Boeing: Retire E-8s ASAP and buy P-8s

Boeing: Retire E-8s ASAP and buy P-8s

Boeing has begun pitching the idea of the Air Force gradually retiring its fleet of 707-based E-8 Joint STARS ground scanning radar planes beginning in 2013 and using money saved from that move to replace them with a plane based on the Navy’s P-8 subhunters.

“Obviously there are opportunities for the Air Force to stand down some number of E-8s, maintain GMTI capability and  use that money to then offset a recapitalization program,” said Jim Eisenhart, Boeing’s senior business development manager for Air Force programs, during a Sept. 20 breakfast with reporters at the Air Force Association’s annual conference in National Harbor, Md. “So what this drives you to is, instead of having reeingined 50 year old jets in 2020, you have a brand new fleet of more capable, more reliable aircraft operating in 2020.”

Eisenhart claims that retiring E-8s and moving to the P-8 with its improved systems and more efficient engineswould generate half a billion dollars in savings per-year by 2019.


“You would stand down somewhere between five and seven E-8s and then begin using that [operations and sustainment] cost savings to [buy] the new jets and since the P-8 is already in production today and you’re buying a non-developmental item, it would be an extension of the Navy contract,” said Eisenhart.

“If you think about what all we’re gonna try to buy in 2020, a half a billion dollars goes a long way towards helping solve where you’re going to come up with that kind of procurement money,” he added.

Now, we’ve known for more than a year that Boeing has been hoping to someday pitch the P-8 equipped with a ground scanning radar to the Air Force as a replacement for the service’s aging JSTARS. However, according to Eisenhart, the service’s acting acquisition chief, David Van Buren approached the company during the Paris Air Show in June, 2009 to “informally” ask what ideas Boeing had in regards to replacing the E-8.

It was revealed a few months later that the Air Force would conduct an analysis of alternatives (AoA) for the JSTARS Ground Moving Target Indicator mission. That AoA kicked off last January and has the service looking at  replacing the JSTARS with everything from another big jet such as the P-8 to small business jets like the RAF’s fleet of Sentinel R1s or even UAVs and blimps. The service is expected to publish the results of the AoA this fall.

The Boeing executive quoted the Air Force’s fleet viability board study that it costs roughly, $60 million a year to operate an E-8. He went a step further to claim that the E-8 fleet costs $10.7 billion including “fully burdened cost of fuel” to fly, as is.

The service could begin retiring six to seven planes a year beginning in 2013 and Boeing could begin building P-8s for the Air Force in 2015 and have all 17 JSTARS replaced with P-8s by 2019. These planes would be tacked onto the Navy’s P-8 buy of 117 aircraft.

“By combining the order quantities you now create an economy of scale which is going to reduce production cost because you get supplier stability, you get orders of magnitude greater quantities and so in the long-run it will serve DoD’s and the taxpayers best interest because it will lower the per-unit cost,” argued Eisenhart.

Meanwhile, support for the effort to replacing the 40-year old E-8’s JT3D engines (designed in the 1950s for the 707 and B-52) with the newer Pratt & Whitney JT8D (designed in the early 1960s for the 727 and DC-9) has been up and down over the past few years due to questions about the cost of the effort. But last year, the Air Force gave Northrop Grumman a $223 million contract to install four new JT8Ds on a JSTARS airframe and another $60 million for “flight testing, data capture for flight simulators, modified air certification, pneumatic system development, training, logistics, flight manuals and logistics design efforts,” according to the service. However, Pratt will soon stop making the JT8D meaning that the air force will face a diminishing base of spare parts for the engines in the coming decades — something that can lead to new costs and challenges.

