France gets new, updated E-3F AWACS aircraft

Well looks like they got a better AWACS than we do now, at least front seat jet wise. I believe this is the first AWACS, non NATO to use the big turbofan engine, but I could be mistaken. Looks pretty sweet though...

The MLU builds on an upgrade of the E-3F's communications, mission computers, and displays, and is a mix of work done to the NATO and US Air Force (USAF) Block 40/45 aircraft. Under this enhancement programme, the aircraft's electrical, mechanical, and structural systems, and mission hardware have all been updated.

As previously reported, the improvements include: an enhanced primary AWACS display; an improved identification friend-or-foe (IFF) system; better combat identification capabilities; the Link 16 datalink; improved sensor and datalink integration through the multi-source integration process; an increase in the number of mission console stations from the current 10 to 14; upgraded computer processing equipment and battle-management tools as well as an open-system architecture.

AWACS

a reply to: boomer135

Systems wise it's on par with the US aircraft. But I'm shocked as hell that they haven't put the CFM-56 engines on the US birds. Just about everything else has them now that the RC does. They should have put them on a long time ago.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boomer135

Systems wise it's on par with the US aircraft. But I'm shocked as hell that they haven't put the CFM-56 engines on the US birds. Just about everything else has them now that the RC does. They should have put them on a long time ago.

Sounds like its in the works when they get the money

a reply to: boomer135

It needs to be done. That will give them more loiter time, and better reliability. Those TF33s are getting old. The only good thing is they have lots of spares from the ones that were taken off in previous engine upgrades.

On another note, looks like Boeing had to pay 187 million out of pocket so far for the KC-46 tanker program. Fixed price contracts can be a bitch I guess...

Boeing attributed the decline in Defense, Space & Security sales to a USD187 million pre-tax charge recorded at Boeing Military Aircraft on the KC-46A Tanker programme, reflecting the cost of additional engineering and systems installation work to complete the engineering and manufacturing development contract, along with lower commercial satellites volume at Network & Space Systems (N&SS) and a reduced volume of maintenance, modifications, and upgrade work for the group's Global Services & Support (GS&S) business.

Boeing

a reply to: boomer135

I'm surprised that it's that low honestly. I figured by now it would be closer to $250.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boomer135

I'm surprised that it's that low honestly. I figured by now it would be closer to $250.

Yeah me too. Kinda expected for Boeing though since they low balled the contract.

a reply to: boomer135

Oh they low balled it BAD. I couldn't believe the numbers they were talking about. Even with having built a KC version of the 767, that was ridiculous.

Your airplane guys so tell me how much better are fighters today than say 15-20 years ago?

a reply to: Fargoth

Night and day comparison. The F-22 can cut through everything built that is currently in inventory with very few problems.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Cool, I've just been wondering.

a reply to: boomer135

This report says it's a $272M forward loss, and the AF is predicting a $787M overrun on the total program.

www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58
Yeah I would have thought that standardizing the power plant on the KC-135 with the P-8 and C-40 would have made it a no brainer. Even though a -7B model runs around $8.75m a copy. You would think that the greatly reduced fuel use and vastly smaller maintenance would see them pay for themselves in only a few short years, not to mention the fact that they could fit a higher thrust engine than they currently get from the TF-33. Either a dash 24 or 26 would do the job without need to use the dash 27 of the P8. I don't know what the exact fuel burn is by I would be reasonably confident that they could save at least 15%, possibly 20% or higher. That gives you options you don't currently have. Weight wise there is a slight penalty of 2-300kgs per engine but that depends on which apples and oranges you compare between the two quite large engine families.

LEE.

a reply to: thebozeian

If you know the fuel burns of the other planes this might help you. The Kc-135R with the big turbofans burns 10,000 lbs an hour on average, way better than the A models they replaced.

This report says 700 million in costs overruns for the new tanker. www.zacks.com...

I was just an FE on Awacs, but I would imagine they have structural integrity issues with the Airframe that have to be resolved before they can upgrade the engines. (if they get past the fact that Boeing is spending money on politicians as fast as they can to get the USAF to do an airframe upgrade)

Back when I was on the BUFF we came within a signature of getting an Engine upgrade, problem was when they ran the numbers on the stress differences and then plugged it in to a program that took into account the cracks that the airframe had, they found out that the engines would rip the wings off the plane... if there were fewer cracks it would have been doable. ( I am probably butchering the sequence of events, I just remember that the new engines were to much for the cracks that every buff has at this advanced an age)