E-7A Wedgetail

[12xu2a3x3]

Well, they finally did it.

,

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by 12xu2a3x3

[ClearedHot]

Epic...Epic mistake. 

Sadly they have Stockholm syndrome...Is the Wedgetail better than the E-3, absolutely, but Wedgetail is 15 year old technology and there were other, newer, far more capable options.  Sadly the warfighter will get another substandard product.  I wonder why South Korea is walking away from Wedgetail....

 

[TheNewGazmo]

Not sure why we're always stroking Boeing off.

[FT11]

Prototype aircraft delivered 5 years from now in FY27 when the jet is literally already operational in AUS?? Laughable. 
 

Our USAF is broken, and a joke. 
 

 

[brabus]

And operational 10 years ago. We are completely incapable of acquisitions that aren't total fucking disasters.

Edited April 27, 2022 by brabus

[LiquidSky]

Have to throw their shareholders yet another bone to make up for the other contracts they've screwed recently.

"Boeing has lost a total of $1.1 billion so far on costs associated with a deal to modify two 747 jumbo jets to serve as Air Force One."

In my admittedly limited experience with the aussies E-7, they were nmc more often than not.

[HuggyU2]

Wedgetail?  Seriously?

What is that supposed to mean?  This has got to be a British thing.  I mean... a country that would name a plane a "Nimrod" or a "Beverly" is probably the same one that would name this jet "Wedgetail".  

[TheNewGazmo]

Nickname.... The Wedgie.

[abmwaldo]

4 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:

Not sure why we're always stroking Boeing off.

A part made in all 50 (or most) states... 

The Air Force (and GAO) looked under the hood of ABMS and found it...underwhelming. If you want to see how JADC2 (ABMS is the Air Force contribution) should be implemented we should take a look at the Navy and Army portion of the programs. They have/had a focus (where the Air Force focused on "experiments" with no clear end state).

2 hours ago, LiquidSky said:

Have to throw their shareholders yet another bone to make up for the other contracts they've screwed recently.

Not to mention all the cash Boeing lost when JSTARS recapitalization was cancelled. They'd likely have been in the driver's seat with a P-8 variant... 

All that said the AUS Wedgetail has some pretty interesting capabilities that have been continually refined since it was introduced 15 years ago. This platform is an interim (albeit too long of a lead time) step to whatever shape ABMS takes. 

[LiquidSky]

1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said:

Wedgetail?  Seriously?

What is that supposed to mean?  This has got to be a British thing.  I mean... a country that would name a plane a "Nimrod" or a "Beverly" is probably the same one that would name this jet "Wedgetail".  

Blame the Aussies. From Google: "The wedge-tailed eagle is the largest bird of prey in the continent of Australia."

[dream big]

8 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:

Not sure why we're always stroking Boeing off.

$$$$$$

Also soft promises for lucrative contracts/jobs awaiting our GOs when they retire.  Eisenhower mentioned something about this a while back.  

[Pooter]

Our acquisitions process is so broken I don't think it even matters what airframe they replace the e-3 with. Whichever way they go it'll be decades behind, billions over budget, and we'll order a quarter of the number we need.  

[TheNewGazmo]

The military took backseat when the commercial airline industry boomed in the 1970's and it hasn't been the same since.  Now we get whatever obsolete, cookie-cutter platform Boeing can put on the table.  They know where the money is.

[fire4effect]

56 minutes ago, TheNewGazmo said:

The military took backseat when the commercial airline industry boomed in the 1970's and it hasn't been the same since.  Now we get whatever obsolete, cookie-cutter platform Boeing can put on the table.  They know where the money is.

Commercial will always win out on sheer volume. On the engine side the Air Force has gotten a little smarter when they push commercial derivative engines like for the B-52/TF-33 replacement. Especially smaller sub-vendors have little desire to make 10-20 widgets for the Air Force given how PITA the source approval process is. I actually know a couple of really smart types who were in the government but are making good money now helping the commercial world put together source approval packages to submit for government contracts. Back to the TF-33. Any platform that gets away from that train wreck of an engine can't get here soon enough. One upside to the Wedgie is it uses the very reliable CFM-56 which has a good availability of parts worldwide and will for a long time. Best airframe in the world isn't very effective sitting on the ramp.

[Clark Griswold]

Epic...Epic mistake. 
Sadly they have Stockholm syndrome...Is the Wedgetail better than the E-3, absolutely, but Wedgetail is 15 year old technology and there were other, newer, far more capable options.  Sadly the warfighter will get another substandard product.  I wonder why South Korea is walking away from Wedgetail....
 

What other platforms are better?
Nothing passive aggressive in that interrogative but from my limited knowledge the Wedgie would beat other players in power, cooling, weight and on board cranium power available to exploit the larger radar / sensors available


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

40 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

What other platforms are better?
Nothing passive aggressive in that interrogative but from my limited knowledge the Wedgie would beat other players in power, cooling, weight and on board cranium power available to exploit the larger radar / sensors available


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are options that fly higher, further and longer than Wedgetail and they have a MUCH better radar.  Again, Wedgetail is 15 years old and based on a 737 platform limited to the mid 30's that can't be upgraded any further.

Here is how corrupt and broken the system is right now. 

Boeing-Led Team to Explore E-3 AWACS Replacement Options for NATO

Yes the article is true, Boeing has been hired to grade alternatives for replacing the NATO AWACS.  How this is legal, ethical, possible is simply beyond me...seriously WTF!

