Can anyone out there confirm this: I read a report that they are getting rid of the E-6A trainer and replacing it with a 737 to save money. Can anyone confirm this? (Also, side note, a relative in the comercial airline world thought he heard that the Navy is also getting 767s. I know the AF is getting them in a few years but I have heard nothing about us getting them.)
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
New E-6 Trainer?
- Thread starter Jaxs170
- Start date
- Status
Dave Shutter
Registered User
F-22 is strictly AF, although with every new sucessfully developed airframe I'm sure everyone takes a look at it to see if it'll fit in their sandbox. I had read that the AF is tooling up the training SQDN for F-22's (Vandenburg???) and should be spitting out students around 2005. Wether or not thay take newbies or only experienced guys is a question I still have myself. They're replacing the F-15, which you can go straight into, if your lucky, so I would guess so.
Any AF guys know???
Any AF guys know???
topher1235
Registered User
The super hornet(f-18e/f) is replacing the F-14's, they have been transitioning at Lemoore. Not sure if there is a FRS in Oceana or not.
travislikes
TACAMO Bus Driver
The E-6 FRS (squadron where you go before you go to your fleet squadron) is currently flying the 737 for 6 flights in the initial qual course. You can go back and fly it for refreshers and as an instructor at VQ-7. They still fly the E-6 for the final four flights of the course (no air refueling in the 737). There just aren't enough E-6's to go around.
The Navy is also replacing all of the C-9s with the 737.
The Air Force is replacing the E-3 with the 767.
The Navy is also replacing all of the C-9s with the 737.
The Air Force is replacing the E-3 with the 767.
travislikes
TACAMO Bus Driver
You are correct. Unfortunately, the airplanes got too old and were retired. The Air Force still has a couple of them, but the Navy's planes started falling apart. The 737's were purchased from US Airways and still have all the seats, etc (the only time I will ever get to sit in first class). The avionics are pretty ghetto, though (no electronic ADI or HSI, no tacan). They just got them about a year and a half ago. VQ-7 is now the breeding ground for Southwest pilots.
Are you guys going to transition to another platform, with the 707 also aging? When the Boeing reps were talking to us about the 737, they also put up a slide for other proposed platforms, like the 767 you mentioned for the Air Force. Are you guys getting into the act also?
John-
What's the latest gouge for the 737-700...any kind of special demo's they showed you guys. Back at Corpus a few instructors got a ride and were shown just some of the flight charateristics (low level single engine). Also, do you know a non-Boeing webpage that would feature it?
What's the latest gouge for the 737-700...any kind of special demo's they showed you guys. Back at Corpus a few instructors got a ride and were shown just some of the flight charateristics (low level single engine). Also, do you know a non-Boeing webpage that would feature it?
travislikes
TACAMO Bus Driver
No, the Navy got the last 16 jets delivered from the Boeing 707 era. They actually have pretty few hours on them compared to KC-135's and older E-3's. Most of them are from the early 90's. They won't be going anywhere for a while. They are, however, upgrading the cockpit avionics to the full glass package that is currently in the 737-700. That "should" happen sometime next year. I think that the P-3 is in much more dire need of a replacement platform of some type than the E-6. Besides, the Air Force has a hell of a lot more money to spend on things like new airplanes than the Navy does.
The 737 single engine low level? Boeing is getting creative. What kind of time on station are they talking about for the 737 or 767? Are they talking about air refueling as an option? Just wondering.
The 737 single engine low level? Boeing is getting creative. What kind of time on station are they talking about for the 737 or 767? Are they talking about air refueling as an option? Just wondering.
Kmac, I will see if I can find some links for you.
As for the demo ride, I unfortunately missed out on that, my name was on the list to go for the ride, but at the last minute they needed a pilot for a tactical event, oh well. As you saw in Corpus, it was a 737 IGW (increased gross weight) plane. One of their "white tail" birds. When she landed in Kbay she only had 22 flight hours on her airframe. The 737 IGW is a regular 737 with an 800 series wing. In addition, they replace the aft baggage compartment and part of the forward one with fuel tanks.
One of our pilots got to ride in the 737 and fly it, and of course in the wardroom he gave us a full debriefing! If you toured the plane in corpus, you saw that the interior was completely gutted, ie brand new, but they went ahead an put lead weight bags throughout the plane to help simulate an onstation weight profile. While at Kbay, on the flight they demoed single engine climbout, and of course were able to climb at a greater rate and to a higher altitude than a P3. The onstation time I recall was on the order of 10 or so hours. They countered that the time it took for the 737 to get to onstation was much fast than the P3 and that once on station, it loitered at 220, vice our 170-200, and could cover more area. This is taking into account two excursions to 300 feet. Well, that kind of falls apart when your onstation is only 100 miles away. They comeback of course is the inflight refueling. It has already been tested and there is nothing left for the Navy to pay in development costs. That of course would be a win win scenario for the vantage point of planners. For aircrew, that probably bodes ill for longer missions.
Weapons wise, she would have the same data bus as the F18, and be able to accept all the weapons in inventory for 3 or 4 hardpoint wing stations per wing. All of that has been run through the wind tunnels, and there are various configurations, just whatever the Navy decides it wants. I asked about drag count information and how it impacted fuel consumption and altitudes, but I did not recieve much of an answer on that. Well, of course that has yet to be flight tested.
Bomb bay has already been designed, and tested in the wind tunnel, just a matter of the Navy picking the size they want.