Northrop executives argued last February that they could reengine the JSTARS and equip it with new avionics for under $3 billion:

From Inside the Air Force:

Installing new engines, avionics and self-defense equipment would cost the service less than $3 billion, according to Dave Nagy, a Northrop business development official who oversees the E-8C program. The new engines and modifications to existing power generators would give the aircraft more thrust so it can climb faster and cruise more efficiently and the avionics upgrades make the aircraft compliant with international overflight regulations. The self defense systems make the aircraft more survivable.…

Despite their age, Nagy maintains the aircraft are structurally sound and have about “50-plus years of useful longevity left. This fleet is a new fleet by way of the production of these platforms and by [no] means is it a fleet that is about ready to move into the sunset,” he said.

The E-8C aircraft go through depot maintenance every 18 months. Currently, engine repairs consume a majority of maintenance down time. While the structure of the aircraft has an “infinite life” and had not displayed aging issues seen on other similar planes, the current engines have an economic life, according to Nagy.

Join the Conversation

I hope the USAF avoids “paralysis by analysis” here. Re-engine or go with a new airframe. Make a decision. The JT3Ds are at the end of their useful life.

At all costs avoid an repeat of the tanker fiasco.

This sounds like a pretty economical idea, actually. Increased economy of scale for both acquisition and maintenance.

“the structure of the aircraft has an “infinite life”” sounds a lot like famous last words, though.

This is some funny math … “half a billion dollars in savings per-year by 2019″. That is roughly what the JSTARS costs a year now. Do they plan on flying these aircraft at all? Something doesn’t add up.

This is disgraceful journalism and reads like an unfiltered advertisement for Boeing, with no fact checking at all. It is a sad thing that an Air Force that has to make difficult budget decisions has to deal with this noise from industry, with numbers that make no sense to anyone but a casual observer. Your readers want information, not marketing noise and the level of arrogance shown by Boeing here is rare even by today’s standards. They wouldn’t be spending so much money on this push and pushing so hard if they had an option that spoke for itself. The service is conducting an AoA, let the service make its decision.

Hey this is Boeing making a pitch to sell an old airframe like they did with their tankers. Only bad thing is if these P8 donot have refueling capability then it will add to the cost of their P8. I would not want to fly on a two engine aircraft over the battlefields that Joint STARS does cause if you lose an engine your in trouble

More likely, they will give up the frames, and never get to use the money on the replacement. Careful what you wish for.

The P-8 has in-flight refueling capability.

Perhaps the P-8 could replace both the E-3 & the E-8 with a combo similar to the Boeing 737 AEW&C.
The E-8 with 17 a/c plus the E-3 with 32 a/c, these 49 a/c could be replaced by 36 P-8 combo– (E-3 & E-8).
The E-8 function could also be added to some of the new P-8s, similar to some of the up-graded P-3s.

Boeing’s plan sounds too logical. I bet the AF will re-engine the E-8s, then 10 years down the road have to replace them all because of airframe issues.

If AF says no, this’ll be yet another sign that they’re really governed by incompetents.

Boeing’s plan is simple: airframe already under construction, already modified for military use, just tack on some more. Economies of Scale, check. New airframe leading to new cheaper operating costs, check. Easy way to segue into a new airframe, check.

Not to mention that the P-8 Poseidon is one of the only major acquisition programs that has been quietly scooting along without any major financial or technical difficulties. Good performance should be rewarded, what a novel idea!

The Air Force was going to do that back in 2003 with a B767-400 it was going to be a Joint Use airframe for E-8, E-3 and another system but after spending all that money they CANCEL the E-10 program

Get the new airframe with new engines and move all the equipment over. We cant keep reskinning, resparing, restringing old aircraft. Its too hazardous for the crews. Why are we using engines designed in the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. Why not put in current commercial airline engines with all the fuel saving attibutes that they have. If anything is realiable its commercial airline engines.

The air force does not follow procurement logic. They will do a B-52 and make the E-8 fly rather than swallow the “navy” aircraft pill. It is just the nature of the game

Wow, Stand down 5–7 E-8’s in one year and wait until 2015 to began production of the First P-8+, Fielded with a radar system that has not even been developed or tested yet. Not to mention replaces all of the other datalinks and Battle Management, Command and Control and proven capabilities the E-8 brings to it’s missions. All begining in 2015.

