CMMA - replacing the CP140 Aurora

[calculus]

If it wasn’t the old analogue first version of the MX-20, I’d agree.

Ah crap! There goes that theory. Still hope I'm right, as I'm sure everyone else on this forum does. We should probably have even more than 16, realistically. Awful big country to cover....

 

[Halifax Tar]

I hate people who use arbitrary percentages for spares.

The operational community need input; for some systems, sparing levels need to be over 100% due to criticality and lead times; other items can be all but ignored due to simplicity or ubiquity.

Of course, this assumes properly staffed support organizations to lifecycle manage that materiel so you don't end up with CF5 conformal tanks and Iltis spares filling warehouses into the 2020s.

MMTs everywhere:

 

[MilEME09]

perhaps we will get things sooner?

E-2 Hawkeye Replaces USAF E-3 Sentry, E-7 Cancelled In New Budget

The E-2D is far smaller than the E-7 and lacks some of its abilities, but it can fly from austere forward bases where the E-7 cannot.

www.twz.com

 

[CBH99]

perhaps we will get things sooner?

E-2 Hawkeye Replaces USAF E-3 Sentry, E-7 Cancelled In New Budget

The E-2D is far smaller than the E-7 and lacks some of its abilities, but it can fly from austere forward bases where the E-7 cannot.

www.twz.com

I wonder if the US canceling the E-7 contract will now shift things in favour of a Bombardier-Saab platform?

I know it was recently confirmed that DND was looking at the E-7 regardless of whatever Bombardier came up with, but that's gets turned upside down now that the E-7 may not even be an option...


(If the US isn't buying or supporting any, I dont think there is enough demand for the platform to be all that well supported and upgraded in the future. It they are going with a smaller & less capable platform as an interim solution, what are the odds we see what Bombardier-Saab can do & follow the same route?)

 

[suffolkowner]

I wonder if the US canceling the E-7 contract will now shift things in favour of a Bombardier-Saab platform?

I know it was recently confirmed that DND was looking at the E-7 regardless of whatever Bombardier came up with, but that's gets turned upside down now that the E-7 may not even be an option...


(If the US isn't buying or supporting any, I dont think there is enough demand for the platform to be all that well supported and upgraded in the future. It they are going with a smaller & less capable platform as an interim solution, what are the odds we see what Bombardier-Saab can do & follow the same route?)

the E7 should still rival Global platforms in use, still niche capability.
is there a RFI? RFP? mandatory requirements?
too early to tell IMO

 

[Maxman1]

I wonder if the US canceling the E-7 contract will now shift things in favour of a Bombardier-Saab platform?

I know it was recently confirmed that DND was looking at the E-7 regardless of whatever Bombardier came up with, but that's gets turned upside down now that the E-7 may not even be an option...


(If the US isn't buying or supporting any, I dont think there is enough demand for the platform to be all that well supported and upgraded in the future. It they are going with a smaller & less capable platform as an interim solution, what are the odds we see what Bombardier-Saab can do & follow the same route?)

Australia, the UK, Turkey and Korea all use it, and soon NATO will, too.

 

[KevinB]

Australia, the UK, Turkey and Korea all use it, and soon NATO will, too.

Biggest issue is does anyone actually expect Congress not to force the E-7 on the Air Force?

SECDEF’s moronic arguments about Space based ISR making the Airborne AWACS irrelevant being full of holes, and the E-2 is a massive jump backwards in capability over even the E-3 Sentry, as it’s slow, with a smaller operational radius, and less time on station due to lack of crew redundancies (even if the E-2D can AAR the crew number don’t support significantly longer operational time). Plus the radars and other sensors are significantly worse then the E-7

 

[GR66]

Biggest issue is does anyone actually expect Congress not to force the E-7 on the Air Force?

SECDEF’s moronic arguments about Space based ISR making the Airborne AWACS irrelevant being full of holes, and the E-2 is a massive jump backwards in capability over even the E-3 Sentry, as it’s slow, with a smaller operational radius, and less time on station due to lack of crew redundancies (even if the E-2D can AAR the crew number don’t support significantly longer operational time). Plus the radars and other sensors are significantly worse then the E-7

I scratched my head about the Space-based ISR when I read about it as well. No idea what the current state of Chinese/Russian ASAT capabilities are but I'd worry about them disabling a 100% Space-based system which would be very difficult to replace quickly. On the other hand, if an E-7 is taken out it could quickly be replaced by another. A combined space/aircraft system? Sure, but a 100% space-based system would seem risky to me.

Agree that normally you might expect Congress to force through the funding for some E-7's but with the huge increase in deficits projected from Trump's "Big Beautiful Tax Bill" there may be much less pork available to dole out from the barrel.

Either way I think E-7's or Global Eyes for Canada would be seen as a very valuable asset for NORAD by filling the capability gap left by the US's E-7 cancellation.