s a good idea that I hope is pursued.
I'll miss the E-3a. As one of the 1st pilots assigned to the 964th I loved the airplane, it's mission, and the places it was assigned. Sometimes with barely enough time for crew rest Before going TDY to Riyadh for 30 days. Still don't know where the "Black Hole" was that some crews went. 😳
Will the USAF use second hand airframes?
So, will the Navy be able to get this adapted to the Hawkeyes, or with a new airframe?
Because E-7s get more pay per month than E-3s so they figure it'll take its job more seriously.
And so changing it from an E-3 to a level E-7
does that mean it has several new tech advanced capabilities as well?
Obviously, since it is all electronic steering and no longer needs a rotating dome, the electronic steering is much more precise
There's basically an upgraded F-35 radar within the AEW&CS to datalink the F-35's radar to the dedicated fighters and strike aircraft
It can keep track of many objects simultaneously without any latency that comes from the rotating dish on the E-3. How valuable that is in practice I will have to leave to some expert to describe but I have read that it can be valuable in some circumstances.
Compare home electronics from 1975 to home electronics in 2024. Do you think modern electronics have more capability? The answer is YES! Listen to your grandfather talking about his Commodore 64 computer being the best home computer on the planet, then compare that with your smart phone. That's how much difference there is between an E-3 and an E-7.
When the E-3 was first deployed it didn't have much more computing power than a Commodore 64.
Radar sight is much greater also..
And I guess with everything being state-of-the-art electronics, the latency was due to the slow rotation of the dish antenna, which has been replaced with the tall wedge.
Good grief! When I saw the guy in the blue sweat shirt at 6:36 I thought I was looking at a picture of myself. That guy could be my twin brother. Nice work on the bus.
It's about time.
The Air Force should have replaced the E-3 in the 1990s.
Thank you.
Since it was based upon the 737 NG airframe, will the newer versions that the US buy be based on the 737 Max airframe?
The P-8 is also based on the B737NG so still beiy built
Seems everyone is forgetting the smaller but very efficient Swedish Saab 340 AEWCS, in service since 1994, which were (2) given to Ukraine and to soon be replaced with the SAAB GlobalEye multi-role airborne early warning & control (AEWC). Both versions not in disc shape but in the "new" one USAF is implementing, the nicknamed "surfboard antenna".
Awesome news for Ukraine, but might mention the deployment of an Australian RAAF E7 to the Ukraine border for the last 12 months. Not even vagely near our opperational area, but we did it anyway, and did it well. same as when it was deployed to over see opps over Syria.
@@michaelpowell6023 great news indeed. but still a RAAF plane, like many others of French Airforce, USAF, RAF... don't take me wrong, Ukraine should be appreciative of your support. but running their own surveillance and EW planes where and whenever they want is upping up the game a bit, don't you think? Thanks for the support, I'm PT, and I do have a great respect for Australia at least since their operations in Europe during WWII, including your actions in combat during D-Day. For many years now that I see ROK, Japan, New Zealand and ofc Australia as our brother allies in the Pacific and I always defend NATO should have turned into a broader alliance not only to include the Northern Atlantic Countries but also those allies in the Pacific. Cheers from Portugal.
What’s the bulge visible on the port nacelle? Might be one on the starboard engine, but I couldn’t see it.
If it's what I'm thinking, it's to accomodate some protrusion on the engine (eg another generator, an accessories gearbox, or A/C for electronics, etc) that may or may not be necessary on an equivalent civilian aircraft. There would most likely be a bulge on the starboard engine, but in the same location, not as a mirror image. The engines, and I stand to be corrected, should be interchangeable with minimal reconfiguration. That's my guess.
Well done to RAAF for investing in something future proof and worthwhile instead of waiting for the us to get rid of their old gear to us for cheap. Weve all seen the consequences of the Army rotary wing purchases and preventable deaths.
because Australia has spent squillions with Boeing for a decade and it is now showing it is the future with the Sentry a decade past it's best.
They work!
Awesome plane
This system should tell the public something about airborne radar and what the state of the art is as far as this technology is concerned. This new system consists of two flat planes providing 120 degrees of coverage each plus two additional units located at each end of the assembly. The smaller units are designed to cover areas the larger units are unable to scan but, given the fact that they are smaller, their range must be compromised as well as their capabilities.
Now compare that with the Boeing E3, the aircraft this system is designed to replace. Instead of having two flat panels covering 240 degrees the E3 has a single, rotating unit providing a full 360 degrees of coverage. As a result, for the Wedgetail to provide the same coverage as the E3 it would have to be flying in circles. The question then arises: Why would you replace an older radar with a new one providing reduced coverage?
