User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:48:44 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: https://theaviationist.com/2024/04/27/sierra-nevada-saoc-announcement/ The new commercial derivative aircraft will replace the 1970s’ E-4B Nightwatch in the National Emergency Airborne Command Post role. Sierra Nevada Corporation has been awarded a contract, worth more than USD 13 billion, for the Survivable Airborne Operations Center (SAOC), the replacement for the U.S. Air Force E-4B Nightwatch, also known as the “Doomsday” plane. Details are currently scarce, limited only to the ones divulged in the contract notice. So, let’s start from the contract notice released by the Department of Defense: Sierra Nevada Corp., Englewood, Colorado, was awarded a $13,080,890,647 cost-plus-incentive-fee, fixed-price incentive (firm-target), and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the Survivable Airborne Operations Center (SAOC). This contract provides for the development and production of the SAOC Weapon System to include the delivery of engineering and manufacturing development aircraft, associated ground systems, production aircraft, and interim contractor support. Work will be performed in Englewood, Colorado; Sparks, Nevada; Beavercreek, Ohio; and Vandalia, Ohio, and is expected to be completed by July 10, 2036. This contract was a competitive acquisition, and two offers were received. Fiscal 2024 research, development, test, and evaluation funds in the amount of $59,000,000 are being obligated at time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, is the contracting activity (FA2834-24-C-B002). It will probably go well if they don’t sub too much back to Boeing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:48:58 PM EDT
[#2]
777ER is the answer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:50:48 PM EDT
[#3]
Neat. I've been by their facility in Sparks a few times. Its a pretty little spot surrounded by a sea of ugly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:53:03 PM EDT
[#4]
The E4’s have been great. Can’t wait for old men who never served to watch flight aware, see a new one in the air and then assume ‘something is going on’ and let their delusions from By Dawn’s Early Light be known. We’re moving from roundhouse to cocked pistol lol.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:53:48 PM EDT
[#5]
I'd think they'd want to replace the E-6 first, they're older.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:55:49 PM EDT
[#6]
It'll be interesting to see what plane they select to build it on. I don't think there's any 4 engine aircraft left in production. 747 ended last year, A380 awhile ago, an A340 even longer than that.
There's only like 4 E-4's out there so it could be within the ream of possibility they find some lightly used 747-800's for the role. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:56:28 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The E4's have been great. Can't wait for old men who never served to watch flight aware, see a new one in the air and then assume 'something is going on' and let their delusions from By Dawn's Early Light be known. We're moving from roundhouse to cocked pistol lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:57:09 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd think they'd want to replace the E-6 first, they're older. Northrop, Lockheed, Raytheon team up on Navy’s E-XX ‘doomsday’ plane However, in December 2020 (Fiscal Year 2021), the US Navy announced that it awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin for the purchase of three EC-130J-30 Hercules aircraft to be used as testbeds for the TACAMO mission, signaling that the two branches would go in different directions.[4] The aircraft were fully funded in FY2023. One aircraft is to be used for air vehicle testing while the other two are planned for mission systems testing, "allowing simultaneous mission system, flight and ground test, and correction of deficiencies." The aircraft selection represents a return to the C-130 platform by the Navy, which for years used the EC-130Q (an older variant despite the higher letter) for the TACAMO mission prior to adoption of the E-6 Mercury. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_E-XX#:~:text=The%20Lockheed%20E%2DXX%20is,US%20nuclear%20ballistic%20missile%20submarines |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:57:17 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd think they'd want to replace the E-6 first, they're older. they are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_E-XX |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 12:58:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It'll be interesting to see what plane they select to build it on. I don't think there's any 4 engine aircraft left in production. 747 ended last year, A380 awhile ago, an A340 even longer than that. There's only like 4 E-4's out there so it could be within the ream of possibility they find some lightly used 747-800's for the role. I think that has always been the plan, to convert an existing aircraft. The 747 was the foundation for so many things. Its going to be curious to see what happens as the fleet ages out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:00:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Neat. I've been by their facility in Sparks a few times. Its a pretty little spot surrounded by a sea of ugly. That's not their only location. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:06:31 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: We get that from the younger crowd now... Maybe we would respect you more if you stood up for us instead of letting all the mentally ill gasbags tell us we’re weak, run by trannies, and can’t win wars. I’d love to tell you guys E4 or global strike stories but no, I’ll insult you the way you insult us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:10:14 PM EDT
[#13]
Are panties actually ruffled in this thread or do I need more coffee?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:11:18 PM EDT