[FLEA]

38 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

There are options that fly higher, further and longer than Wedgetail and they have a MUCH better radar.  Again, Wedgetail is 15 years old and based on a 737 platform limited to the mid 30's that can't be upgraded any further.

Here is how corrupt and broken the system is right now. 

Boeing-Led Team to Explore E-3 AWACS Replacement Options for NATO

Yes the article is true, Boeing has been hired to grade alternatives for replacing the NATO AWACS.  How this is legal, ethical, possible is simply beyond me...seriously WTF!

Quite fucked yes, but to be fair, Kendall does call this a bridge platform which I believe is what is really needed. 

Seems like almost all of the big brains I talk to agree the next gen C2 platform should be distributed sensors with geographically centralized control, but while the concept is there a framework to make it happen isn't. So if the E-7 is just a stop gap while we flesh out what a distributed sensor platform looks like (probably a mix of manned and unmanned ISR), than I'm ok with that. 

[Clark Griswold]

There are options that fly higher, further and longer than Wedgetail and they have a MUCH better radar.  Again, Wedgetail is 15 years old and based on a 737 platform limited to the mid 30's that can't be upgraded any further.
Here is how corrupt and broken the system is right now. 
Boeing-Led Team to Explore E-3 AWACS Replacement Options for NATO
Yes the article is true, Boeing has been hired to grade alternatives for replacing the NATO AWACS.  How this is legal, ethical, possible is simply beyond me...seriously WTF!

Wells that’s just FUBAR

Copy on other platforms

I guess we’re just f—-ed if this is what passes for responsible government

I’m not against acquiring the Wedgie if it passes a reasonably objective selection process but you can’t expect Boeing to fairly run that process

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LiquidSky]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

Quite ed yes, but to be fair, Kendall does call this a bridge platform which I believe is what is really needed. 

Seems like almost all of the big brains I talk to agree the next gen C2 platform should be distributed sensors with geographically centralized control, but while the concept is there a framework to make it happen isn't. So if the E-7 is just a stop gap while we flesh out what a distributed sensor platform looks like (probably a mix of manned and unmanned ISR), than I'm ok with that. 

The acquisitions process has a way of turning stop-gaps into permanent. Just look at the delivery schedule proposed for the Wedgie. A platform that's already being fielded today! Ridiculous.

For another example look at the 46 intending to replace the 135 but in reality it's replacing the kc-10 because we didn't buy enough. But that's OK because we'll have another stop-gap tanker the KC-Y! Though now we might skip the KC-Y because the 46 is good enough 🤣

My money is on the all these "stop-gap" or "holdover" platforms suddenly becoming 30+ year platforms. Boeing is lobbying for it because they'll get to sell block upgrades ad infinitum to make up for their initial production losses. 

[Pooter]

4 hours ago, LiquidSky said:

The acquisitions process has a way of turning stop-gaps into permanent. Just look at the delivery schedule proposed for the Wedgie. A platform that's already being fielded today! Ridiculous.

For another example look at the 46 intending to replace the 135 but in reality it's replacing the kc-10 because we didn't buy enough. But that's OK because we'll have another stop-gap tanker the KC-Y! Though now we might skip the KC-Y because the 46 is good enough 🤣

My money is on the all these "stop-gap" or "holdover" platforms suddenly becoming 30+ year platforms. Boeing is lobbying for it because they'll get to sell block upgrades ad infinitum to make up for their initial production losses. 

Funny point on the stop gap platforms because that's literally the situation global strike finds itself in with the b-1 and b-2. Both intended to replace the buff, both will be long retired before the buff, and both purchased in shamefully small numbers.
 

Don't worry though the B-21 is gonna be different. We're gonna buy so many and it's totally on time, despite no one having seen one only a few years out from projected IOC dates at OPS BASES. 
 

Absolute clown show. 

[Unknown_Rider]

8 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

How this is legal, ethical, possible is simply beyond me...seriously WTF!

https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/how-bill-clinton-and-american-financiers?s=w

This article could go in several threads right now, but scroll to the P.S. line of that post for what's relevant here.  Long story short, "Jacque [Gansler] not only hollowed out the Defense Industry, he did the same to the ability of DoD to manage the industry."

[brabus]

 

The most accurate depiction of AF decision making

[Chuck17]

This decision is a confluence... 

1. There's a need.

2. There's a need for something relatively/comparatively quick/cheap.

3. There's a CSAF that had plenty of time/experience in RAAF Wedgetails when he was the PACAF/CC.

4. There's a COMACC who sees it the same as the CSAF.

This is the directed COA, because anything else will take too long to PPBE/AOA/Acquire/Build/Test. It's not cosmic. It's not nefarious. It's the only choice we really have when considering the other Clydesdales in the stable sucking up all the funding at the same time... B-21, NGAD, GBSD, KC-46/F-35... to say nothing of the fact that we have zero C-5M/C-17 replacement airlifters in the development process, so it'll be another 30 years before the Galaxy/Globemaster replacements hit the ramp... 

Considering the whole picture, getting the Wedgetail is a win.

Chuck

[ClearedHot]

3 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

This is the directed COA, because anything else will take too long to PPBE/AOA/Acquire/Build/Test. It's not cosmic. It's not nefarious. It's the only choice we really have when considering the other

Considering the whole picture, getting the Wedgetail is a win.

Chuck

Absolute nonsense and false.

[RegularJoe]

So here is my question. 

if we went to (insert company) and said build us an aircraft that does "x,y,z" we need it in two years and needs to cost $x.  And we remove DCMA do we get the plane we need on time?

 

Have manufactured for DOD on projects under DCMA I say yes.

 

Thoughts?