Obviously there must be some benefit derived from having 240 degrees of non-stop coverage over 360 degrees of intermittent coverage because rotating radars has, by the nature of the system, a gap in making a complete rotation. I am assuming that the primary attraction to this design has to do with the ability to target specific threats on a continuous basis.
You said "given the fact that they are smaller, their range must be compromised as well as their capabilities." That's faulty logic. The size of the radar "dish" does NOT determine it's range. In 1946 the U.S. Army used the SCR-270 radar to detect the moon 240,000 miles away. That was the radar that detected the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor in 1941.
@@michaelrunnels7660 If the technology of the front and rear arrays were superior to the flank arrays to compensate for their smaller size they would have applied the same technology to the larger arrays. Certainly the US Air Force would have considered itself short changed if the Wedgetail didn't maximize the best technology available.
@@zoperxplex You still don't get it. Extremely small antennas, small antennas, large antennas, and extremely large antennas all have one thing in common. They DO NOT determine the detection range of the radar. The small end cap arrays have nothing to compensate for because they can detect objects just as far as the large side antennas. What's the maximum detection range of any radar? Beyond 240,000 miles, which is what the SCR-270 did. The maximum range of a radar is determined by the power of the signal, the time that the radar waits for a signal to return, and the sensitivity of the receivers, not the size of the antenna. The size of the front and rear cap arrays on the E-7 is more than large enough to detect objects hundreds of miles away. The size of a radar antenna is mostly important to the frequency of the radar signal. The physical size of a single electromagnetic wave MUST be the same size or smaller than the antenna in order for the antenna to "catch" it. The frequency of the radar electromagnetic wave of the E-3 at 3 Ghz is physically 4 inches long. As long as the antenna is bigger than 4", size is almost irrelevent. The total power can be increased by using a larger antenna, but since an E-7 end cap radar signal can already reach thousands of miles, there is little reason to increase the power.
@@michaelrunnels7660 I am sure there is some relationship between size and capability of the radar otherwise the flank arrays would be the same size as the forward and rear arrays. Otherwise why assume the weight penalty if it was unnecessary?
@@zoperxplex , the side arrays double as signal intelligence gatherers at various other non radar frequencies.
Neat new platform. Wonder if the Navy is going to update the E2 platform?
Already did the E-2D has been updated a lot. I hope the US version has the wing stations of the P-8 You could add extra equipment like sensors or even AIM-174b or AIM 260s for a flying SAM site. And for goodness, sakes make them wet You could use it as a tanker as well.
Hope it's not based on the 737 Max platform.
Its the older Next Generation platform.
@@rhino5681 Yeah I was being a little sarcastic.
@@ictpilot I thought so, but some people aren't that intelligent also, the new NG hulls are still coming from the same Spirit Aerosystems factory that has problems (which makes the UK using second hand hulls for their first 2 Wedgtetails look prescient).
The E7s will be around for at least another decade. The USAF and Boeing just agreed in August on the pirce agreement. The first two prototypes jets won't be delivered till FY28. That's if it doesn't get delayed because of the issues Boeing is currently having. Once the two prototype jets are delivered, then another 2 or maybe 3 years of testing. By that time, it'll be something around 2031. Then Boeing will start mass production. Like i said, the E7s will be around easily for another 12+ yrs.
You seem to think USAF and Boeing developed the E-7? Haha, close...
RAAF and Boeing Defence Australia have been testing out the kinks for years now in the RAAF, I guess it's now at a stage of maturity that we let the AUKUS agreement do it's thing and share with US & UK
@@joebloggs24i love it when allies create stuff that we end up buying ourselves ... how can russia and china compete with that?
What about range though, I don't like the idea of going to a smaller airplane and not having as much endurance..............Update LOL Ok thank you for the info, I looked it up, very glad the new plane will have more endurance. E7 has my approval now. I love airplanes even though I'm no expert. Thank you for sharing video.
I mean, two minutes on google will inform you as to why your comment is pure ignorance.....
@@brendanurquart-eastwood7791 LOL you are right. Thank you.
At 1:01 he said E7 Sentry not E3 Sentry
It is ridiculous to have any 707 based planes still flying in the military. This replacement was long overdue
The USAF has started to re-engine the B-52s. That design is like 10 years older than the 707. It's estimated they may be flying into the 2050s
Opine on the B52.
I guess the ESA radar elements are on the vertical post. Not sure what the top part does.
As it stated, the vertical element provides 120° of coverage per side, the "top hat" picks up the forward looking and aft aspects of coverage, providing a full 360°.
No, the radar elements are in the Top section, the pylon probably contains sub systems like cooling and such, there are also antenna in the small black knob under the tail and under the nose.
Its in the video 1:45 - two broadside side arrays give 120° coverage on either side and one end-fire array in the tophat provides 60° of coverage both fore and aft
What’s not great about the E-7 is that it’s based on the very limited Boeing 737-NG, the result is unimpressive range and endurance.
