ERJ-145 joining the Army
- Thread starter BCTAv8r
- Start date
Aaron_Kearney
New Member
Doesn't the Brazilian AF already use them for that purpose?
Are you sure it's the Army that's buying an AWACS aircraft? I thought all of the current E-3's were flown by the USAF. Source?
Are you sure it's the Army that's buying an AWACS aircraft? I thought all of the current E-3's were flown by the USAF. Source?
CaptainChris87
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
The ERJ-145 is a regional aircraft so it qualifies under general topics
__________________________________________________
Anyways, the US Army might buy ERJ-145s as AWACS or something like that. It's pretty cool that Embraer is getting US contracts. Here is the full story.
[/ QUOTE ]
uhh where else would it fall under??? since you posted it possibly the LAV or shouldnt even be posted at all. Emb's een getting US contracts.
The ERJ-145 is a regional aircraft so it qualifies under general topics
__________________________________________________
Anyways, the US Army might buy ERJ-145s as AWACS or something like that. It's pretty cool that Embraer is getting US contracts. Here is the full story.
[/ QUOTE ]
uhh where else would it fall under??? since you posted it possibly the LAV or shouldnt even be posted at all. Emb's een getting US contracts.
FlyNavy
New Member
FYI:
The ERJ (I believe -145 LR?) is going to fulfill a joint Army Navy SIGINT requirement. The program is called ACS, for aerial common sensor. It will replace the Guardrail battlefield COMINT platform in the Army and the EP-3E SIGINT aircraft in the USN.
Brazil uses versions of the ERJ for SIGINT and AWACS as well!
The ERJ (I believe -145 LR?) is going to fulfill a joint Army Navy SIGINT requirement. The program is called ACS, for aerial common sensor. It will replace the Guardrail battlefield COMINT platform in the Army and the EP-3E SIGINT aircraft in the USN.
Brazil uses versions of the ERJ for SIGINT and AWACS as well!
Aaron_Kearney
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the Brazilian AF already use them for that purpose?
Are you sure it's the Army that's buying an AWACS aircraft? I thought all of the current E-3's were flown by the USAF. Source?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hehe - SA ... that's what I get for skimming too fast.
Doesn't the Brazilian AF already use them for that purpose?
Are you sure it's the Army that's buying an AWACS aircraft? I thought all of the current E-3's were flown by the USAF. Source?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hehe - SA ... that's what I get for skimming too fast.
alphaone
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The ERJ-145 is a regional aircraft so it qualifies under general topics
__________________________________________________
Anyways, the US Army might buy ERJ-145s as AWACS or something like that. It's pretty cool that Embraer is getting US contracts. Here is the full story.
[/ QUOTE ]
uhh where else would it fall under??? since you posted it possibly the LAV or shouldnt even be posted at all. Emb's een getting US contracts.
[/ QUOTE ] Chris that girl is freaking hott
[ QUOTE ]
The ERJ-145 is a regional aircraft so it qualifies under general topics
__________________________________________________
Anyways, the US Army might buy ERJ-145s as AWACS or something like that. It's pretty cool that Embraer is getting US contracts. Here is the full story.
[/ QUOTE ]
uhh where else would it fall under??? since you posted it possibly the LAV or shouldnt even be posted at all. Emb's een getting US contracts.
[/ QUOTE ] Chris that girl is freaking hott
flyover
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
FYI:
The ERJ (I believe -145 LR?) is going to fulfill a joint Army Navy SIGINT requirement. The program is called ACS, for aerial common sensor. It will replace the Guardrail battlefield COMINT platform in the Army and the EP-3E SIGINT aircraft in the USN.
Brazil uses versions of the ERJ for SIGINT and AWACS as well!
[/ QUOTE ]
*Master Caution* acronym overload. Item 1. Reread for explanations and or links. Ok, he did pretty well, starting to understand. All's that's missing is SIGINT and COMINT .
FYI:
The ERJ (I believe -145 LR?) is going to fulfill a joint Army Navy SIGINT requirement. The program is called ACS, for aerial common sensor. It will replace the Guardrail battlefield COMINT platform in the Army and the EP-3E SIGINT aircraft in the USN.
Brazil uses versions of the ERJ for SIGINT and AWACS as well!
[/ QUOTE ]
*Master Caution* acronym overload. Item 1. Reread for explanations and or links. Ok, he did pretty well, starting to understand. All's that's missing is SIGINT and COMINT .
Alchemy
Well-Known Member
Actually I read the other day that the army is looking for another airframe....the E145 couldn't handle the weight of all the equipment they were trying to stuff in it....or maybe they realized it would be too loud in the back to get anything done in the WSCoD.
[ QUOTE ]
Aerial Common Sensor program plans to change airframes
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
06/30/2005, page 01
Marc Selinger
The U.S. Army-led Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) program has concluded that it
will need a larger airframe than the Embraer ERJ-145 regional jet that it
selected less than a year ago, according to prime contractor Lockheed
Martin.
Responding to questions, Lockheed Martin told The DAILY in a statement
June 29 that ACS designers have found "additional integration weight" that
will prevent the program from using a modified ERJ-145.
Based on a thorough analysis, the U.S. government and Lockheed Martin
"have concluded that a larger airframe is necessary to provide the best
solution" for ACS, Lockheed Martin said. "We are assessing the
cost/schedule/technical implications of using a larger aircraft. Our goal
remains to bring this revolutionary capability to the warfighters as
quickly as possible."
An industry source told The DAILY that the program is looking at several
Embraer and non-Embraer alternatives. An Embraer spokesman referred
questions to Lockheed Martin.
Although Lockheed Martin did not elaborate on the weight problems, and the
Army had no immediate comment, the Defense Department's office of the
director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E) warned in a recent
report that integrating multiple forms of intelligence onto a single
aircraft could be a challenge for the ACS program (DAILY, Jan. 21).
Lockheed Martin was awarded an $879 million, five-year contract in August
2004 for the program's system development and demonstration (SDD) phase.
ACS is intended to carry sensors providing signals intelligence,
measurement and signatures intelligence, electro-optical/infrared imagery,
synthetic aperture radar imagery and a ground moving target indicator.
The weight problems have led the Navy to put off its formal entry into the
ACS program. Responding to questions, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)
told The DAILY in a statement that its decision to officially become a
program participant is "on hold" while the Army and Lockheed Martin "work
the solution set for mitigating integration weight growth."
Despite its hesitations, NAVAIR insisted that it still intends to join the
program eventually.
"The Navy is committed to ACS and working with the Army to make the
program a success," NAVAIR said.
The Navy had been slated to finalize its involvement in the program in
late 2004, but a Navy official indicated in January that it was taking
longer than expected to prepare for a key review that was supposed to lead
to the Navy's integration into the program (DAILY, Jan. 10).
Lockheed Martin said that while the Navy "has not signed onto the program,
they are participating in the program reviews and aircraft analysis."
The Navy has been planning to buy 19 jets to replace its EP-3E Aries II
aircraft, while the Army has intended to produce 38 jets to replace its
Guardrail Common Sensor and Airborne Reconnaissance Low aircraft. Previous
announcements indicated that fielding would begin in fiscal 2010 for the
Army and FY '12 for the Navy.
- Marc Selinger (marc_selinger@AviationNow.com)
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aerial Common Sensor program plans to change airframes
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
06/30/2005, page 01
Marc Selinger
The U.S. Army-led Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) program has concluded that it
will need a larger airframe than the Embraer ERJ-145 regional jet that it
selected less than a year ago, according to prime contractor Lockheed
Martin.
Responding to questions, Lockheed Martin told The DAILY in a statement
June 29 that ACS designers have found "additional integration weight" that
will prevent the program from using a modified ERJ-145.
Based on a thorough analysis, the U.S. government and Lockheed Martin
"have concluded that a larger airframe is necessary to provide the best
solution" for ACS, Lockheed Martin said. "We are assessing the
cost/schedule/technical implications of using a larger aircraft. Our goal
remains to bring this revolutionary capability to the warfighters as
quickly as possible."
An industry source told The DAILY that the program is looking at several
Embraer and non-Embraer alternatives. An Embraer spokesman referred
questions to Lockheed Martin.
Although Lockheed Martin did not elaborate on the weight problems, and the
Army had no immediate comment, the Defense Department's office of the
director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E) warned in a recent
report that integrating multiple forms of intelligence onto a single
aircraft could be a challenge for the ACS program (DAILY, Jan. 21).
Lockheed Martin was awarded an $879 million, five-year contract in August
2004 for the program's system development and demonstration (SDD) phase.
ACS is intended to carry sensors providing signals intelligence,
measurement and signatures intelligence, electro-optical/infrared imagery,
synthetic aperture radar imagery and a ground moving target indicator.
The weight problems have led the Navy to put off its formal entry into the
ACS program. Responding to questions, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)
told The DAILY in a statement that its decision to officially become a
program participant is "on hold" while the Army and Lockheed Martin "work
the solution set for mitigating integration weight growth."
Despite its hesitations, NAVAIR insisted that it still intends to join the
program eventually.
"The Navy is committed to ACS and working with the Army to make the
program a success," NAVAIR said.
The Navy had been slated to finalize its involvement in the program in
late 2004, but a Navy official indicated in January that it was taking
longer than expected to prepare for a key review that was supposed to lead
to the Navy's integration into the program (DAILY, Jan. 10).
Lockheed Martin said that while the Navy "has not signed onto the program,
they are participating in the program reviews and aircraft analysis."
The Navy has been planning to buy 19 jets to replace its EP-3E Aries II
aircraft, while the Army has intended to produce 38 jets to replace its
Guardrail Common Sensor and Airborne Reconnaissance Low aircraft. Previous
announcements indicated that fielding would begin in fiscal 2010 for the
Army and FY '12 for the Navy.
- Marc Selinger (marc_selinger@AviationNow.com)
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The ERJ-145 is a regional aircraft so it qualifies under general topics
[/ QUOTE ]
uhh where else would it fall under???...
[/ QUOTE ]uhh, maybe Military?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but then it would get less attention.
Since the 145 won't be doing the job, I hope Embraer wins a contract for a larger aircraft such as the 170+
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The ERJ-145 is a regional aircraft so it qualifies under general topics
[/ QUOTE ]
uhh where else would it fall under???...
[/ QUOTE ]uhh, maybe Military?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but then it would get less attention.
Since the 145 won't be doing the job, I hope Embraer wins a contract for a larger aircraft such as the 170+
FlyNavy
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Since the 145 won't be doing the job, I hope Embraer wins a contract for a larger aircraft such as the 170+
[/ QUOTE ]
Or they could use the 737 airframe already slated to serve as the MMA (multimission maritime aircraft, i.e. P-3 follow-on), but that would make too much sense.
Since the 145 won't be doing the job, I hope Embraer wins a contract for a larger aircraft such as the 170+
[/ QUOTE ]
Or they could use the 737 airframe already slated to serve as the MMA (multimission maritime aircraft, i.e. P-3 follow-on), but that would make too much sense.
[ QUOTE ]
I can't see the Army or Air Force going with a foreign-built RJ to replace an AWACS 707/720 while the Navy chose the 737-700 to replace the P-3.
MikeD or Copaman, thoughts on the militaries acquisition rationale?
[/ QUOTE ]
From what I know of the EMB-145 AWACS system, it's of much shorter range, surveillance-wise, than the E-3 (707), and the E-3 is pretty well rooted so far as future funding goes. It's on solid ground as a system.
Foreign-buy wise, it's been up and down with the US military. To date, we've had the Harrier, the Coast Guard Dolphin helo as well as Falcon 20 jet, the USAF C-38 Astra jet, among others. Then there have been the foeign built planes built under license here, such as the T-45 Navy trainer, and the up and coming US-101 version of the EH-101 helo for the presidential airlift duties. So whether the US would buy a foreign design, I'd say it's not unprecedented.
I can't see the Army or Air Force going with a foreign-built RJ to replace an AWACS 707/720 while the Navy chose the 737-700 to replace the P-3.
MikeD or Copaman, thoughts on the militaries acquisition rationale?
[/ QUOTE ]
From what I know of the EMB-145 AWACS system, it's of much shorter range, surveillance-wise, than the E-3 (707), and the E-3 is pretty well rooted so far as future funding goes. It's on solid ground as a system.
Foreign-buy wise, it's been up and down with the US military. To date, we've had the Harrier, the Coast Guard Dolphin helo as well as Falcon 20 jet, the USAF C-38 Astra jet, among others. Then there have been the foeign built planes built under license here, such as the T-45 Navy trainer, and the up and coming US-101 version of the EH-101 helo for the presidential airlift duties. So whether the US would buy a foreign design, I'd say it's not unprecedented.
[ QUOTE ]
I can't see the Army or Air Force going with a foreign-built RJ to replace an AWACS 707/720 while the Navy chose the 737-700 to replace the P-3.
MikeD or Copaman, thoughts on the militaries acquisition rationale?
[/ QUOTE ]
Like MikeD said, the US101/EH101 was a perfect example of a foreign platform being used for US military purposes.
Other examples include the Italian C-27J and the Spanish CASA CN-235, which will be used by the Coast Guard.
There is a "buy American" group who believes that we should only buy American products, and it is countered by the "best capable platform" that advocates the best solution regardless of origin. Boeing tends to fall into the former (and why shouldn't they, as they have their own commercial line) and LM tends to fall into the latter (the two examples I gave are both part of LM).
This is the crux of the debate over the tanker replacement program in the Air Force. Airbus says it was unfairly shut out, and now they are going to recompete it.
Fact is, however, that regardless of who wins or what company is the prime contractor, a certain portion of the airframe is going to be foreign built. Big chunks of the Boeing products are made overseas, as are just about every electronic component in any aircraft. The final deliverable might be American, but just about everything within that final product was probably manufactured oevrseas; so why not just use an overseas platform and save even more?
I can't see the Army or Air Force going with a foreign-built RJ to replace an AWACS 707/720 while the Navy chose the 737-700 to replace the P-3.
MikeD or Copaman, thoughts on the militaries acquisition rationale?
[/ QUOTE ]
Like MikeD said, the US101/EH101 was a perfect example of a foreign platform being used for US military purposes.
Other examples include the Italian C-27J and the Spanish CASA CN-235, which will be used by the Coast Guard.
There is a "buy American" group who believes that we should only buy American products, and it is countered by the "best capable platform" that advocates the best solution regardless of origin. Boeing tends to fall into the former (and why shouldn't they, as they have their own commercial line) and LM tends to fall into the latter (the two examples I gave are both part of LM).
This is the crux of the debate over the tanker replacement program in the Air Force. Airbus says it was unfairly shut out, and now they are going to recompete it.
Fact is, however, that regardless of who wins or what company is the prime contractor, a certain portion of the airframe is going to be foreign built. Big chunks of the Boeing products are made overseas, as are just about every electronic component in any aircraft. The final deliverable might be American, but just about everything within that final product was probably manufactured oevrseas; so why not just use an overseas platform and save even more?