Wedgetails delayed

last SG · 2008-11-28T18:58:41+00:00

hmm but arent business jets more costly to operate if you compare to a 737 ? i.e, there are several hundred 737s flying all over the world, and with airasia...

Fratboy SG

3) why did the USAF use big awacs like the E-3 that uses the 707 as a baseline aircraft to carry the radar and equipment ?

why did Japan choose the 767 for its E-3 sentries ? could have chosen a smaller aircraft but chose to go with the 767.

all interesting questions to why compress the equipment and manpower needed into such a small airframe. such as the G550.

granted, the E-2C is a small aircraft, but it functioned in a lesser capacity, covering lesser radius and performing fewer functions compared to a full sized awacs.

its clear anecdotal evidence that larger aircraft are usually preferred for AWACs role.

Seriously, these large AEW & C and AWACs planes were concieved in an entirely different time period. Were miniturization techniques good enough or should I say cool enough to put these manual rotating radar domes on planes the size of the Streams? Hardly a viable comparison would you not think? Current anecdotal evidence seem to point the way of smaller frames as well; Gulf-streams, Erieye, Bombadiers for the Astor, etc. What does that say about smaller frames ? Even South Korea had originally wanted the Gulf-streams.

Fratboy SG

So, what`s the current score on the Phalcons and Mesa;

1) Radar Range -> Phalcon radar

2) Endurance -> CAEW Phalcon(more loiter time)

3) Altitude - > CAEW Phalcon(Not to mention attitude ;)

4) Ruggedness -> CAEW Phalcon with its ability of taking off from smaller and shorter(?) runaways

5) Radar print(RCS) -> CAEW Phalcon versus the fatter and slightly longer Boeing plane

6) Others -> CSM/COMINT and ELINT integrated for Phalcon

7) Space for crew -> Boeing MESA.

8) Ease of ability to configure radar for future threats and growth -> Uncle Israel and Phalcon. And not Grandfather US who can be very grumpy and touchy with such items.

Missed out any?

lionnoisy SG

Ricketts’ report quotes Air Vice Marshall Chris Deeble as being unconvinced the system will work as advertised by late 2012, which in itself is yet another 18 months later than Boeing previously promised, after a string of broken deadlines.

Deeble is quoted as saying Australia has called in the MIT Lincoln Laboratory in the US to "help Australia understand the baseline performance of the system and to indicate any path forward for remediation of any shortfalls."

What! We now need help to understand what we bought! A Boeing spokesman flatly denied that it was going to cancel the project, but this is the company that promised Qantas it would have Dreamliners flying by now, and then by late next year, and now claims it doesn’t know when they will fly, or even how far. And it got off the hook with a trifling $291 million in liquidated damages to Qantas.

What does the over promising and under delivering of the Wedgetail and the Dreamliner say about the promises accepted by Brendan Nelson when he impulsively ordered $6 billion worth of F/A -18F Super Hornets to make up the defence gap caused by the delays to the Lockheed Martin lead JSF project?

Or of new defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon in confirming the order for a second rate jet that some critics claim will be as useful against Indonesia’s Russian built jets as the Polish Cavalry was in dealing with Hitler’s Panzer tanks.

Fitzgibbon has already written off $1 billion of taxpayer funds in the ludicrously inept Seasprite helicopter project. It would be chicken feed beside the consequences of a failure of the Wedgetail program.

In 2008, three years after it was due, we need help to understand the manifestly untrue line we were sold year ago. WTF.

]MIT Lincoln Laboratory is a federally funded research and development center chartered to apply advanced technology to problems of national security.
www.ll.mit.edu/

@@@@@@@@

Is there any conflict of interest by letting a USA Lab to check on Boeing's product?

lionnoisy SG

-Chicago-based Boeing has twice taken charges for costs because it missed deliveries of the surveillance plane. In June 2006, the company said it would record $300 million to $500 million in pretax costs due to delays in the Australia and Turkey programs. In July 2008, it took a $250 million pretax charge for the Australia program.EOQ

Fratboy SG

Good thing we did not opt for the MESA then

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Good thing we did not opt for the MESA then

MESA is relatively newer than Phalcon and is bound to have teething troubles at the start.

