Northrop, Gulfstream, L3 partner for new JSTARS

Gulfstream is planning to offer one of their platforms as the basis of a new JSTARS platform to replace the E-8C. They're teaming up with Northrop Grumman, and L3 to build the aircraft.

The Air Force plans to offer a maximum of three industry contracts to develop and mature the technology, as well as build prototypes, before the source-selection decision in 2017. Currently, besides this team, Boeing is planning to offer a 737-700 modified for the mission.


www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

I wonder if Raytheon and Bombadier will jump on the train and offer their Sentinel platform that's already been proven. Don't see why they wouldn't.

Why does "JSTARS" remind me of the name of some K-Pop group or Japanese rock band?

A 737 seems appropriate. They have good range and have been in service long enough to have shaken out all the problems with them.

737-700, isn't that the short stubby one? I know there are a few variants and one is quite small compared to the others.

EDIT: Besides, it's be a sweet gig to fly a 737 for the Air Force. Once you get out, there are a TON of them flying in the private sector you could transfer your skills to.

a reply to: justwanttofly

There are three or four possibilities. Boeing already has a surface search radar testing on the P-8, that was used on the Orion. IAI has a mature design as well.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I think you're thinking of the -600. That was the first of the Next Generation family. It only sits 123 in single class, and 108 in dual class.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

EDIT: Besides, it's be a sweet gig to fly a 737 for the Air Force. Once you get out, there are a TON of them flying in the private sector you could transfer your skills to.

Thread derail: A joke going around the Navy the time that the P-8 was entering service was to name it the STJ-8. STJ for Southwest (Airlines) Transition Jet and 8 for the maximum amount of years the pilot would spend in the Navy before bailing for Southwest.

In reality, it can be much harder to transfer over from military to civilian than you might think.

a reply to: justwanttofly

I'd imagine procedures for safety would be a big one...

The military may have more procedures in some areas, and the civilian world more in other areas.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Fighting the urge to turn and burn with 200 passengers on board maybe?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Military that switch to the airlines frequently have transition issues, both pilot and maintenance. It's a completely different world.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

For the most part the difficulty comes from actually getting hired somewhere desirable. Getting hired at a major airline is very much so about who you know and how many favors they owe you. Add to that the facts that the airlines can sometimes hire without a whole lot of rhyme or reason and that all the military guys are competing with a massive backlog of highly experienced regional airline pilots with years and years of airline experience, it can be very frustrating waiting for "the call".

Right now there are 3000 hour fighter types (a massive amount of hours for someone in fighters vs heavies) who have been decorated IPs/EPs, with SEFE experience, many who are Weapons School grads, who have been waiting to get hired while less experienced and qualified pilots from all backgrounds have been getting hired left and right. Fighters aren't the only community that's been happening too but it's just a snapshot.

Contrary to popular belief, I've heard that depending on what command the prior Air Force pilots came from, they are sometimes shocked by how the airlines go about safety compared to the military. It is still very safe, but the military guys want to be way overly safe and brief the smallest things for a long time while the civilian just want to brief and go. But that's all depended on the risk tolerances of where those pilots were raised in the Air Force.

a reply to: justwanttofly

When I worked for my father, a friend of ours came through on a -135. On the way out to the runway they did their reverser check, and couldn't get #3 out of reverse. They got back, and we asked him if he wanted to leave that day or the next. He said that day because he had Guard guys that had to be back at their civilian jobs the next day. Three and a half hours later, they were on the way to the runway, new engine hanging in the #3 spot. We used four people to change it, and a good 45 minutes of that was troubleshooting.

A cousin of mine works for Delta. They had an L1011 down for maintenance in Honolulu that they had to get up and flying, so they brought a crew in for an emergency engine change.

They brought 55 people, and it took 12 hours to change the engine.

a reply to: justwanttofly

Skunk Works, Raytheon, and Bombardier. Raytheon will provide a scaled version of a classified radar system they've developed, Bombardier will supply a Global 6000, and Skunk Works will integrate it all. Two development aircraft are to be delivered in 2019.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You'd think that the Guard guys would be the ones who'd most want to spend a day or two broken in Hawaii. Did they at least buy you all a case of beer or other beverage of choice?

It'll be interesting to see how this contract plays out. I'd think that the LM/Raytheon/Bombardier team would get a real good look because their jet is relatively proven and the AF is operating Globals now but you never know.

a reply to: justwanttofly

They were coming off of three weeks of active. They were ready to go home.

If Boeing uses the radar that they had on the P-3, and are testing on the P-8, that may give them a bit of an advantage, because they have a reliable, proven radar, on a platform that they know can handle it. So it's going to be an interesting fight.

a reply to: Zaphod58
55 people!
WTF were they all supposed to be doing? Seriously that's ridiculous. As you well know Zaph, on an engine change you cant really make use of more than about 8 or 10 people max. One on each corner as you drop and lift, a guy in charge to watch the weights and call it out, a couple of people to get any transferring components ready, E seals, etc and maybe a guy to hunt for any missing parts, paperwork, Mxi/TRAKS etc. That's a max of 8 people, and Im used to doing engines in the T900, CF-6, RB-211 size. Ok so the bigger engines do take longer and it might take around 8hrs to change a Roller or CF-6 and up to 12-14 for a T900 but I have done all three in less. Sometimes sh*t happens and you run into problems that cause that to blow out by a few hours, but to take 12hrs with 55 people, even if its on the #2 position on a Tristar/DC-10 that's ridiculous, not to mention expensive.

LEE.

a reply to: thebozeian

Unionized workforces are one reason I never went into the civil side of maintenance. They brought a group to drop the ring cowling, a group to disconnect the electrical, one for hydraulics, one for the engine mounts, etc. I used to watch every airline, I didn't care where they were from, sit on the hardstands for an average of 3 days doing engine changes. Sometimes longer. They'd go an entire shift, and do nothing but drop the engine, then go home for the day.

The one time we had to have a KC-10 engine changed, it took about 8 hours to do, partly because we had to get some of the equipment from one of the airlines, because we didn't keep stands and cranes that size for engine changes.