[#14]
I love their brewery right by the AVL airport but I don’t see how that translates to an E-4B replacement. There is lots of aluminum moving through there, though…
 I crack myself up… I remember in the 80’s going out to the Indy airport and one was doing touch and goes for a hour or so. I guess they were practicing approaches to somewhere other than Offutt or Lincoln. 777 would probably be a good replacement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:13:43 PM EDT
[#15]
I'll wager it'll be built on a lower time 747, maybe a -400 or a -8. A 777ER would make a lot of sense but I saw somewhere that USAF wasn't willing to take the "risk" of a two-holer
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:14:28 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:I think that has always been the plan, to convert an existing aircraft. The 747 was the foundation for so many things. It’s going to be curious to see what happens as the fleet ages out. Had to be more to it than just 4 vs 2 right? And in that case is making a 747-whatever that’s a 2 modern engine variant just a nonstarter? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:16:44 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: I love their brewery right by the AVL airport but I don’t see how that translates to an E-4B replacement. There is lots of aluminum moving through there, though… I crack myself up… I remember in the 80’s going out to the Indy airport and one was doing touch and goes for a hour or so. I guess they were practicing approaches to somewhere other than Offutt or Lincoln. 777 would probably be a good replacement. The pilots have to do so many landings within a time period, it’s a lot so they’ll go to places with little air traffic and practice for hours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:24:20 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just can’t figure out how that was allowed to happen. The 747 is incredible. Had to be more to it than just 4 vs 2 right? And in that case is making a 747-whatever that’s a 2 modern engine variant just a nonstarter? The 777 is the effective replacement for the 747 in most airliner roles and that is the main job that these aircraft are expected to do. Its a good aircraft, but it's clearly not a 747. I've flown on both and the 777 gave me the impression of being a glider that someone shoved a gigantic set of engines into. Very efficient and that's what counts these days. Once the remaining 747s age out I expect that they will start adapting 777s for these jobs. I would guess work is already being done on this. Barring some civilization ending catastrophic event I suppose we shall see how it all shakes out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:25:43 PM EDT
[#19]
I think they did the USSS ECM suburbans too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:28:41 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think they did the USSS ECM suburbans too. They do a lot of neat projects. They have built their own space plane and restored a WB-57 high altitude reconnaissance aircraft for NASA that had been sitting in The Boneyard for quite some time. The kind of engineering projects I like to refer to as "big boy nation stuff." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:29:47 PM EDT
[#21]
Along with brewing some fine IPAs
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:38:30 PM EDT
[#22]
snc :facepalm woman owned company.
yay mil indus complex! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:40:12 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: snc :facepalm woman owned company. yay mil indus complex! Sorry, would you rather have the 4 star clown show at Boeing working on this? Or perhaps we should just decomission the entire military-industrial complex seeing as how our civilization clearly can't be trusted with such things anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 1:46:12 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll wager it'll be built on a lower time 747, maybe a -400 or a -8. A 777ER would make a lot of sense but I saw somewhere that USAF wasn't willing to take the "risk" of a two-holer Couldn't that risk be mitigated by more aircraft available for the mission? 13 billion seems rather steep but I have no idea what actually goes into this, just pure speculation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:29:19 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just can’t figure out how that was allowed to happen. The 747 is incredible. Had to be more to it than just 4 vs 2 right? And in that case is making a 747-whatever that’s a 2 modern engine variant just a nonstarter? The A340 had the same demise. The airline industry would go for a single engine airliner if there was a ESOPS certification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:41:30 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The A340 had the same demise. The airline industry would go for a single engine airliner if there was a ESOPS certification. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I just can’t figure out how that was allowed to happen. The 747 is incredible. Had to be more to it than just 4 vs 2 right? And in that case is making a 747-whatever that’s a 2 modern engine variant just a nonstarter? The A340 had the same demise. The airline industry would go for a single engine airliner if there was a ESOPS certification. Does ETOPS really stand for Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim? Or was that a bacronym? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 2:48:51 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The E4’s have been great. Can’t wait for old men who never served to watch flight aware, see a new one in the air and then assume ‘something is going on’ and let their delusions from By Dawn’s Early Light be known. We’re moving from roundhouse to cocked pistol lol.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 3:04:29 PM EDT
[#28]
My understanding is that E-6B and E-4B are flying limited first by lubricant exhaustion so long as there is tanker support.