Anyhow, Rolls Royce is a British company. Yes, they produce some of the best gas turbine engines around

sgstars SG

@slim10

dude, im impressed with your knowledge about aircraft.

i stand corrected about engine and airframe.

but even then, be it more of a picanto or a 9-5. surely there are plenty of Commercial synergies to be had with the 737 platform.

i.e can expect continued development, easy access to MRO operators, plenty of MRO facilities, plenty of trained pilots/ use of reserve pilots.

all these do help in cost savings for a particular aircraft right ?

furthermore, with a large family of existing aircraft, potential future development, is definitely going to be very important. look at the botched up KC135 replacement tanker programe. look at the projected service life for the E-3 and the joint stars after the blcok 20/25 SLEP.

the potential service life for such a platform may be far greater than the 20 years our E-2C lasted us. would the 737 last longer or the gulfstream ? Im not as familiar as you in aviation matters but i think the 737 buy by aus/korea is looking at a very long term projection.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Well, in the US, aircraft are worked very hard, and assuming they are maintained well, you could operate them for 20 years or so. Probably 30.

sgstars SG

@fratboy

I was not able to post my full post for some reason? I had wanted to add that the Phalcon radar system has India, Singapore, Israel and Chile(first generation Phalcon) as buyers. This is against (what?) Australia, Turkey and South Koreaf or the Mesa radar system. Of course the Phalcon radar system is configurable on various platforms and currently found on the Streams and the II-76s. Does that mean that the Phalcon has a higher turnover and it is better?

which leaves us no where clearer as to whom these observers are. And no, it is not pretty safe to eliminate the possibility of journalistic bias at all since the lad`s sources are not revealed. You can still be cheeky albeit appearing serious; especially when they prefer to use generic terms. There is nothing in the article which show proofs exclusively and definitively that the Phalcon is better than the MESA anymore than the converse is truer.

was just citing a reference i read about the korea E-X awacs procurement program.

i personally think that there is alot of potential in the MESA system but im not against the g550 CAEW in any case. im neutral on this one. read the thread further back ? i was initially for the wedgetail, but the more i read up (ironically thanks to lionnoisy) the more i realized, the CAEW dosent seem too bad.

just wanted to inject some of the links ive read that seems to indicate that the MESA radar is superior to the phalcon.

in any case, if we had ordered the wedgetails like australia, we could be sitting on a hefty "rebate" in terms of contractual penalties. i dont have any sources to prove it but i recall boeing declaring a 770 million dollar penalty on their balance sheet related to wedgetail development.

comparing this with the korean 1.5 billion USD deal for 4 awacs, the aussies could be getting something like nearly 50% discount on the AWACS. silver lining in a dark cloud ? i dont know.

So, what`s the current score on the Phalcons and Mesa;

1) Radar Range -> Phalcon radar

2) Endurance -> CAEW Phalcon(more loiter time)

3) Altitude - > CAEW Phalcon(Not to mention attitude ;)

4) Ruggedness -> CAEW Phalcon with its ability of taking off from smaller and shorter(?) runaways

5) Radar print(RCS) -> CAEW Phalcon versus the fatter and slightly longer Boeing plane

6) Others -> CSM/COMINT and ELINT integrated for Phalcon

7) Space for crew -> Boeing MESA.

8) Ease of ability to configure radar for future threats and growth -> Uncle Israel and Phalcon. And not Grandfather US who can be very grumpy and touchy with such items.

Missed out any?

i m not here to bitch or pick a fight with you but point 6 is plain wrong.

the SIGINT/ELINT version is known as the shavit/comet and the convetional awacs is known as the Eitam. dont think the G-550 comes equipped to do both simulteneously.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_108_231/ai_n29316617

http://aerspace.blogspot.com/2008/12/n643ga-delivered-to-israeli-mod.html (not really related but somewhat interesting)

point 1 . 2 and 3 are somewhat contestable.

point 1 cant be substantiated unless you have concrete proof of the radar's performance. and this would depend on atmospherics and location. im sure you are familiar with how israel was unhappy with its E-2Cs because they didnt work out too-well over land due to radar clutter.

