NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft: From the Widebody E-767 to the Cancelled and Revived E-7

3 455 38
NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft: From the Widebody E-767 to the Cancelled and Revived E-7


Ending, previous part: NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft: Hawkeye and Sentry – The Workhorses of Radar Surveillance



E-767 and the transition to wide-body platforms


Since the release Boeing 707 was discontinued in 1969, American companies began to develop new AWACS and AWACS (Airborne Early Warning and Control) systems for foreign customers based on more modern airliners - Boeing 737 и 767Their advantages over E-3:
  • improved tactical and technical characteristics;
  • larger volume and area of ​​the operational group compartment;
  • Lower maintenance and operating costs thanks to modern means of displaying information, monitoring and diagnostics.

Aircraft of the type E-767 (on the base Boeing 767) are in service with the Japanese Air Force. The wide-body platform of the 767 provided more internal volume for equipment and workstations compared to the 707, while the radar remained rotating - AN / APY-2 from the E-3 line. Saudi Arabia, the Republic of Korea, and Italy were also considered potential customers.


Royal Australian Air Force Wedgetail

Boeing has developed an AWACS and CAS aircraft for the Australian Air Force based on Boeing 737Its special feature is the radar. Mesa (Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array) with three fixed active phased array antennas (APAA), the overlapping patterns of which provide 360° azimuth coverage. According to the developer, the radar simultaneously searches in the air and over the sea, controls fighters, and scans a given sector with a maximum range of over 600 km (against fighter-type targets with an RCS of 1–5 m²) in upper-hemisphere search mode. According to publicly available data, the detection range of radio sources by electronic reconnaissance equipment reaches approximately 850 km at an altitude of approximately 9000 m. This refers to the interception of emissions, not the detection range of radar targets, and these parameters should not be confused.

Unlike the rotating dome radar AN/APY-1/2 aircraft E-3 SentryWhich Boeing 737 AEW & C and is intended to replace, MESA is stationary. As a rule, a stationary AESA updates the situation faster than a mechanically rotating antenna, does not have a wearable dome drive, and is better suited to simultaneous operation in several modes. This is why modern machines (Wedgetail, Swedish Erieye) are built around AFAR, not rotating antennas.

The fuselage is used in the design of the glider Boeing 737-700 and a modified reinforced wing Boeing 737-800To increase patrol time, additional fuel tanks were installed. The increased takeoff weight required reinforced landing gear, and a lower aerodynamic fin housing the onboard defense system equipment was added to maintain longitudinal stability. According to calculations by American specialists, patrol time without refueling at an altitude of 9000–10,000 m and a distance of 500 km from the base should be approximately 8 hours.

The operational group compartment is equipped with six operator workstations, with the potential to increase to 14. The mid-fuselage contains a lounge, while the tail section houses racks with radar equipment units and radar transceiver modules (approximately 280–300 modules—open-source information varies). The units are arranged in easily accessible racks that the crew can access during flight, increasing the system's maintainability. The system includes an open-architecture command complex, similar to the British patrol aircraft's tactical system. BAE Nimrod MRA4 (option Boeing TMS-2000). Its openness allows for the addition of new devices, including infrared and television surveillance and reconnaissance stations, as needed. According to the developer, all equipment is compatible with similar NATO systems.

Australia ordered four aircraft and later exercised an option for two more (out of a possible three), bringing the fleet to six. The first aircraft (called Wedgetail) were assembled, equipped and tested in Seattle, Washington, with the remainder manufactured by subsidiary Boeing Australia; first deliveries took place in November 2009. The cooperation involved Boeing and Northrop, Boeing Australia and BAE Systems Australia: Boeing Australia provides training, service and support, BAE supplies the systems EW (electronic warfare) and ground support.

All Wedgetail The Royal Australian Air Force operates the aircraft from No. 2 Squadron, based at RAF Williamtown. The fleet achieved initial operational capability in November 2012.

On 10 March 2026, the Australian Government announced that E-7A Wedgetail and 85 support personnel will be deployed to the United Arab Emirates as part of Australia's response to the escalating conflict around Iran in the spring of 2026. The deployment is reportedly related to increased monitoring of the Persian Gulf airspace in the face of missile and drone attacks and does not involve participation in offensive operations; the likely location is said to be Al Minhad Air Base, from where Wedgetail operated during Operation Okra.


Boeing 737 AEW&C aircraft of the Turkish Air Force

The Turkish Air Force has ordered four Boeing 737 AEW&C Peace Eagle along with ground support systems and an option for two more. The main subcontractor was Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) — parts manufacturing, testing, assembly, and refitting; another Turkish subcontractor, HAVELSAN, was responsible for ground support, systems analysis, and software, and became the only foreign company with a U.S. government license to access critical source code. Peace Eagle 1 Modified and tested in the United States, aircraft 2, 3, and 4 were developed at TAI facilities in Ankara in partnership with Boeing and several Turkish companies. In 2006, delivery of all four was planned for 2008.

Tests of the first Peace Eagle Boeing conducted the test in September 2007, and already in June 2008 announced the completion of the R&D (experimental design work) on modernization Peace Eagle 2; flight and combat systems checks were completed in the third quarter of the same year. In 2013, Israel delivered Peace Eagle electronic warfare equipment (according to a number of media reports, the decision was linked to the US position; there is no official confirmation of this rationale). On February 21, 2014, the first Peace Eaglenamed North ("North"), officially adopted by the Turkish Air Force; the rest were named South (South), East (East) and West (West). The fourth and final one was delivered in December 2015. A preliminary contract for the modernization of Turkish E-7 Peace Eagle: software update and equipping with the IFF (identification flight factor) system Mode 5 Responder, antenna Karetta CRPA and on-board computer Aselsan.

In November 2006, Boeing signed a contract with the South Korean Air Force (about $1,6 billion, according to open sources) for the delivery of four aircraft by 2012, beating IAI Elta with a platform based on Gulfstream G550 (she dropped out of the competition in August 2006). First Peace Eye were delivered to Gimhae Air Base in Busan for acceptance testing in August 2011, the remaining three were delivered at six-month intervals until 2012. The second aircraft was converted to an AWACS configuration and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI); he arrived in Gimhae in December 2011, the third in May 2012, and the fourth in October 2012.

In October 2019, the South Korean newspaper Munhwa reported that from 2013 to 2019, four E-7 The aircraft frequently failed due to technical issues; total repair costs amounted to approximately 350 billion Korean won, while each aircraft cost approximately 400 billion won at purchase. Fleet availability from 2015 to 2019 was 63–73%—below the design target of 75%. The Korean experience is sobering: the combined repair of four aircraft over six years cost almost the price of one new aircraft.

E-7 in the UK


In October 2018, Theresa May's government announced talks with Boeing about a replacement fleet E-3D + E-7 Wedgetail; negotiations were also underway with Australia. The decision to purchase without a competitive bid drew criticism: the Ministry of Defense was accused of favoritism toward Boeing, and Saab objected to the "non-competitive" deal, as it could offer a system Erieye on the base Airbus A330 MRTT (multifunctional tanker transport). In March 2019, the UK signed an agreement (approximately $1,98 billion) for five E-7 Wedgetail with the name "Wedgetail AEW1". The modification of the airframe was initially planned to be carried out Marshall Aerospace, but in May 2020 she refused, and on May 20, 2020, Boeing selected the British division STS Aviation GroupTwo of the five aircraft were converted from commercial airliners, while the rest were built from scratch. Conversion of a civilian airliner takes approximately 24 months: work on the first aircraft began in 2021.

In December 2020, the magazine Air Forces Monthly reported that the UK was considering reducing the procurement from five to three aircraft, noting that such a move "could often mean that only one aircraft would be available for operational missions." The 2021 Integrated Defence Review confirmed the reduction to three, amid overall budgetary pressures and a review of defence spending priorities. In late 2022, initial operational capability was pushed back to 2024, then to 2025, then to 2026. In February 2023, Chief Marshal aviation Michael Wigston stated that the order for three aircraft could eventually grow to five; the 2025 Defence Review recommended purchasing additional aircraft, possibly jointly with other NATO allies.

There's a Wedgetail AEW1 The Royal Air Force received the aircraft on October 18, 2024, assigning it the markings of No. 8 Squadron, the first to operate it. The aircraft made its public debut at the 2025 Royal International Airshow, where it flew alongside the Red Arrows aerobatic team.

E-7 in the US: Ordering, Cancellation, and Returns


In February 2021, US Pacific Air Forces Commander General Kenneth Wilsbach proposed acquiring the aircraft as soon as possible. E-7 to replace E-3 in the Indo-Pacific region, and in March 2022 he clarified: E-3 insufficient detection range for aircraft such as the Chinese Chengdu J-20. In April 2021 Aviation Week & Space Technology reported that the earliest possible acquisition E-7 General Jeffrey Harrigian, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Africa, also supported the proposal. In October 2021, the U.S. Air Force announced its intention to award Boeing a no-bid contract to study compliance. E-7 their demands.

In April 2022, the US Air Force announced that E-7 will replace E-3 as "the only platform capable of meeting the Department of Defense's tactical battle management, command and control, and time-critical moving target acquisition requirements." An initial contract (approximately $1,2 billion) was awarded in 2023 for the development of two variants. E-7 for the US. The final decision on production of the entire fleet of 26 aircraft was planned for 2025, and the delivery of the first E-7 US Air Force - for 2027.

In June 2025, the press reported that the Trump administration was considering canceling the purchase. E-7 due to concerns about its vulnerability in future conflicts. Testifying before Congress, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cited E-7 as an example of systems that do not survive on the modern battlefield:

…systems and platforms that do not survive on the modern battlefield or do not give us an advantage in future battles… difficult decisions must be made.

On June 26, 2025, reports emerged that the program had been cancelled. E-7 due to rising costs and concerns about the aircraft's survivability. The termination, announced as part of the fiscal year 2026 budget, followed months of speculation and coincided with the administration's growing interest in space-based airborne detection and tracking (AAT) capabilities—air target moving indicator (ATMI).AMTI, Air Moving Target Indication). AMTI's plan was to move the detection of moving airborne targets to an orbital constellation of satellites, reducing dependence on vulnerable carrier aircraft. The decision to cancel the program also drew criticism: several Air Force and Congressional officials pointed out that there was no immediate equivalent alternative. E-7 no, but a write-off E-3 without replacement creates a gap in capabilities.

Those in favor of the abolition argue that large radar platforms have become vulnerable: long-range ones have appeared missiles air-to-air (Russian) P-37M, Chinese PL-15/PL-17), capable of engaging support aircraft at long ranges. Hence the interest in transferring detection functions to less vulnerable platforms: spacecraft (AMTI) and AWACS/UAV combinations. Opponents respond that the transfer is not yet technically complete: space-based moving target indicator systems are still under development, and UAV combinations do not provide the operator with a comprehensive real-time battlefield picture and the interactive control afforded by a larger platform. Furthermore, the vulnerability E-7 It's not absolute: it operates at great distances and under fighter cover, which complicates—though doesn't rule out—its interception. Therefore, the argument is stalled: the vulnerability is real, and there's currently no substitute.

And then both options were realized at once—the focus on space and the preservation of the aircraft platform. In September 2025, an Air Force spokesman announced that two previously purchased aircraft from airlines Boeing 737 They will still be upgraded into two prototypes of the next-generation AWACS and U-25 for the US Air Force. In March 2026, the US Air Force awarded Boeing two contracts totaling approximately $2,43 billion to continue development of the two prototypes. E-7AThe program was canceled as a mass procurement, but retained as a development program—essentially as insurance in case the space-based AMTI didn't reach the required readiness on time.


A Saab 100B Argus aircraft of the Swedish Air Force

For the Swedish Air Force, Saab is developing a passenger transport aircraft based on Saab 340B created an AWACS and U aircraft Saab 100B Argus with side-looking pulse-Doppler radar PS-890 (AESA, Erieye). The station, whose modes are controlled from ground stations, is capable of detecting more than 100 air and surface targets. The antenna (weighing approximately 900 kg) is assembled from approximately 200 transmit/receive modules (estimates vary) and has two side beam patterns (120° sectors) and two 60° blind spots in the nose and tail; these are covered by changing the aircraft's course. The radar is estimated to track ships, aircraft, and missiles at a range of up to 300–400 km while operating at an altitude of 6100 m. The Swedish Air Force has ordered six aircraft of this family (different designations for the same aircraft: Saab 100B / S 100B Argus, and export CSA 890 — an option for military assistance). On May 29, 2024, the Swedish Ministry of Defence announced that two AWACS and U aircraft (CSA 890) will be sent to Ukraine as part of the 16th military support package.


Pakistan Air Force Saab 2000 AEW&C aircraft

Aircraft Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&C Pakistan Air Force was used during the Indo-Pakistani conflict of 2025. After the missile strike BrahMos The Indian Air Force announced the destruction of a missile at the Pakistani air base in Bholari. Saab 2000 AEW&CPakistani officials have denied this. There is currently no independent confirmation of either version. Saab 2000 AEW&C — a variant of the AWACS and U aircraft with radar PS-890 (AESA, Erieye), created for foreign customers on the basis of a more modern airliner Saab 2000.

Instead of a conclusion


Over the course of eight decades, the AWACS class has evolved from a single radar on a torpedo bomber Avenger to networked systems with active phased array (APAA), open architecture, and UAV collaboration. There are three main trends today:
  • transition from rotating antennas to fixed APAA (Wedgetail, Erieye);
  • data integration into a single combat network – due to open onboard systems and compatibility with data exchange standards (Link 16, NATO Joint Forces systems);
  • In response to the increasing range of air-to-air missiles, detection functions are gradually being transferred to less vulnerable carriers, including space.

The Americans completed the program in a year E-7 Closed as a mass purchase and half-reopened as the development of two prototypes - better evidence that no one has yet decided on the future of large radar platforms, and you can’t come up with anything better.

38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    18 July 2026 03: 21
    So why don’t we build lighter, cheaper (mass produced) systems in addition to the expensive A-50 and A-100?
    1. + 12
      18 July 2026 03: 36
      There is no easy, cheap system (filling), but any carrier can be adapted.
      1. -1
        18 July 2026 04: 05
        Quote: nazgul-ishe
        There is no easy, cheap system (filling)

        Are our LETI, Baumanka, and NRU MPEI really incapable of producing specialists capable of creating something that has no analogues in the world?
        1. +8
          18 July 2026 04: 23
          They produce, invent and even draw (make models, produce cartoons, etc.), and then
          either there are no sticks or the binding material has not been delivered.
        2. IVZ
          +3
          18 July 2026 08: 26
          Are our LETI, Baumanka, and NRU MPEI really incapable of producing specialists capable of creating something that has no analogues in the world?
          All the institutions you listed and those you didn't mention don't produce "specialists." They produce young professionals, i.e., high-quality candidates who will only become specialists through practical training and further lifelong learning and experience in their future workplace. If there are people there to teach and mentor them, if these people are willing to pursue them without fear of potential competition, and a few other factors.
        3. +4
          18 July 2026 10: 10
          Are our LETI, Baumanka, and NRU MPEI really incapable of producing specialists capable of creating something that has no analogues in the world?

          The electronics industry was completely destroyed in the early 90s; there haven't even been any adequate attempts to revive it in 30 years. What basic foundation are they supposed to build anything on?
          1. 0
            18 July 2026 11: 06
            On Chinese, on what other...
            1. +1
              18 July 2026 20: 46
              On Chinese, on what other...

              Well, firstly, it's doubtful that China will transfer the technology to us, and secondly, it's also unclear how long we'll have to adapt it to our aircraft. It seems more logical to start purchasing ZDK-03 or similar systems from China, and simultaneously develop our own AWACS using similar spare kits...
              At least I don’t see any other real possibility of acquiring an AWACS within the next 5-10 years.
      2. +3
        18 July 2026 04: 53
        There are no carriers either, only projectors
        1. 0
          18 July 2026 05: 15
          Why not? From AN2 to... Something of its own flies.
          1. +4
            18 July 2026 07: 34
            They made fun of the AN2, but they haven't even been able to make it for three decades now.
          2. 0
            20 July 2026 15: 14
            Quote: nazgul-ishe
            Why not? From AN2 to... Something of its own flies.

            Yeah... Il-76. And the Tu-204 is in a Schrödinger's cat state - "either alive or dead."
      3. 0
        20 July 2026 15: 13
        Quote: nazgul-ishe
        There is no easy, cheap system (filling), but any carrier can be adapted.

        Can you name at least one completely domestically produced, mass-produced civil aircraft of the medium or light class?
        Completely domestic - because with the start of work on the AWACS, supplies of imported components for the basic model will move into the sanctions class where any purchase is examined under a microscope.
        1. 0
          20 July 2026 17: 36
          A serial one, and even a civilian one, unfortunately, no. But it will be made for the military, and there, "I cobbled it together from what I had," and certification is not needed there.
          1. 0
            22 July 2026 10: 58
            Quote: nazgul-ishe
            But this will be done for the military, and there, “I cobbled it together from what I had,” and certification is not needed there.