The video highlights one AUS mission of 17 hrs involving 2 midair refuellings. That sounds like reasonable endurance.
Hi hope Boeing pays the RAAF a royalty for their experience in operationalising this platform.
I asked the same question once when they started selling to other countries and someone said they did but I don’t know any details. It looks like this will be preferred platform for much of the “West” so it could add up
@@Iain1957 The RAAF didn’t bring it to operational capability, Boeing did. Boeing did however have to pay penalties for not achieving timeframes to meet IOC. There is no reason to pay the RAAF nor the Australian Government any royalties.
The E-7A is based on the 737-700.
It would be better if can build a stealth AWACS because at the moment they reveal the location to the enemy.
"Various foes"!
The Australian must have said, we will take 5, but hold the MCAS !
Wrong aircraft, But defo still funny.
@@foxgaming1767 No the Wedgetail are based on the 737 Max. You let a decades old trick fooled you? Comet/ Nimrod Electra /Orion/Aurora, seasonal flu/ Covid 19.
@@tonylam9548 ahh your one of those good to know and no the E7 is a 737 NG
That looks fun to land in a cross wind😂😂
I didn’t realise the USA was so behind other Western nations in using up to date technology.
The US has a wide cross-section of equipment: the most modern (F-22, F-35) and some of the most classic (B-52, E-3). Such a large organisation as the five services that make up the armed forces (incl USCG) means that some equipment remains in service far longer than anticipated, and when the politicians start reducing the budget, then some items that work satisfactorily end up not being replaced until much later than planned when money becomes available. Regardless, the men and women that operate the less up-to-date equipment work hard to keep them running.
Dumb question... how do technicians take a break, go to the bathroom, eat, and sleep during a 17-hour mission. The electronic bits and pieces are still dependent on a crew member being able to function. Nothing is shown about how the aircraft is configured for crew concerns.
There is a bathroom and a kitchen, but as far as rest... You are supposed to be in top physical condition and able to stay awake and function for that period of time just like hospital staff on long rotations do.
It's a big plane with seats. There's spare people
Outback has the ball.
I see only 4 minor problems:
1: It's a Boeing
2: It's not superduper stealthy
3: It can't land on an aircraft carrier
4: It's not expensive enough for the US military.
Other than that, a fine AWACS for sure.
Show me how the E3 can land on a carrier and that is a Boeing
And Australia hasn’t had the same issues as American Boeing civvie and military aircraft
What. The E3 can't land on carriers and its replacement won't be expected too either.
Clueless comment. Please tell me how shooting out active radar is ever meant to be stealth?
@@Habdabi I don't know. I am not a radar expert. I do know that both the F-22 and the F-35 have rather large radars on board, though. And they are supposedly stealthy aircraft.
@Conclusius68 tiny radars compared to the edgetail, link to the edgetails for target data, and they turn off the fighter bomber on plane radars when going "dark" and can rely on edgetail and on missle radar. Different roles, edgetails are a big i am here but i see you!
The Chinese j-20 has a radar cross-section of an elephant..
South Korea ditched the E-7 because Boeing was asking $6.7 billion for four E-7s. South Korea will either buy Saab's GlobalEye or develop its own AEW.
Australia should buy another three aircraft to its current fleet of six , I think it is.
Suprisingly padding a defense contractor pockets not on the list.
They don't do enough research and use AI to voice the narration and that makes it sound lacking.
The E-3 is old. Replacement needed.
why don't they blend that fin with the vert stab?? eg , do away with the gap, reduce turbulence & drag?
The Aussies have SO much ability to produce CLEVER stuff....because of the DIVERSITY of their POPULATION...like America & Britain...GO COBBERS!
@@anthonydebski5814 Although here, the Wedgetail was designed and built in the US.
We should give the E-3s to Ukraine
"737 renowned for its reliability and efficiency." 😮😮😮😂😂😂😂 Wow!!!!!
the NG very much is the max on the other hand has had some issues
The 737 is one of the safest aircraft ever produced.
Boeing will F it up and be 10 years late.
Wilsbauch is mow 6he ACC Comandrr
What about all the antennas on the top of it?
Interesting that I've seen the Turkish version over at Boeing Field for about 20 years now.
So not using 737 max oh 😂
We the taxpayers won't mind getting some money back putting ads on that flying billboard "wedgie"
Cuz they should have done it years ago
Boeing made it? Better check and see if that radar antenna is firmly affixed.
Australian E7s have been successfuly operational in combat zones since 2009 without problems or performance issues.
Imagine if it was based on the A321 XLR it would have a far greater range
A321XLR is not even in service yet.
Lets not forget this was first in service in 2009 and was a project started in 1997. So it is now nearly 30 years on!!!
