E-7A Wedgetail

[Danger41]

Or how about the way NGAD was designed and prototyped quickly? I don’t know anything specific about that “digital engineering” but it seems pretty amazing compared to the old way of doing business. 

[Prosuper]

With the E-7 the infrastructure should be seamless. The only new Aerospace Ground Equipment should be new smaller tripod jacks, towbars. The 552nd has everything else, you can probably get two 737's in a hangar compared to one 707. Won't need the stands that you need to take rotodomes off anymore. The CFM-56-7s are super reliable and crew chiefs will have to learn to deal with Skydrol. The APU's are much better than the one they borrowed from the C-5. I hope they have a separate class on just on the airstairs that come with the jets, they are great until someone efs one up. I got my hands dirty with the U.S. Marshalls 737's which are -400's and Alaska NG's. Love the 737.  I wonder what ground cooling these jets will need compared to a E-3. I hope at first, they by some -700NG trainers for the pilots and not beat up the mission birds, we used to have some old 707's for that but the schoolhouse tore them up really quick, plus the airlines had a reason they got rid of them. The Navy has bought a E-3 from the RAF to train E-6 pilots, it's at Lake Charles now for maintenance.

[jazzdude]

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?

That's great of you have the money to pay for that place of development. Also, it requires stable requirements to specify the x/y/z, and that usually takes 1-2 years, since that analysis also takes time and money.

It's basically what the AF did with the NGAD prototype, and was able to accelerate the development significantly

[Chuck17]

9 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Absolute nonsense and false.

That’s cool - I was in the room when it was talked through bruh, and that was going on two years ago… But go on and “old guy knows better” the shit outta this one for us. 

Chuck

Edited April 30, 2022 by Chuck17

[ClearedHot]

8 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

That’s cool - I was in the room when it was talked through bruh, and that was going on two years ago… But go on and “old guy knows better” the shit outta this one for us. 

Chuck

Old guy knows better?  I was in the room two weeks ago when alternatives where reviewed, were you?  Did you read the responses to the RFI they sent out?  There is obviously much you don't know about the current situation.

[ClearedHot]

12 hours ago, RegularJoe said:

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?

Depends on the company.  Sadly they plane to go sole source to Boeing and Boeing is a hot mess right now.  They almost went bankrupt and they are YEARS late and a BILLION over budget on two 747s for POTUS.

[ClearedHot]

12 hours ago, Danger41 said:

Or how about the way NGAD was designed and prototyped quickly? I don’t know anything specific about that “digital engineering” but it seems pretty amazing compared to the old way of doing business. 

Great point and kills two birds with one stone.  Highly recommend you take a look at Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA).  When married with AGILE Software Development it is the path of the future that provides for rapid upgrades and development while allowing the government to retain data rights so a single company can't "vendor lock" a program and charge exorbitant fees to upgrade or change. 

 

[Chuck17]

19 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Old guy knows better?  I was in the room two weeks ago when alternatives where reviewed, were you?  Did you read the responses to the RFI they sent out?  There is obviously much you don't know about the current situation.

And yet, I never said I did.

Dude - We’ve done exactly what they set out to do two years ago, in the manner that the confluence of factors showed was the most likely path TWO YEARS AGO. Acknowledge allllllllll the additional everything that’s transpired since. My original post, which you for whatever reason called inaccurate/false, stated plainly near the exact goddamn list of factors in this decision the A3 and CSAF said - verbatim. 

No doubt they’re viable alternatives. No doubt there’s better performance. Every doubt existed then as now in the ability of the service to turn it quickly.

I’m not in that business any longer so you’ve got the ups on me for analysis of alternatives. Then again I never said I knew what happened last week either!

Chuck

Edited April 30, 2022 by Chuck17

[ClearedHot]

13 minutes ago, Chuck17 said:

And yet, I never said I did.

Dude - We’ve done exactly what they set out to do two years ago, in the manner that the confluence of factors showed was the most likely path TWO YEARS AGO. Acknowledge allllllllll the additional everything that’s transpired since. My original post, which you for whatever reason called inaccurate/false, stated plainly near the exact goddamn list of factors in this decision the A3 and CSAF said - verbatim. 

No doubt they’re viable alternatives. No doubt there’s better performance. Every doubt existed then as now in the ability of the service to turn it quickly.

I’m not in that business any longer so you’ve got the ups on me for analysis of alternatives. Then again I never said I knew what happened last week either!

Chuck

Brother I didn't say your entire post was false, I was very specific in what I quoted.  It is not the factors, it is the alternatives and how singled minded they are in discounting alternatives.  There was ZERO rigor in the process, actually an ignorance of reality in an effort to quickly sole source to Boeing. 