I wish Jstars would just go away and we would split from AD forever

Because, JStars in full of incompetent Jack asses!

How about?- cnx the crazy P-8 program and SLEP P-3s, a real long dwell MPA / ASW aircraft that can actually descend and drop sonobuoys and check out or launch torpedoes at bad guys without running out of fuel or worrying about brine encrustation on turbofan engines That would be the best thing for the taxpayers. Probably can replace JSTARS with robots and smaller EO/IR, AESA and SAR/ISAR equipped manned aircraft. My counter to this yellow journalistic Boeing ad.

With the rate of new stories and lack of commentary I’m pretty sure all this blog is capable of is recycling official statements or info from other blogs. I have yet to see this blog either break a story or provide some in-depth commentary. It’s always a story that is identical to 20 others posted around the web.

No kidding on the JT3Ds! Those were initially civilian engines that got carried over to the miltary with some of them actually “renamed” as TF-33s, but same basic engine. Although Im certain that there have been a LOT of improvements and upgrades over the years, thats still an early 1960s engine that I believe has been generally pulled from civilian service.

As for the tanker fiasco, lets just trot out a few of the tried and true, trite platitudes! :-) What about “no lesson is as expensive as the lesson unlearned!” Lets at least hope that the USAF does not very boringly REPEAT the specifics of the tanker “go round” and, if they must, at least invents new methods for “stepping in it”! Or maybe…“Innovation, even in failure, is better than just going down the same path to humiliation. ”

Unfortunately I think it might be human nature to allow excuses to mask the reasons behind very public failures, so.… the corrective actions are yet to be seen from the “tanker tango”! Perhaps… another chance for Ms Druyan?.

Yeah, cancel a successful (belated, but stable) program and keep using 60+ year old planes indefinately…great idea…

You guys really have no idea what capabilities JSTARS has.

Sounds like some folks love their “Rice Bowls”.
The 65 mustang is a great car. You can put a new motor in it but I still would feel safer driving my kid to school with at least a shoulder belt, and airbags, and crumple zones, and a heater that is not in danger of spilling hot liquid on them from the glove compartment.
Short story, way to long. What’s so wrong with something new off the shelf?
Maybe with all of our services having different combat uniforms (talking about a few rice bowls and possible copyright lawsuits) maybe McNamera wasn’t such a bitch!
No. He was. But not in this case. Look at the F-4, BDUs and the MRE cheese pack.

The P-8 is a NEW airframe. The 1st flight of the P-8 was Apr 2009. If you must, the 1st flight of the 737–800 which the P-8 is most based on was Apr 1998.

Sorry but the 737 only has ~1/3 the fuel capacity of the 707/C-135. It is a great ‘little’ plane for those who can’t afford anything larger but assuming you want to at least match the range/endurance of the 707/C-135 you need a 767-200ER.

It may have the Navy Inflight reueling requirement but not the Air Force inflight refueling capability. I have yet to see a Navy aircraft being refuled by an Air Force Tanker that did not have to have to change the inflight reueling boom

Do You?

The 737 aircraft goes back further than that

Loved the MRE Cheese on top of MRE crackers(able to with stand standard 7.62 ball rounds). but only after we spent $Millions on MRE Cheese heaters, other wise known as the M1 Abrams.

The same as some special P-3’s.

Here is a current Joint STARS Re-engining Program update as of 20 Dec 11, net of the 2012 DFAA:
1. The program will conclude with the end of development testing in Jan 12. There will be no OT&E.
2. There will be no installs on fleet aircraft (the single test airframe only).
3. No additional production engines will be ordered past the 8 currently delivered / in production. 100% engine sparing for the test aircraft.
5. $500 Million spent on development will yield zero operational capability improvement.

Despite a recent Grumman press release hailing the first flight with the new set of production engines, the whole thing just took too long and cost too much. There never was any USAF 4-star who said “I want this to happen”. The USAF has been trying to kill the program for several years, but it was always saved by congress. The deficit situation has finally done what the blue-suit brass could not.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement