AWACS and CFM56's
08-02-2012, 10:19 AM
#2
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,292
Spending priority?
Also I suspect any upgrades to the mission payloads using new technology will weigh less (or certainly no more) than whatever is being replaced.
On the tankers, more performance and better fuel efficiency means more gas to the customers. On the E-3 there may be other mission limiting factors (crew endurance?)
Also I suspect any upgrades to the mission payloads using new technology will weigh less (or certainly no more) than whatever is being replaced.
On the tankers, more performance and better fuel efficiency means more gas to the customers. On the E-3 there may be other mission limiting factors (crew endurance?)
08-02-2012, 11:31 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Spending priority?
Also I suspect any upgrades to the mission payloads using new technology will weigh less (or certainly no more) than whatever is being replaced.
On the tankers, more performance and better fuel efficiency means more gas to the customers. On the E-3 there may be other mission limiting factors (crew endurance?)
Also I suspect any upgrades to the mission payloads using new technology will weigh less (or certainly no more) than whatever is being replaced.
On the tankers, more performance and better fuel efficiency means more gas to the customers. On the E-3 there may be other mission limiting factors (crew endurance?)
USMCFLYR
08-02-2012, 07:12 PM
#4
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Originally Posted by ERJF15
I've always wondered why hasn't the AF upgraded their E-3's with CFM56's? And what the deal w/the new motors for the JSTARS?
The same debate has been going on for B-52s with four big engines instead of eight for a long time; maybe 15-20 years. They say it will save millions of dollars a year in fuel, but it costs billions to implement.
On the other hand, the re-engining of the JSTARS is with JT8Ds from scrapped 727s. The engines are cheap; the STC is the only expensive part.
I would guess that after the JSTARS, they might re-engine the AWACS with JT8Ds.
The prototype was in San Antonio in 1999 when I was going through T-38 IP training. I thought it might die on the vine, but it is actually going into retrofit....just took 13 years......
08-03-2012, 02:20 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by okawner
Spending on AWACS is prioritized on the mission systems, not the airframe. Poke your head in the cockpit of one and you'll see what I mean.
USMCFLYR
08-04-2012, 04:31 PM
#8
New Hire
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 4
Originally posted by ERJF15
That's a good question. I flew E-3s for over 10 years and never heard a definitive answer.
The best rumor I heard about our engines was that the USAF had a big warehouse somewhere full of thousands of TF33's that no one else wanted, and that the E-3 wasn't getting new engines until we'd burned through them all.
Originally posted by okawner
I second this.
...why hasn't the AF upgraded their E-3's with CFM56's?
The best rumor I heard about our engines was that the USAF had a big warehouse somewhere full of thousands of TF33's that no one else wanted, and that the E-3 wasn't getting new engines until we'd burned through them all.
Originally posted by okawner
Spending on AWACS is prioritized on the mission systems, not the airframe.
08-04-2012, 05:36 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
It's an old story. The bean counters don't let military units move dollars from one pot to another, even if it would result in net savings, because that would infringe on their bureaucratic "turf". Furthermore, units must spend everything that is in each pot, whether they need it or not, lest they get a budget cut for the next period. For example, a heavy flying schedule can be expected on the last few days of each year to make sure the unit's fuel allocation is consumed. 
08-04-2012, 09:29 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 295
Federal/Mil budget is short sighted. CFM56s and a good FMS/FADEC to replace the nav and eng would probably save a lot of money over the long run. The money is spent up front though and that doesn't bode well when you are only looking out a few years with the budgeting process.