point 2 is somewhat negated by the 737's ability to carry a larger payload and more sensor gear.

point 3 is also somewhat negated by point 2's factor isnt it ? besides, no operational doctrine calls for an awacs to be operating over hostile SAM territory. its usually safely behind the CAP/enemy bird zone. if an AWAC did that, its asking to be shot down. why send such a valuable target in harm's way ?

point 8) may also be highly contested. if uncle sam decides to make the wedgetail its future AWACS platform. which platform will be in greater global use once NATO , england , Japan and france decide to buy it ? turkey has already bought it.

but this is a potential moot point. 5th generation fighters and their Onboard AESA radars may even eliminate the need for a future potential awacs to provide sit awareness and increased LR detection. future AWACS may be more like airborne traffic controllers and data hubs to coordinate downstream and upstream data flows.

if UCAVs appear somewhere in the next 30 years, the awacs might become some kind of data motherlode. (but thats a little farfetched and lets not go into that)

like ive mentioned before, the 737 has the space to mount more consoles and additional equipment. utilizing the awacs as a multi-purpose utility aircraft like fuel-tanker, SIGINT, ELINT concurrently. this is a technical possibility. unlike the G550 with a limited payload.

like shotgun mentioned. it has the potential to do this with increased capacity, meaning it might be possible for an aircraft to have crew rest facilities and improve operating conditions/crew conditions. G550 seems a little cramped to me.

whereas the G550 can possibly do these things, it comes at compromises like modular packages and necessity to strip the aircraft and prepare it before its next mission (speculation on my part)

point being, i think technically, the wedgetail and its MESA radar is probably more geared to the future than the Phalcon. but the phalcon's ability to fly high and out of SAM envelopes is pretty useful.

Fratboy SG

point 1 cant be substantiated unless you have concrete proof of the radar's performance.

Reports available quote 370km for MESA and 400km for Phalcon. ST`s own report lists the current E-2C as having a radar range of 370km. Of course, no one has actual figures. However, RSAF has already mentioned that the new CAEWs will come greater range than the old E-2C. By inference, that is more than 370km. Still needs more qualification though.

point 2 is somewhat negated by the 737's ability to carry a larger payload and more sensor gear.

So point 2 is very valid. The Gulf-streams have a much higher endurance and longer loiter time. :) There is certainly more space on the 737 but you will probably reduce the loiter time further by adding more equipment. And we really do not know how much more systems the Gulfstreams can carry.

No where did I mention anything remotely associated with enemy space. As a matter of fact, higher altitude would translate into more radar coverage; which incidentally supports Point 1. :)

Which is not the case now. Think NOW. :) I expect the current AWACs to be the workhorse for forseaable future with upgrades in the pipeline. So, point 8 is certainly a valid point now.

Again, you are dabbling with possibilties which are not even manifested now. Not unless you can give me definitive proof that this will be the case within the life-time of the Phalcons. Also, I would rather have AEW/AWACs do thier job and fighters do thiers. But of couse, my views hobbled by what i see now since no one can really predict the future well.

There is no reason to believe that the current Gulf-streams cannot be equipped with similar equipment. I know there is more space on the 737. But the issue is whether the Gulf-streams has scope for more stuffs. And I think that is the case seeing as such the RSAF has almost always planned with the future in mind. AEWs do not come cheap and the RSAF intends to use them for a long time with upgrades along the way.

sgstars SG

No where did I mention anything remotely associated with enemy space. As a matter of fact, higher altitude would translate into more radar coverage; which incidentally supports Point 1. :)

Which is not the case now. Think NOW. :) I expect the current AWACs to be the workhorse for forseaable future with upgrades in the pipeline. So, point 8 is certainly a valid point now.

ok.

so point 1 is a moot point since no one really knows.

for point 2 i was thinking of Slim10's comment that incidentally the gulfstream's operational ceiling/cruising altitude (cant remember which, think its the latter) is outside of most SAM missile envelopes in the region. in that sense, yes, the G550 is a value buy.

i cant reconcile this two points. they contradict each other.