I do NOT view Wedgetail as a win.  The program is having SERIOUS issues (Australia’s Troubled E-7A “Wedgetail” AWACS Program), causing others like South Korea to walk away. 

On the EXACT same timeline as Wedgetail there are alternatives with far more capability but they don't want a competition.

[Chuck17]

1 minute ago, ClearedHot said:

Brother I didn't say your entire post was false, I was very specific in what I quoted.  It is not the factors, it is the alternatives and how singled minded they are in discounting alternatives.  There was ZERO rigor in the process, actually an ignorance of reality in an effort to quickly sole source to Boeing. 

I do NOT view Wedgetail as a win.  The program is having SERIOUS issues (Australia’s Troubled E-7A “Wedgetail” AWACS Program), causing others like South Korea to walk away. 

On the EXACT same timeline as Wedgetail there are alternatives with far more capability but they don't want a competition.

This and this! I think we managed to salvage this exchange by arriving at almost the same point from two years apart… In the end, the directed COA… 

I give it a 8/10, would argue with CH again.

Chuck

[Banzai]

31 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Great point and kills two birds with one stone.  Highly recommend you take a look at Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA).  When married with AGILE Software Development it is the path of the future that provides for rapid upgrades and development while allowing the government to retain data rights so a single company can't "vendor lock" a program and charge exorbitant fees to upgrade or change. 

 

Since you’re purportedly in the rooms where AoA for advanced systems is happening right now, do the higher levels of government actually believe that MOSA or AGILE actually work for acquisition of anything beyond just airframes? Because I don’t think it has been proven to work worth a damn for any mission systems hardware/software combination in the last 10 years. In fact. I think our faith in those two constructs is really biting us.

I would argue that those are buzzwords that make the O-6+ community feel good and give the SPO plausible deniability, but don’t do anything to actually improve the process. Often, with our contracts, it makes it worse.

I and all my colleagues in the developmental test and acquisitions world have only seen hollow promises from contractors that make program managers feel good! - but they don’t work and result in unimaginable 5-10 year slips to promised capabilities. Additionally, Lockheed and Boeing have done a smashing job the last couple of years of stamping  AGILE and “Open System Architecture” on proprietary development and then software locking a critical portion of the code base so that they are still involved in future changes. But as long as they call it “open,” the SPO and requirements branches don’t do any more digging. We are getting our lunch eaten by contractors. Cases in point: T-7, Hypersonics. Wanted to list a ton more but I’ll be conservative on this forum.

More to the point, I think buying the E-7 as is with minimal purchased upgrades is probably literally our only hope of not extending the timeline for this combat capability by years. As a fighter dude, I am excited about getting current E-7 capes for present and future relevant conflicts. Unfortunately, out acquisition system from requirements to test is fundamentally flawed, so while there are definitely better options of upgrades, are there better options/upgrades that also deliver on a relevant schedule? And I don’t mean the glossy brochure schedule.

[ClearedHot]

57 minutes ago, Banzai said:

Since you’re purportedly in the rooms where AoA for advanced systems is happening right now, do the higher levels of government actually believe that MOSA or AGILE actually work for acquisition of anything beyond just airframes? Because I don’t think it has been proven to work worth a damn for any mission systems hardware/software combination in the last 10 years. In fact. I think our faith in those two constructs is really biting us.

You must not be dealing in the SOCOM realm, off the top of my thick skull I can think of four VERY successful programs, all software mission management programs. 

When I was on active duty I only had a cursory knowledge of AGILE.  It wasn't until I joined industry that I got a full immersion and better understanding.  As a frame of reference my undergrad was in computer engineering so I was most certainly a legacy guy. I think the seniors were slow to understand and believe, mainly because the PMs are older and stuck in their ways.  As an example I recall sitting in a long meeting with the SPO as we discussed progress on a current effort.  My company had just concluded an Agile Sprint and we were WAY ahead and very confident on our progress.  They were trying to tell us we were way behind because they were stuck in the Waterfall construct, it was painful to walk them through it.  We went on to deliver EARLY with ZERO defects for that ATP. 

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

I would argue that those are buzzwords that make the O-6+ community feel good and give the SPO plausible deniability, but don’t do anything to actually improve the process. Often, with our contracts, it makes it worse.

I disagree with that assessment, the entire software industry is switching to AGILE for a reason.  Time and again it has proven more effective and efficient than waterfall.  Most of the issues I've seen come from a lack of government understanding.  In the scenario above the government actually mandated that we convert AGILE metrics to waterfall so they could understand and report up.  That conversion wasted a lot of time and $, we still delivered early.

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

I and all my colleagues in the developmental test and acquisitions world have only seen hollow promises from contractors that make program managers feel good! - but they don’t work and result in unimaginable 5-10 year slips to promised capabilities. Additionally, Lockheed and Boeing have done a smashing job the last couple of years of stamping  AGILE and “Open System Architecture” on proprietary development and then software locking a critical portion of the code base so that they are still involved in future changes. But as long as they call it “open,” the SPO and requirements branches don’t do any more digging. We are getting our lunch eaten by contractors. Cases in point: T-7, Hypersonics. Wanted to list a ton more but I’ll be conservative on this forum.

I 100% agree on Boeing, they are a train wreck.  While on active duty I watched them take collaborative software developed by both government and Boeing software folks and slap a "Boeing Proprietary" label inside the code.  I think if you look beyond the five bigs you will see some companies have actually done a superb job with AGILE.  With regard to T-7...dear god the program is an abortion.  It is failing on some many performance metrics...horrific.

Look outside the AF at FARA and FLARA...those are going to be HUGE procurement programs (if they survive), and they have MOSA from both a hardware and software perspective all over them.

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

More to the point, I think buying the E-7 as is with minimal purchased upgrades is probably literally our only hope of not extending the timeline for this combat capability by years. As a fighter dude, I am excited about getting current E-7 capes for present and future relevant conflicts. Unfortunately, out acquisition system from requirements to test is fundamentally flawed, so while there are definitely better options of upgrades, are there better options/upgrades that also deliver on a relevant schedule? And I don’t mean the glossy brochure schedule.

Sorry but I 100% disagree.  Wedgetail is having SERIOUS issues, look beyond the glossy brochure as you said.

There are programs that can deliver on the same timeline or sooner with FAR more capability.  I know I am now a slimy contractor but I am also a huge skeptic and in this case I hit the I believe button after many long talks with the engineers and looking at and putting my paws the tech/equipment/software myself.

[Banzai]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

You must not be dealing in the SOCOM realm, off the top of my thick skull I can think of four VERY successful programs, all software mission management programs. 

I’m not, you’re right. Maybe SOCOM is better, I hope so. I would guess that’s because SOCOM literally by law doesn’t have to go through the same acquisition processes as traditional Air Force.

I’m not saying AGILE can’t work - it has been demonstrated in multiple industries so I agree with you there. My issues with AGILE or Open Architecture are all related to big Cat 1 programs like F-35/F-22/EPAWSS/B-21/KC-46/etc. Personally, my perspective is that it hasn’t done much for America or these programs except in name. Almost all test PMs and pilots I know on these programs have said we are agile in name only. I would be curious to hear where it worked well, if you can say.

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

I 100% agree on Boeing, they are a train wreck.  While on active duty I watched them take collaborative software developed by both government and Boeing software folks and slap a "Boeing Proprietary" label inside the code.  I think if you look beyond the five bigs you will see some companies have actually done a superb job with AGILE.  With regard to T-7...dear god the program is an abortion.  It is failing on some many performance metrics...horrific.

Look outside the AF at FARA and FLARA...those are going to be HUGE procurement programs (if they survive), and they have MOSA from both a hardware and software perspective all over them.

I agree with you here. I guess my perspective is different because all of the programs I mentioned earlier are run by some combination of the big 5. There are tons of smaller companies that could do it if big defense contracts weren’t effectively controlled by a monopoly.

 

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

There are programs that can deliver on the same timeline or sooner with FAR more capability.  I know I am now a slimy contractor but I am also a huge skeptic and in this case I hit the I believe button after many long talks with the engineers and looking at and putting my paws the tech/equipment/software myself.

Can you give an example? I’ve flown on the E-7 and in the link with them which is why I feel like it would be good, but I don’t have a good idea for high TRL alternatives. Would love to be better informed about options.

[ClearedHot]

18 minutes ago, Banzai said:

I’m not, you’re right. Maybe SOCOM is better, I hope so. I would guess that’s because SOCOM literally by law doesn’t have to go through the same acquisition processes as traditional Air Force.

Not applicable in this case...True AGILE is simply a programing method not an acquisition process.

18 minutes ago, Banzai said:

I’m not saying AGILE can’t work - it has been demonstrated in multiple industries so I agree with you there. My issues with AGILE or Open Architecture are all related to big Cat 1 programs like F-35/F-22/EPAWSS/B-21/KC-46/etc. Personally, my perspective is that it hasn’t done much for America or these programs except in name. Almost all test PMs and pilots I know on these programs have said we are agile in name only. I would be curious to hear where it worked well, if you can say.

I won't list them here, if you are on a .mil net simply contact PEO-FW and they will share their AGILE programs.  I can assure you there are numerous highly successful, once of them running for over 15 years.

I will share an example of the benefits of AGILE.  From the LAE one of the programs was restricted to TPS grads only because the plane had not been certified by the Air Force.  There was an O-6 TPS grad who was a GRP/CC who flew that airplane and gave an input to the team about the HOTAS arrangement (I think a sensor or weapons slaving input).  He came back for a second flight a week later and the team informed him the change had been made in MMS for HOTAS.  At first he didn't believe it.  That change was now in the OFP which includes STC approval because it can communicate with he autopilot.  The company was able the change overnight, sent it to the SIL for regression testing, then to the OEM for two test flights, all completed within 7 days thanks to AGILE and without breaking the STC.  The same change in the F-16 OFP using waterfall would have taken 6 months or more.

27 minutes ago, Banzai said:

I agree with you here. I guess my perspective is different because all of the programs I mentioned earlier are run by some combination of the big 5. There are tons of smaller companies that could do it if big defense contracts weren’t effectively controlled by a monopoly.

Shack!

28 minutes ago, Banzai said:

Can you give an example? I’ve flown on the E-7 and in the link with them which is why I feel like it would be good, but I don’t have a good idea for high TRL alternatives. Would love to be better informed about options.

There are other more capable radars that are TRL-9 as well as platforms out there.  The risk and delivery schedule is the same and at a lower cost point.  The problem is USAF has to take more than a cursory look.  

Again, I refer you to the problems Wedgetail is currently having.

[Blue]

Trying to read between the lines in the original announcement.

The FY23 President’s Budget request includes $227 million in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds starting in FY23. These funds support the acquisition of a rapid prototype aircraft planned to deliver in FY27.

So, $227 million in RDT&E starting this fall, to deliver a prototype aircraft in 5-ish years.   Can't tell if that's $227 million just for FY23 with more to come in the future, or is that $227 million with execution spread throughout the five years.

Either way, that's a decent amount of RDT&E money for a platform that's already fielded.

Is there some sort of modernization built into the budget?  Respin all the electronics?  End up with an "E-7B," or something to that effect?

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, Blue said:

Trying to read between the lines in the original announcement.

The FY23 President’s Budget request includes $227 million in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds starting in FY23. These funds support the acquisition of a rapid prototype aircraft planned to deliver in FY27.

So, $227 million in RDT&E starting this fall, to deliver a prototype aircraft in 5-ish years.   Can't tell if that's $227 million just for FY23 with more to come in the future, or is that $227 million with execution spread throughout the five years.

Either way, that's a decent amount of RDT&E money for a platform that's already fielded.

Is there some sort of modernization built into the budget?  Respin all the electronics?  End up with an "E-7B," or something to that effect?

The other piece is USAF pushed an RFI to industry as park of their "market research."  By business rules if their is more than one technically compliant response they have to go to an RFP.  Multiple companies responded and the USAF graded the homework in hours...literally HOURS.  large documents full of engineering reviewed and discounted in hours, ultimately declared "not technically feasible.  That response meant USAF could say there is only one choice so we are going to sole source to Boeing...AND we are going to give BOEING a contract to grade the submissions for the NATO AWACS replacement...including their own.  Honestly I believe this is on par with the tanker shenanigans that put people in jail.

[Ch33s3]

Something not discussed here yet has been divestment of the E-3.. obviously overdue to happen for these jets. When’s the last time the AF divested a crew jet with so many bodies? Anybody been part of a community that was being sent to the boneyard? There’s going to be a lot of aviators without a home in the coming years - navs first but also a thousand CEAs and then ACs and copilots too.. where are any of these folks gonna go?

Speaking with perspective from the AWACS community, there’s definitely some excitement stemming from this announcement but also a healthy dose of skepticism.

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, Ch33s3 said:

There’s going to be a lot of aviators without a home in the coming years - navs first but also a thousand CEAs and then ACs and copilots too.. where are any of these folks gonna go?

The Navs will probably go to Group and Wing staff and continue to fly on the new jets for "proficiency". There, they will fuck up basic tasks like ATC 'direct-to's' , A/R rendezvous', and oceanic crossings, and generally make your life in the front seat more difficult.  (Sorry to my nav bros but god sometimes it's hard to resist talking shit.....it's just so goddamn easy!)

[FLEA]

9 hours ago, Ch33s3 said:

Something not discussed here yet has been divestment of the E-3.. obviously overdue to happen for these jets. When’s the last time the AF divested a crew jet with so many bodies? Anybody been part of a community that was being sent to the boneyard? There’s going to be a lot of aviators without a home in the coming years - navs first but also a thousand CEAs and then ACs and copilots too.. where are any of these folks gonna go?

Speaking with perspective from the AWACS community, there’s definitely some excitement stemming from this announcement but also a healthy dose of skepticism.

The EC-130. It's the same stort, quick buy of the EC-37 as a gap filler. 

JSTARs are also on the cutting block. The good thing is, it appears the AF is serious about renovating these support role EW/C2ISR aircraft. 

I think a lot of these crew members will go to staff to fill still vacant fighter and bomber billets. They will be there with the crap ton of MQ-9 pilots that are also being divested. That will last 3 years and then enough aircraft will start rolling in they can start filtering some people back or attriting others. Just my opinion. 

[FLEA]

Also worth noting with hostilities increasing against Russia, US AWACS is only a fraction of total airborne early warning available to the alliance. NATO has its own AWACS which is still slated for service until 2030, and there is also the UK, France, Turkey and several other allies with AEWC&C platforms. It's good the USAF is doing this now. It was a problem that needed fixed a long time ago, but better late than never. 

[pawnman]

12 hours ago, Prozac said:

The Navs will probably go to Group and Wing staff and continue to fly on the new jets for "proficiency". There, they will fuck up basic tasks like ATC 'direct-to's' , A/R rendezvous', and oceanic crossings, and generally make your life in the front seat more difficult.  (Sorry to my nav bros but god sometimes it's hard to resist talking shit.....it's just so goddamn easy!)

 

[brabus]

On 4/30/2022 at 11:57 AM, Banzai said:

Can you give an example? I’ve flown on the E-7 and in the link with them which is why I feel like it would be good, but I don’t have a good idea for high TRL alternatives

The hard part about answering that is it can’t be answered on an Internet forum. Like you, I’ve flown with E-7 in real life (and in virtual test events). I 100% agree with CH we have better alternatives on a similar timeline. I talk to GOs and CODELs about it, I get the smile/nod and obligatory “supportive statements” from them, then watch them walk away and go blow Boeing some more (and I do like some Boeing programs). The E-7 is not the solution you want, it’s just the horse “the old guys holding the purse strings” want, alternative advocacy from warfighters be damned!

[Banzai]

59 minutes ago, brabus said:

The hard part about answering that is it can’t be answered on an Internet forum. Like you, I’ve flown with E-7 in real life (and in virtual test events). I 100% agree with CH we have better alternatives on a similar timeline. I talk to GOs and CODELs about it, I get the smile/nod and obligatory “supportive statements” from them, then watch them walk away and go blow Boeing some more (and I do like some Boeing programs). The E-7 is not the solution you want, it’s just the horse “the old guys holding the purse strings” want, alternative advocacy from warfighters be damned!

Yeah, probably true. The other hard part in pushing a lesser known system is just that only a few people will know about it. And then those few people that do know have to work through security hurdles to get their message all the way up the staff, up the chain, to the folks in charge of the budget to change their mind. Whereas everyone already knows what the E-7 is. It’s easy to understand and debate and you can do it at a relatively unclassified level.

I think it’s probably similar to why we are still using L16 in 2022. Just can’t convince everyone it’s feasible to commit to one of the many significantly better options to upgrade it.

[brabus]

3 hours ago, Banzai said:

the staff, up the chain, to the folks in charge of the budget to change their mind.

That's not really a problem - the right people are more than aware, they just don't care/have already made their deals with someone else. At best, they're unwilling to adapt when new information is brought to them, at worst they're emotionally/financially involved (either now or in their perceived future) to the point any logic contrary to their made-up minds is DOA. That is the self-serving bureaucratic bullshit that puts us behind where we could be as a fighting force.

Edited May 2, 2022 by brabus

[SurelySerious]

That's not really a problem - the right people are more than aware, they just don't care/have already made their deals with someone else. At best, they're unwilling to adapt when new information is brought to them, at worst they're emotionally/financially involved (either now or in their perceived future) to the point any logic contrary to their made-up minds is DOA. That is the self-serving bureaucratic bullshit that puts us behind where we could be as a fighting force.

Copy. So if they could put an E-7 on the ramp in 6 months (because it’s already operational) to buy two years for full acquisition of something better that you’re alluding to: would that be an acceptable compromise?