Also as @grahambaker6664 says many 737's are in RAAF service and commonality is more important than a single outstanding platform.
If it was a project started in a few years with the then in service population of A321 XLR being significant a different decision may have been made.
Power, cooling and overall systems weight are significant issues to balance in an AWEC aircraft. You can't just swap in different sub-systems or the newest tech without significant impact.
Not really, carrying around excessive on-board fuel is detrimental to weight and maneuverability, and fuel tanks you don't need is a wasted space and later maintenance complexity. Mission profiles using IFR is already more efficient. Also, the Airbus is costlier, and a lot more restrictive to both ITAR and multinational treaty restrictions as a warplane. Having NATO pick it, proves the Europeans are not that worried about it.
Crew rest e7
Of course it has nothing to do with flying 60 year old aircraft.
Please explain the 60 year old aircraft comment
Check the doors as well. Does it come with a pilot's seat?
Wouldn’t it be wiser to mount this onto an airbus aircraft as opposed to Boeing for safety concerns?… just asking.?
Your thinking of the wrong version of the 737
there are 37,000 flights every single day ..
0:45 "B737 a platform renowned for its reliability and efficiency" 😂😂😂😂😂
OH REALLY? On which planet have you been living for the past 5 years?
Does that mean there at least one Boeing military contract that had mo technical problems, is ovef budget and late?
Wow! That is one for the little black book!
The wrong aircraft this is the NG not the MAX how about we think a little before writing BS
@@foxgaming1767 not talking about the MAX.
Talking about the recent issue with the frozen aileron actuators that were supposed not to be fitted and magically are installed in Aircraft that had them "disabled".
That issue had been know for 20 years, but was not fixed until serious problems arose.
Naturally the Pilots were kept jn the dark.
That was an issue since the intfoduction of NGs.
The Boeing problems are due to a very bad corporate culture and ethics, resulting in a bad climate om the shop floor, lousy build quality, documentation and quality control issues. Not least caused by cutting corners in Wichita during airframe assembly.
Do you really think such issues will magically disappear just because an older model air frame is assembled?
The shop floor management and workers are working under the same constraints to maximise profits assembling airframe, as those in the commercial aurcraft division.
Look at Starliner! That is ancient technology that needed to be warmed up and repackaged into a new air frame. They can't even do that! The rot sits too deep. So, I hope nobody needs these planes in earnest any time soon, otherwise we might see the collapse of yet another military super power, like Russia in Ukraine, under the strain of a real war.
@@helmutzollner5496 ahh fair enough. My fault for not doing research
@@helmutzollner5496 yeah, i studied project quality and risk at uni last year. one of the project failures we looked at was the boeing engine resize fiasco. airbus added bigger engines to its twin engine fleet for better ecomony. boeing felt the need to do the same. prob was airbus craft had enough ground clearance that the new engines bolted straight on. beoings couldn't so they moved the engines forward and up. which altered the aircraft takeoff characterstic. controlled by a new sensor. issue was the sensor was easy to ice over. training was a quick youtube video. so what happened. in africa two aircraft crashed killing all onboard because the sensors failed, giving pilots a false nose up reading caused by the engine placement, pilots would react and the aircraft stalled and crashed.
Is someone who grew up around Nimrods back in the 70/80s(my father being a squadron commander) if you have said that the airframe that would replace the Nimrod, P3. E3 would have been the 737 I would have never believed you. I guess the issue is that the options are really quite limited, but as an airframe it really is pretty underwhelming performance wise.
It's a lot of eggs in one basket if anything goes wrong with the base platform
And with the way Boeing is going these days ...
Airbus should look into modding say an A321XLR for maritime patrol and AEW / EW
This is an Australian developed aircraft and for the Australians there were significant logistics and training benefits at the time the specifications were confirmed from using the same family of aircraft for the P7, the P8 and the BBJ that Australia used as its VIP transport aircraft.. Also, at that time, the 737-800 was the most common single aisle passenger jet in commercial service in Australia and many reservists were able to maintain currency in their civilian employment saving the RAAF from the time and financial cost of maintaining the reservists' currency.
Lets not forget this was first in service in 2009 and was a project started in 1997. So it is now nearly 30 years on!!!
Also as @grahambaker6664 says many 737's are in service and commonality is more important than a single outstanding platform.
If it was a project started in a few years with the then in service population of A321 XLR being significant a different decision may have been made.
Surfboard not top hat.
George Takei called Galaxy Quest the best Star Trek episode ever!
Nothing new here. Over a decade old now
I just hope that the planes don’t have door plugs that will blow out.
It's an E3 Sentry NOT an E7 Sentry at the start of your childish and amateur commentary.
If you want a job done properly, ask the Australians.