Which is not the case now. Think NOW. :) I expect the current AWACs to be the workhorse for forseaable future with upgrades in the pipeline. So, point 8 is certainly a valid point now.

There is no reason to believe that the current Gulf-streams cannot be equipped with similar equipment. I know there is more space on the 737. But the issue is whether the Gulf-streams has scope for more stuffs. And I think that is the case seeing as such the RSAF has almost always planned with the future in mind. AEWs do not come cheap and the RSAF intends to use them for a long time with upgrades along the way.

so on one hand you are postulating that 737 cannot be considered for the forseeable future with no upgrades and on the other hand you are saying RSAF procurement is always planned out with the future ?

the phalcon radar technology has been sold on a larger 707 (kc135 was based on this civillian jetliner) aircraft

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/phalcon/Phalcon.html

i cant find the link but i was reading up about how the US and congressional action actually forced Israel to halt of pause phalcon radar development after the Israel-china fiasco where the israelis tried to sell the chinese 4 phalcon radar equipped il-76.

bottom-line is that technological transfers have proven difficult subsequently after the china debacle. i wont be so sure of planned future pipeline developments for the phalcon radar.

really ? i think the wedgetail radar offers far more service life potential. just look at the E-3 sentries. still soldiering on after something like 35 years and expected to carry on in service well into 2020, which, by then make the wedgetail right for entry into american service.

cant see how RSAF would not have seen the future potential of the wedgetail. its more likely a case of bo he hae mah ho. no wedgetail offered to us, then CAEW lor.

besides, wedgetail has only been offered to select US allies. not every country gets it.

"but this is a potential moot point. 5th generation fighters and their Onboard AESA radars may even eliminate the need for a future potential awacs to provide sit awareness and increased LR detection. future AWACS may be more like airborne traffic controllers and data hubs to coordinate downstream and upstream data flows."

really, im surprised you arent aware of this. the F22 uses its AESA radar to exchange data.

The F-22 has several unique functions for an aircraft of its size and role. For instance, it has threat detection and identification capability along the lines of that available on the RC-135 Rivet Joint.^[41] While the F-22's equipment isn't as powerful or sophisticated, because of its stealth, it can be typically hundreds of miles closer to the battlefield, which often compensates for the reduced capability.^[41]

The F-22 is capable of functioning as a "mini-AWACS." Though reduced in capability compared to dedicated airframes such as the E-3 Sentry, as with its threat identification capability, the F-22's forward presence is often of benefit.^[38] The system allows the F-22 to designate targets for cooperating F-15s and F-16s, and even determine if two friendly aircraft are targeting the same enemy aircraft, thus enabling one of them to choose a different target.^[41]^[38] It is often able to identify targets "sometimes many times quicker than the AWACS."[41

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

F35 is supposedly able to do the same. this isnt just a pipe dream. its already happening. either way, the MESA radar on the 737 may offer greater future upgradability and longer service life.

we might eventually get a MESA radar/whatever the US acquires sometime in the near future.

scope ? define scope for more stuff. the 737 has much greater potential in terms of scope. its relatively unknown and its abilities are yet undisclosed.

the phalcon on the other hand , is probably pretty well known to the americans, who obviously knew of its efficiacy and went to great lengths to stop israel from selling it to china.

Shotgun SG

Wah... very intense Wedgetail vs Phalcon debate here.

Seriously, how do you guys comment on such new and sensitive systems? Both are aircraft performing rather similar roles, one would think that anyone involved in a heated debate of the 2 would have worked in them before.

Allow me to chip in a thing or two that I noticed.

The G550 Phalcon variant, though compact and capable of high endurance, does not seem to have in-flight refueling capabilities. Nor do I foresee sufficient space for such modifications.

The Wedgetail on the other hand, is expected to have a flying boom receptacle for in flight refueling. On its own, it already has a 10+ hr loiter time, and with in flight refueling and well maintained engines, it can stay up for quite some time if the crew rotates shifts.

On the other hand, from open sources, the G550 Phalcon seems to pack in an array of COMINT, and ELINT equipment as well, integrating multiple sensors with the radar into the overall picture. The Wedgetail seems to be a rather dedicated AEW&C aircraft.

sgstars SG

Wah... very intense Wedgetail vs Phalcon debate here.

