"NATO might cut AWACS fleet" Topic

Seems NATO AWACS fleet might shrink from 17 to 14 aircraft.

aviationweek.com/defense/nato-faces-awacs-fleet-shrinkage

Britain has already retired 1 out of 7 E-3Ds.

And the US is planning to retire 7 out of 32 E-3s in 2015. The planned replacement, the E-10A, was cancelled in 2006.

AWACS is the cornerstone of modern Western aviation combat capability. They give the edge to Western forces.

E-3's are worth more than those A-10s Congress keeps refusing to retire. They're worth more than the token carriers operated by countries like Spain and Italy. They are worth more than those ancient T-72s operated in pitiful numbers by the Eastern Europeans or the M48s in service with Greece and Turkey.

This is a great example of the idiocy of Western defence planning or lack thereof.

Ahhhh this makes the US v Russia 2015 post more clear. Not to self…never mind I don't want to be dawghoused again.

Fatman

That's one capability I'd not be keen on shrinking. With fighter fleets getting smaller and smaller, it might just be wise to maximise your force multipliers….

Makes perfect since in the "Alice in Wonderland" world we live in, where everything is upside down.

Timing couldn't be better given recent events, at least if you are siding with the opposition.

Worst thing is there is no replacement in sight and those birds have been flogged to death over the last 3 decades.

I remember my jaw dropping when I heard E-10 was cancelled. E-10 was almost meant to replace RC-135 ELINT/SIGINT aircraft and E-8 JSTARS as well as E-3 Sentry. It was also a potential replacement for E-4B ACCS.

To this armchair general, it sounded like a plan to lobotomise oneself. :P

Yes, it would be oh so nice to afford all those projects. But there's the catch: AFFORD. The money is not there so you do what you do can with what you got. I don't particularly like it, but then there isn't a magic money tree out there to make it happen, either…

But there's the catch: AFFORD

They can afford plenty of gold plated items line MV-22 or F-35s.

And they can always lift taxes once the economy gets back into growth.

Notice just the passing reference in the article to the Global Hawk which is taking over many of the AWACS missions.

The blue suiters just don't want to give up their elite flying club.

This allows planes to be deployed to Asia and the West Pacific areas.

The irony is, if they'd lower taxes we could afford a lot more.

However, no one seems to take, or pay attention in economics 101, so we are in a pickle now.

I'll just say 'Nimrod' – best maritime search aircraft in the world – bar none.

Scrapped a couple of years back along with its replacement.

The UK government makes very dumb decisions…

John T

I saw an AVRO Shackleton in Manchester. The aircraft type was the fore runner of nimrod and flew up to 1991. I was surprised how large it was.

And, wrapping back into the original post — NATO countries are supposed to commit 2% of their GDP to defense, and many of the members are under-spending. This wouldn't be as big a deal if they picked up the slack.

The problem with the E10 is that the two radar systems (ground search and air search) interfered with each other when they're on the same plane.

On two separate planes, even if flying in close formation, no interference.

I'd kinda hope that the P8 airframe gets 'adopted' to use for the JSTARS platform, since it at least has some internal weapons capability for emergency self-protection.

Not sure whether a 737 airframe would have the endurance for AWACS work.

Notice just the passing reference in the article to the Global Hawk which is taking over many of the AWACS missions.

Except NATO isn't buying them – there are big legal and operational issues with UAVs flying over Europe. This scuttled a German plan to acquire Global Hawks.

And in the US, the Global Hawk has hit trouble with one variant being cancelled.

Any way, interesting stuff, but it doesn't have much to do with cutting AWACS planes other than the lack of revenues that might be be the reason for the cuts.

Can we stick to AWACS?

Maybe we need to add "economics" to politics and religion?

And maybe we should let each country choose it's own poison?

"I'll just say 'Nimrod' – best maritime search aircraft in the world – bar none."

Agreed, but one that had started to kill its crews.

"Scrapped a couple of years back along with its replacement."

One that was ruinously expensive and didn't work anywhere near as well as advertised. P-8s are presently at the top of the RAF's (or possibly RN's) 'To Buy' list and the former Nimrod crews are presently working on them (along with various air forces'/navies' P3 fleets. It's definitely a capability they intend to get back, once there's money back in the pot. The RAF has already replaced the R1 variant with RC-135W Rivet Joint.

And the RAF's fleet of seven E-3Ds has not been reduced. One of those airframes has always been used for training, leaving six for operational service (hence why some reports list six instead of seven). The UK also partially funds and crews the Luxembourg-flagged NATO E-3 fleet.

Maybe we need to add "economics" to politics and religion?

You're probably right, especially given the degree to which economics and politics are intertwined…. :-(

And the RAF's fleet of seven E-3Ds has not been reduced. One of those airframes has always been used for training, leaving six for operational service (hence why some reports list six instead of seven). The UK also partially funds and crews the Luxembourg-flagged NATO E-3 fleet.

Incorrect. ZH105 has been stored with tail and radar removed. It became a spares source in 2011!

The RAF website still reports 7.

link

"The RAF operates seven E-3D Sentry aircraft in the airborne surveillance and command-and-control role. The aircraft are based at RAF Waddington, where they are operated by Nos 8 and 23 Squadrons…"

However "Following a decision in 2009 the RAF fleet was reduced by one jet". There seem to e conflicting reports whether it is being used for ground training, or has been stripped.

It's non-operational and there are no plans to reintroduce it back into service. It's clear it's been stripped – it's missing its radar dome and its tail! (And who knows what's been gutted inside).

She was confirmed again as a spares source in July 2013 and was confirmed stored at Waddington in September 2014. In fact she has been in storage since at least January 2011.

The aviation spotters (air equivalent of tank rivet counters) get it right far more often than the formal military websites. And here we have pictorial proof of ol' ZH105 in non operational condition – the photo I posted above.

Don't think you need either the tail or the radar to use it for training purposes, and as you point out "who knows what's been gutted (or not) inside"

A quick Google very strongly suggests she'll never fly again though, so frankly it's academic – non-operational is non-operational.

And thus the fleet is reduced from 7 to 6.

Or are we now going to counting retired aircraft as part of the fleet?

"Denial isn't just a river in Egypt!"

Fair enough :)

I thought she was still flying.

"I saw an AVRO Shackleton in Manchester. The aircraft type was the fore runner of nimrod and flew up to 1991. I was surprised how large it was."

They were like inverse TARDISes – big on the outside and tiny on the inside. Most unpleasant flying experience of my life (bar Ryanair, Balkan Air and Egypt Air, obviously).

You served on those awful ugly crates?

The South Africans were still flying them up to 1991 from memory.

No, one of my mates was a pilot in 8 Sqn (he went on to Victors after that, then we lost touch), so I had a trip when his crew flew down to Waddington for a weekend. It was bloody awful… But an experience! :)