Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1965a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0358a.JPG

Miramar_14_GR4_1646a.JPG

Miramar_14_LF_0221a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Future Combat Support aircraft developments

This is a discussion on Future Combat Support aircraft developments within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Having been observing some of the USAF aircraft replacement programmes, as well as some of the upcoming changed expected in ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old March 29th, 2010   #1
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,098
Threads:
Future Combat Support aircraft developments

Having been observing some of the USAF aircraft replacement programmes, as well as some of the upcoming changed expected in terms of aircraft capability, I have spent some time considering how current combat support aircraft fit in, and what might/will be needed for the future. Having had some ideas, I wanted to post some of them here to get others opinions on them, as well as see what areas I might have overlooked. Also, given the mess which is known as the KC-X programme, it occured to me that getting a discussion started NOW on what will be needed in the future might avoid problems down the road.

I will avoid discussing the KC-X programme largely because it is already underway and a thread exists here discussing it.

At present, the USAF, USMC and USN operate a wide range of combat support aircraft to conduct tanking, AEW and MPA tasks, with many of the aircraft either starting to be withdrawn from service or out of production for decades. In addition, allied nations operate some of the very same aircraft, or in some cases different aircraft but from similar eras.

Examples of what I mean are aircraft like the Lockheed P-3 Orion (being replaced with the Boeing P-8 Poseidon), Dassault Atlantic 1, BAE Nimrod, and Lockheed S-3 Viking, all of which are fixed-wing ASW/MPA aircraft. For AEW aircraft, there is the venerable E-2 Hawkeye AWACS whose prototype achieved first flight nearly fifty years ago. Also, there is the E-3 Sentry which is in some ways even more venerable. The youngest E-3 is nearly two decades old, and while the E-3 design is nearing an age of forty years, it was based on the B707 airframe which is nearing sixty.

Between the ages of some of the aircraft in use, as well as the age of some of the airframe designs and subsequent changes in equipment, I have wondered whether or not it might be time to start plans to replace some of the aircraft.

For MPA aircraft replacement, the P-8 Poseidon should do quite well, covering the areas where a P-3 Orion (or Nimrod) would be used, and more besides. However, being based on a B737 variant and with a expected pricetag of ~ US$200 million each, it might be too expensive for some users to purchase in any numbers. Not to mention I have to wonder about how a P-8 would accomplish ship identification. As I understand it now, a P-3 Orion or other MPA could descend to a sufficiently low altitude so that the ships name could be read off the transom during an overflight. That would not be something which could be done easily or efficiently with an aircraft which operates at a cruising altitude of ~35,000 ft. Between that, and the cost of purchase, it would seem sensible that some smaller fixed-wing ASW/MPA be developed, either reconfigurable using palletized systems or a special variant(s) depending on the degree of capability needed.

For AEW aircraft, the needs are different, but still related. As I understand it, the F-22 Raptor cannot currently participate in a Link 11/16 network as a data harvester because the emissions required to broadcast the F-22's location. I believe that the F-35 will be in a similar position one those aircraft begin entering service. However, the F-22 (and F/A-18E/F/G , F-35 and even some B-1's I believe) can use it's AESA as a comlink in a highspeed data relay to broadcast the information to another platform equipped with an AESA. Currently the E-2 and E-3 AEW aircraft are equipped with rotodome MSAs and could neither send or receive information from an F-22 in such a method. Between that, and the age of some aircraft in service as well as the age of the underlying airframe design, makes me think it is perhaps time to start planning for the replacement of the E-2 and E-3. Now, an E-3 Sentry replacement programme could be quite easy, as the E-737 Wedgetail/Peace Eagle is nearly ready for RAAF service AFAIK, and I imagine that the L-band MESA could be programmed to operate in ESA-based comlink system.

Now the replacement of the E-2 Hawkeye could be a bit more problematic. For one thing, the E-2 replacement would need to be able to operate from USN carriers (as well as those belonging to allies), and replacing the rotodome would effect flight performance. While I know that an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (Hawkeye 2000?) is supposed to be developed, I am not aware of that also covering fitting an ESA to the Hawkeye. One aircraft I considered as being possibly suitable for a carrier-borne AEW is a version of the V-22 Osprey. Through the addition of side-looking paniers as well as an overhead canoe fairing, it might be possible to equip a V-22 for an AEW role. As a side note, it occurred to me that future support aircraft like the KC-X might well be equipped with ESAs to allow the tankers to act as relay statings.

Have painted this with some fairly broad strokes, are there other aircraft types/designs which could potentially be replaced which I missed?

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2010   #2
Senior Member
Colonel
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,349
Threads:
Not sure if it fits the bill on what way you want the thread to go, but i was have look around on future developments next gen airlifter.

When looking into it takes you on a journey to some amazing development aircraft and concepts.
Possible future tankers/ tactical lift,
NASA - The X-48B Blended Wing Body

AMC-X - Advanced Mobility Concept Aircraft

AJACS Load: US Begins (Another) Next-Gen Tactical Transport Effort

Boeing X-48 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the development of these aircraft are a long way off but hold exciting prospects for the future.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2010   #3
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,614
Threads:
As I understand it, the E-2D includes a major upgrade of the airframe & engines, as well as the radar, & the new airframe should be fit for service for many years. Therefore, I see no reason why it should not be upgraded with an AESA in the future - E-2E? The solution adopted on the Il-76 based Phalcon could be used: three fixed AESA arrays within a fixed radome, aerodynamically identical to that of the E-2D.

While the Osprey is potentially useful as an AEW platform for amphibious ships & STOVL carriers (its high cost relative to a helicopter is its chief disadvantage), I think the superior performance of E-2 as an aircraft means that it remains first choice for catapult-equipped carriers.

There is a wide range of MPAs for those unable to afford the P-8, or wishing to supplement a high-end MPA with something low & slow - & cheaper. The USCG has bought one, the CN-235, AKA HC-144, & also operates MPA C-130s. Other options include C-295, ATR-42, & ATR-72. Off the shelf modular combat systems make it relatively easy to integrate a range of sensors & weapons. What is lacking is a real competitor to the P-8 on the export market, since EADS, without a domestic customer for its A320 series MPA proposals, is finding it hard to get them taken seriously.

For the USA, the Boeing 737 Wedgetail/Peace Eagle may suit very well as an E-3 replacement. On the international market, especially for states with relatively modest budgets, I see the Israeli G550-based Phalcon & Erieye (note that the radar is subject to continuous improvement) on various platforms as likely to continue selling. There may be some customers for Chinese AEW aircraft in the future. European E-3 operators may buy into a US E-3 replacement, or opt for a European solution, which I am sure EADS would be happy to build, or provide aircraft for a system built by Thales, Selex or a consortium.

The E-8 JSTARS is also based on a Boeing 707 airframe, but with reducing size & weight of electronics, a 737-based system would probably be able to replace it. The UK & Israel have bizjet-based systems for the same role, & manage to achieve similar endurance.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2010   #4
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
SpudmanWP's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: United Socialist Cities of California
Posts: 585
Threads:
The E-2D is AESA, or at least ESA

Quote:
ADS-18 RADAR

BRIEFING: The product of the Radar Modernization Program, the ADS-18 is the next-generation surveillance radar designed for installation on the new E-2D Advanced Hawkeye follow-on to the E-2C aircraft. Unlike the E-2C's APS-145 radar, the ADS-18 is an electronically scanned array radar that uses a fixed antenna albeit installed in the same type of dish radome - that transmits directional radio beams from internal electronic commands. The ADS-18 is designed to give the E-2 far greater detection capability, over land and sea, at greater ranges and with greater precision. It also is designed to perform as a node for theater missile defense roles, and will give a carrier strike group over-thehorizon, over-land detection and tracking capability. IOC is scheduled for 2011.
NAVY ISR - page 6 | Sea Power
SpudmanWP is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:26 AM.