Allow me to chip in a thing or two that I noticed.

The G550 Phalcon variant, though compact and capable of high endurance, does not seem to have in-flight refueling capabilities. Nor do I foresee sufficient space for such modifications.

i dont know if anyone has ever speculated this before, but any chance you think that the G550s are actually for elint/comint/sigint or maybe dedicated SEMA platforms while the E2Cs will perform as dedicated AWACS as an interim solution till the F35?

with NCW and huge expected data flows, our G550s may become flying exchange servers, linking our flyboys to our formidables , to the tankies , the grunts and the arty boyz while the E2Cs serve as genuine airborne controllers. the black raven is pretty old anyway isnt it ? last airframe built of its kind.

afterall, our F15 strike eagles and their AESA radars might have some capability to function as a mini awacs. we using them with WSOs anyway right ? not inconcievable that the F15 wso detects inbound bandits, uses link 16 to talk to other F15s and F16s in the air force and vector them in to launch AMRAAMs.

i'd be the first on the line to admit i know very little about AWACs. but i dont think we should place blind faith in a single platform and accept whatever we got/acquired. plenty of questions out there that remain to be asked and answered.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Well, you know, AWACs have multiple uses, and the AEW&C tag arose from the fact that you could mount electronic warfare equipment and command and control equipment on AWACs now. The Russian A-50 is said to be capable of remote controlling MiG-31s and launching and directing missiles, and a few other possible things like Multistatic radar etc. for detecting stealth.

I think the bottom line is whether the doctrine available knows how to make full use of the AWACs because surveillance is only one of the many roles they can do. If I am not wrong, the Phalcon was also meant to function in a similar role as the US JSTARS.

slim10 SG

Not same role as JSTAR. Different radar needed (ground radar). SAR with GMTI. JSTAR is outdated with the rise of UAVs which duplicate the capability (though not as powerful). SAR images are a lot more fine than air search radar and distinguish ground clutter a lot better.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

The X-Band radar on the Phalcon is supposedly aimed at the ground as well as part of the 360 degree coverage if I am not wrong for ground surveillance.

And no UAV currently carries a similarly powerful radar, though they are doing trials on a Global hawk which uses a new MP-TRIP radar based off the MESA. Later, they plan to put scaled version of the radar onto JSTARS.

slim10 SG

Anyone can point a radar at the ground.

The phalcon radar is designed to detect air targets (probably from very low altitude up) but not ground targets.

Its a speed issue. Standard air radars auto deduct items which move below a certain speed otherwise alarm rate will be artificially high (eg birds). That's why no ground target capability. SAR imaging allows better ID but don't ask me how GMTI works.

RSAF hermes 450 is credited with the below EL/2055M. Same thing with UK's Watchkeeper. GH's SAR is far more effective (and has to be due to altitude for operation)

http://www.misile-iai.com/sip_storage/files/6/34036.pdf

http://www.el-op.com/files/PDF/Payloads/UN_UAVComp(Web).pdf

Its powerful enough for SG ops. Wide area search at 10000km2/hr (or 100km x 100km). Examples of SAR images in the brochure.

IAF uses the MARS platform for SAR. G550 doesn't have that capability (would need a separate radar eg 2055 or 2060 installed.). Haven't seen a source that credited G550 CAEW with sar capability yet.

GH uses HISAR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hawk

Agreed, power is much less than JSTARs but nevertheless, JSTARs is overkill in SG context. Breath of Johor is ~100km. 1-2 Hermes can cover the entire area.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Gah.. spotty memory. Phalcon uses S and L band.

I don't think it's a speed issue. JSTARS is 707 aircraft. Flies at a similar speed to the G550. Probably the issue of volume.

slim10 SG

Its not plane speed. Its target speed. Also got reminded of the issue of ground clutter which explains why it works over sea but not land.

Phalcon is dual band (S & L).

http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/files/7/35467.pdf

sgstars SG

hmm, can i ask what do S and L band radars do ? how are they different ?

« Previous Page Next Page »