The big item that will take some time (in my eyes at least) is hammering out the internal configureation, and figuring out what improved sensor suites are going to be installed. All that comes down to $$. Is there going to be forward and aft radar? Are the bouys going to be overhauled with GPS transmitters? And the list goes on.
Travis, yes the 737 was flown at 300 feet for demo, with single engine demonstrated for climbout. I wasn't on the plane, just what was relayed by the guy who flew for our squadron. I don't recall what altitude they were at when they did the climbout, think it was 1500.
Yes, I concur, I think the P3 is in "dire" need of a replacement. This year, no, 2007 and the following years when we surpass the extended life span on some of the planes, I would hope that a replacement would be coming in by then. Will we still be using the P3, yes, it is a great plane, and can still get the mission done, but just frustrating for the maintainer through the aircrew when you get the engines up and running and you get everything from prop pump lights, to chip lights, to low effeciencies.
One thing that absolutely blew my mind about the 737 was the beautiful refined design, and the basic mandate that selling these planes to the airlines created. A plane that is ready to go in 15 minutes, preflight to lighting up engines. Absolutely wonderful. Looking inside the engine compartment, and seeing the modular design, here is the oil pump, it fails, yank it and put in a new one. So much easier for the maintainers! Not to mention the avionics bay behind the nose wheel, all sealed up in a closed environment, not like ours that are in the tube and subject to the varying temperatures, moisture and of course airborne debris.
Oh well, I could go on. Am I sold, yes in a way. My big thing is the reliability and the ability to get the mission done. Can te 737 do it? I think it can do a lot of things better than the P3, hi altitude recon, transit times less, but maybe some not so well. Ie, low level v-id of merchant traffic, or antisubmarine work down low.
Something is coming, should be interesting to see Lockheed's counter P3-2000 entry. Though I don't believe they are going to build a demo.
As for the demo ride, I unfortunately missed out on that, my name was on the list to go for the ride, but at the last minute they needed a pilot for a tactical event, oh well. As you saw in Corpus, it was a 737 IGW (increased gross weight) plane. One of their "white tail" birds. When she landed in Kbay she only had 22 flight hours on her airframe. The 737 IGW is a regular 737 with an 800 series wing. In addition, they replace the aft baggage compartment and part of the forward one with fuel tanks.
One of our pilots got to ride in the 737 and fly it, and of course in the wardroom he gave us a full debriefing! If you toured the plane in corpus, you saw that the interior was completely gutted, ie brand new, but they went ahead an put lead weight bags throughout the plane to help simulate an onstation weight profile. While at Kbay, on the flight they demoed single engine climbout, and of course were able to climb at a greater rate and to a higher altitude than a P3. The onstation time I recall was on the order of 10 or so hours. They countered that the time it took for the 737 to get to onstation was much fast than the P3 and that once on station, it loitered at 220, vice our 170-200, and could cover more area. This is taking into account two excursions to 300 feet. Well, that kind of falls apart when your onstation is only 100 miles away. They comeback of course is the inflight refueling. It has already been tested and there is nothing left for the Navy to pay in development costs. That of course would be a win win scenario for the vantage point of planners. For aircrew, that probably bodes ill for longer missions.
Weapons wise, she would have the same data bus as the F18, and be able to accept all the weapons in inventory for 3 or 4 hardpoint wing stations per wing. All of that has been run through the wind tunnels, and there are various configurations, just whatever the Navy decides it wants. I asked about drag count information and how it impacted fuel consumption and altitudes, but I did not recieve much of an answer on that. Well, of course that has yet to be flight tested.
Bomb bay has already been designed, and tested in the wind tunnel, just a matter of the Navy picking the size they want.
The big item that will take some time (in my eyes at least) is hammering out the internal configureation, and figuring out what improved sensor suites are going to be installed. All that comes down to $$. Is there going to be forward and aft radar? Are the bouys going to be overhauled with GPS transmitters? And the list goes on.
Travis, yes the 737 was flown at 300 feet for demo, with single engine demonstrated for climbout. I wasn't on the plane, just what was relayed by the guy who flew for our squadron. I don't recall what altitude they were at when they did the climbout, think it was 1500.
Yes, I concur, I think the P3 is in "dire" need of a replacement. This year, no, 2007 and the following years when we surpass the extended life span on some of the planes, I would hope that a replacement would be coming in by then. Will we still be using the P3, yes, it is a great plane, and can still get the mission done, but just frustrating for the maintainer through the aircrew when you get the engines up and running and you get everything from prop pump lights, to chip lights, to low effeciencies.
One thing that absolutely blew my mind about the 737 was the beautiful refined design, and the basic mandate that selling these planes to the airlines created. A plane that is ready to go in 15 minutes, preflight to lighting up engines. Absolutely wonderful. Looking inside the engine compartment, and seeing the modular design, here is the oil pump, it fails, yank it and put in a new one. So much easier for the maintainers! Not to mention the avionics bay behind the nose wheel, all sealed up in a closed environment, not like ours that are in the tube and subject to the varying temperatures, moisture and of course airborne debris.
Oh well, I could go on. Am I sold, yes in a way. My big thing is the reliability and the ability to get the mission done. Can te 737 do it? I think it can do a lot of things better than the P3, hi altitude recon, transit times less, but maybe some not so well. Ie, low level v-id of merchant traffic, or antisubmarine work down low.
Something is coming, should be interesting to see Lockheed's counter P3-2000 entry. Though I don't believe they are going to build a demo.
- Status