E-4B has 4x GE C6F turbofans with 52 Klbs of thrust each. 2 GE9X (777X) has 110Klbs, so not only more total thrust, but vastly better reliability and fuel efficiency! A modern turbofan should have an inflight shutdown rate of <1 per 100,000 hours flown, so you do not need 3 for reliability like you did in 1969 when 747 first flew. That is why ETOPS is a thing. Again, just two modern turbofans are still more reliable and more powerful and cheaper and more efficient than four 50-year-old ones! So why do you need a 747 for NEACP? And do you need it for SAOC? When E-4A was selected, we used of 747s over 707s because of interior space for leadership and staff support/sustainment in addition to required mission equipment. But, a 747-400 has almost identical internal volumes as a 777-8. Yet the 777-8 outranges the 747 by 25% despite carrying 10% less fuel and needs less maint per flight hour! Plus the 777X is going to have a better dash speed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 3:33:20 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does ETOPS really stand for Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim? Or was that a bacronym? Just a joke. Extended Twin-engine Ops Performance Standards |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 6:28:19 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think they did the USSS ECM suburbans too. We should go there and knock on the door. Maybe they will give us a tour? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 6:46:02 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The A340 had the same demise. The airline industry would go for a single engine airliner if there was a ESOPS certification. Shh.. don’t give accounting any bright ideas..  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 10:25:11 PM EDT
[#32]
Project to be completed by 2036 lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/27/2024 10:32:50 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry, would you rather have the 4 star clown show at Boeing working on this? Or perhaps we should just decomission the entire military-industrial complex seeing as how our civilization clearly can't be trusted with such things anymore. True. But, we’re locked in a death match with the rest of the world (managed by the puppeteers) and have to watch it played out to its illogical (and corrupt) conclusion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 2:45:09 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryAah, so they're taking a jet airframe from 1957 and replacing it with a turboprop from 1956.. Seems logical. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 2:51:26 AM EDT
[#35]
The figures they throw around are astounding. It really illustrates just how there is zero concern or even thought as to the amount of money that actually is and how it contrasts to the average person's life.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 3:08:07 AM EDT
[#36]
Good. Systems integration is something Sierra Nevada does well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 3:24:27 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just can’t figure out how that was allowed to happen. The 747 is incredible. Had to be more to it than just 4 vs 2 right? And in that case is making a 747-whatever that’s a 2 modern engine variant just a nonstarter? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:I think that has always been the plan, to convert an existing aircraft. The 747 was the foundation for so many things. It’s going to be curious to see what happens as the fleet ages out. Had to be more to it than just 4 vs 2 right? And in that case is making a 747-whatever that’s a 2 modern engine variant just a nonstarter? Nobody was buying them, despite Boeing keeping the program in life support for several years. The best part will be in 10 or so years when people start floating conspiracy theories that Boeing purposely killed the 747 to encourage 777 sales. See the existing retardation about the discontinuation of the 757. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 4:04:54 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd think they'd want to replace the E-6 first, they're older. The E4 is the oldest flying 747s, they are 747-200s. There is issues sourcing some parts that have been out of production for decades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 4:39:40 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good. Systems integration is something Sierra Nevada does well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 12:27:22 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It'll be interesting to see what plane they select to build it on. I don't think there's any 4 engine aircraft left in production. 747 ended last year, A380 awhile ago, an A340 even longer than that. There's only like 4 E-4's out there so it could be within the ream of possibility they find some lightly used 747-800's for the role. Restart the C-17 line? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 12:30:01 PM EDT
[#41]
