Air Force kills E-8C recapitalization

In what will come as no surprise to anyone that follows these things closely, the Air Force will announce this week that they are canceling the E-8C recapitalization. Under the existing plan, they would have acquired 17 aircraft, with new radar systems. Instead, they will now work to develop a "system of systems" to tie multiple information sources together into a battlefield management system.

So far, the Air Force has spent $265M with another almost $400M allocated in the current budget. Lockheed, Northrop, and Boeing have also spent millions of their own funds in technology maturation for the program. Northrop had been selected to provide the radar for the aircraft as well.

www.defensenews.com...

What do you think, Z? Should they keep it or not? I wouldn't know enough about our capabilities to have an intelligent opinion either way, but I'm sure you have an opinion about this...

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

They need to do similar to what they've talked about doing with the A-10 (and are actively trying not to do), and go with a high-low mix. We have high end platforms, like the F-35, that can do the same thing and survive. But we don't NEED to be flying F-35s in a low intensity conflict just to do battlefield management. It makes a lot more sense to have a mixed fleet and be ready for a near-peer war and a low intensity conflict.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You mean kitting up some of the A-10's with JSTARS type equipment so that they can do that job as well or instead of their primary task in the right environment?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

No, what they've been talking about with the A-10 is to buy something like the AT-6 or A-29 as a supplement to use in places like Afghanistan and Iraq where there's little threat. You don't NEED something like a B-52 or F-15 because there isn't an active threat that can bring them down. All you're going to do is put more time and wear on your airframes.

In this case, they've talked about having high end platforms that can do the same thing the current E-8C fleet can do. But if we get into a low intensity conflict, like we've been in, you don't need F-35s and other classified platforms flying around doing the job.

a reply to: Zaphod58

An AT-6 or A-29 with battlefield management tech then, for low intensity conflicts?

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Zaphod58

An AT-6 or A-29 with battlefield management tech then, for low intensity conflicts?

You're taking him too literally. He just means having a mix of high- and low-capability for networked ISR.

Although, ironically the one OAX contender who would be most capable of filling the role of efficient low-end ISR was just eliminated.

ETA: my vote for the original replacement program would still be the G650.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I'd prefer the G550 personally. They already have a CAEW version, so there is some history of modification to a similar mission. The Navy is getting several for range aircraft as well.

a reply to: RadioRobert

That's what I'm trying to understand, which aircraft will fulfill the battlefield imaging and management role if the JSTARS isn't recapitalized? Will it be down to just the F-35, or will some other aircraft also be adapted to fill that role?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

No one knows. As I said, all they have said is that the F-35 and other platforms have the capability to do the mission.

Do you think they will go down the Sentinel R1 route...we have 5 which have provided years of good intel...a reply to: Zaphod58

a reply to: Silentvulcan

If they're smart they will.

They are still on about scrapping ours...what a waste...a reply to: Zaphod58

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hmm. Okay, thanks. Interesting. Sounds like they have it covered then. Sentinels. Of course. They're pretty cheap to fly, aren't they?

a reply to: Zaphod58
But the G550 is almost out of production, which will probably happen next year. It has a less advanced wing, lower payload, lower top and cruise speed and less range. Its internal volume compared the the G-650 is less cross section wise and it cant handle as many operator stations. Plus the flight deck of the 650 was designed to have the same controls as a 550 so that a common type rating can be achieved. The 650 also has the option of the ER package which increases range out to 7500nm All in all the G-650 offers more for only about $20 million extra per airframe. I dont think the extra certification cost would be very great either as both aircraft would have to go through pretty much the same routine for a potential contract.

GEX already certified...however is Bombadier...a reply to: thebozeian

a reply to: Silentvulcan
However is Bombardier what?
The 5000/6000 lack range and allegedly have higher operating costs. The Global 7000/8000 aren't even in service yet and whilst they have comparable range to G650ER they are not yet as proven, cost more and as far as I know are nowhere near being certified for military specs yet.

a reply to: thebozeian

Probably, but they still have a lot of spares and a good understanding of the airframe when it comes to modification into a JSTARS type platform. They're also using them for the new Compass Call, to replace the EC-130, so there would be airframe commonality as well.

Sorry...that should of said it’s bombardier....and Zaph has filled in some more of the reasons to use the G550!!!a reply to: thebozeian

www.janes.com...

Congress is starting to express opposition to the recap cancel.