2036 completion? Hell they may need it in 2025.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 12:35:12 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Restart the C-17 line? That would be a bit of a challenge. I think the factory where they built those was sold to Relativity Space a few years ago. I don't think they would be in any mood to move out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 12:37:21 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd think they'd want to replace the E-6 first, they're older. No, fail. The E-4B's have been in service since 1973. The E-6B's have been in service since 1989. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 12:39:38 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That would be a bit of a challenge. I think the factory where they built those was sold to Relativity Space a few years ago. I don't think they would be in any mood to move out. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Restart the C-17 line? That would be a bit of a challenge. I think the factory where they built those was sold to Relativity Space a few years ago. I don't think they would be in any mood to move out. https://lbpost.com/news/relativity-space-to-take-over-massive-former-boeing-c-17-site/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 12:44:55 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Aah, so they're taking a jet airframe from 1957 and replacing it with a turboprop from 1956.. Seems logical. The original TACAMO aircraft were C-130's. The new C-130J's will only do the TACAMO mission, they will not be doing the Looking Glass mission. The Navy was stupid (just like all Military aircraft programs are) in that they didn't build 6 more E-6A's along with 4 dedicated E-6A trainers. Instead they have burned up the service life of the E-6B aircraft using them a flight trainers and bounce birds. The C-130J is still in production and will perform the TACAMO mission quite well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 12:47:01 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Restart the C-17 line? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It'll be interesting to see what plane they select to build it on. I don't think there's any 4 engine aircraft left in production. 747 ended last year, A380 awhile ago, an A340 even longer than that. There's only like 4 E-4's out there so it could be within the ream of possibility they find some lightly used 747-800's for the role. Restart the C-17 line? Much of the major tooling and assembly jigs are probably scrapped, the supply chain is likely non-existent beyond a relative handful of spare parts, the institutional manufacturing and assembly knowledge is gone, even the facility it was produced in has been repurposed by some other company. Huge aerospace programs don’t just get turned on and off like a light switch. Boeing could definitely do it. Well, given the shitshow they have become, they could probably do it. They have the space at their facility in Everett, WA. But they would be starting from almost scratch. It would be hugely cost prohibitive, and probably require at a minimum 100 airplane orders to justify the expense. No way it would be worth it just for a handful of airframes. Probably be better off just designing a clean sheet next generation military transportation airplane that could double as a platform for other missions. Otherwise, just find some low hour 747-8s or use new 777s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 1:20:47 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The original TACAMO aircraft were C-130's. The new C-130J's will only do the TACAMO mission, they will not be doing the Looking Glass mission. The Navy was stupid (just like all Military aircraft programs are) in that they didn't build 6 more E-6A's along with 4 dedicated E-6A trainers. Instead they have burned up the service life of the E-6B aircraft using them a flight trainers and bounce birds. The C-130J is still in production and will perform the TACAMO mission quite well. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Aah, so they're taking a jet airframe from 1957 and replacing it with a turboprop from 1956.. Seems logical. The original TACAMO aircraft were C-130's. The new C-130J's will only do the TACAMO mission, they will not be doing the Looking Glass mission. The Navy was stupid (just like all Military aircraft programs are) in that they didn't build 6 more E-6A's along with 4 dedicated E-6A trainers. Instead they have burned up the service life of the E-6B aircraft using them a flight trainers and bounce birds. The C-130J is still in production and will perform the TACAMO mission quite well. I disagree! 1. Why would you split Looking Glass back out from TACAMO? Now you need more planes to do the same missions. This is not the Cold War, STRATCOM is a joint command, and efficiency matters. 2. A jet has over 50% faster dash speed than a C-130J, rather important when trying to unass the blast radius of Russian/Chinese warheads targeting your NC3 base and departure corridor. They should not choose C-130J for TACAMO. They should choose a new jet to continue Looking Glass and TACAMO, and probably it could be the same airframe for the SAOC, E-4B replacement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 1:32:27 PM EDT
[#48]
Could you do a weird 777 variant with 4 engines?
I'm sure Boeing would like that cost plus shit show to keep them busy for a few years.  Before that there's at least a $10M trade study to look at doing that vs buying a used 747-8. I do BD/Capture for the military industrial complex and I approve this message. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 5:30:00 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Could you do a weird 777 variant with 4 engines? @AeroE |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 5:35:04 PM EDT
[#50]
A 4 engine 777 sounds like it would be Boeing's take on the A-340.
I expect the only customers would be military. It would probably take a lot of cheddar for Boeing to bother with such a thing. I suspect that it would demand a new wing, that wouldn't be cheap. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