            Yeah, right now, it's going to be even worse. You don't know our invincible and legendary - must withstand a fall onto concrete from a height of 10 m and a 20 kt nuclear explosion at a distance of 100 m. laughing
            Seriously, it won't be possible to just throw together a "good enough" solution. First, they'll run into EM compatibility issues, and then the state regulations will start. Those same ones where they can even pick on the color of the indicator lights: red color should not be used to indicate normal operation, all normal state indicators should be the same color - green (which is, in principle, fair - in a stressful situation, it may not be possible to think about what the color of each indicator means).
            1. 0
              23 July 2026 17: 07
              Molding things together based on the "good enough" principle is a bad idea. I think some of the hardware is still sitting in factory and military warehouses. Design bureaus, research institutes, and others involved in development, assembly, and production should get to work. Because it's all "yesterday and two sacks." As for the color, "Mary Ivanna doesn't like the red stripe, let's go with blue."
    2. 0
      18 July 2026 16: 55
      We need to start with the Russian Defense Ministry.
      NATO has used AWACS systems for almost all tactical aviation units since the 80s. This was not the case in the Soviet Air Force.
      Accordingly, there are no small drills.
    3. 0
      18 July 2026 20: 46
      AllX_VahhaB, it probably all comes down to the weight and dimensions of the equipment... and more serious "possibilities" in the budget "cuts"...
    4. +1
      18 July 2026 22: 13
      Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
      So why don’t we build lighter, cheaper (mass produced) systems in addition to the expensive A-50 and A-100?
      When the A-100 was developed, everyone was thrilled that the equipment could be placed in the Il-76 instead of the An-125. But in 2014, sanctions were imposed, and the equipment (rumor has it) no longer fit on the aircraft. There were two ways to obtain an AWACS aircraft: 1) cut down the Osetra (change the specifications in the specifications) or 2) use other imported components. The first option offers a distinct chance of landing for those who sign a new specifications contract with reduced specifications. The second option offers a distinct chance of landing for those who sign permission to use imported components. So, they're probably going with the third option—sit back and wait to see if something changes. I'd try to announce the creation of a new type of aircraft, some sort of operational surveillance aircraft, instead of an AWACS. Specifications for such a thing haven't been issued yet, and they could have specified the achievable characteristics.
    5. 0
      19 July 2026 14: 46
      So why don’t we build lighter, cheaper (mass produced) systems in addition to the expensive A-50 and A-100?

      So in the 2000s, everything was going along the lines of "no to communism." The whole world, especially the Westerners—their friends—didn't want to upset them by producing military equipment. They even wanted to buy armored vehicles from Italy and other sources, etc. There was a lack of development and expertise. I hope they've realized it now, appreciated it, and will fix it. Unless, of course, something new comes along, like satellite observation from space... it's harder to shoot it down and sabotage an airfield (like using a drone).
      1. 0
        20 July 2026 03: 36
        Quote: Andrey62
        So in the 2000s, everything developed as “no to communism,” the whole world, especially the Westerners – friends, and did not want to upset them by producing military equipment...

        Actually, 10 years earlier! I remember in the late 90s, the program "I Serve Russia" featured inflatable tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and S-300 (false targets) as achievements of the domestic military-industrial complex...
  2. 0
    18 July 2026 05: 24
    In principle, Russia could build AWACS aircraft based on any existing aircraft in our air force. Sergei's article shows that elsewhere, including NATO itself, they don't bother; they use any suitable aircraft for surveillance and reconnaissance of a specific territory or water area. For the Black Sea, Baltic Sea, and Mediterranean Sea, they use small, fuel-efficient AWACS aircraft to monitor the Russian fleet and the army leading the Air Defense Forces. They also guide missiles to our facilities and cargo ships in Crimea and the Sea of ​​Azov. These are purely combat operations. Why we don't shoot them down is unclear. At least we could jam them or prevent them from turning on their equipment, warning them of their destruction. Designate a zone prohibited for AWACS-equipped aircraft and UAVs.
    Another issue is the use of our AWACS aircraft over Crimea, the Leningrad Region, and generally over the combat line. They would certainly be able to detect aircraft-type missiles and UAVs.
    The MiG-31 can also be used as an AWACS; after all, it was designed to counter cruise missiles. The way they're shelling us is humiliating for the army, the government, and the population.
    1. +3
      18 July 2026 05: 56
      Has everything from the satellite constellation to over-the-horizon systems for detecting anything moving toward Russia's borders been preserved? Nothing new is worth mentioning.
    2. KCA
      0
      18 July 2026 09: 39
      The MiG-31 could also be called network-centric, a fashionable term. I can't remember. I'm too lazy to look up how much radar coverage the MiG-31 provides over a 1000-kilometer front and (as stated, but likely more) 300 kilometers into the front.
      1. +2
        18 July 2026 10: 07
        Quote: KCA
        The MiG-31 could also be called network-centric, a fashionable term. I can't remember. I'm too lazy to look up how much radar coverage the MiG-31 provides over a 1000-kilometer front and (as stated, but likely more) 300 kilometers into the front.

        Yeah, but they usually don’t talk about how many interceptors are needed for this, how long they can stay on duty, how they interact, maneuver, and how communication is carried out between the aircraft and the ground control center.
        1. KCA
          -3
          18 July 2026 11: 24
          If the R-37M has a launch range of 300 km, then the radar sees the target, or perhaps the missile itself provides precise guidance. But still, for a 1000 km front, 4, or better yet, 5 fighters would be enough, if not all of them have been converted to "Daggers." But no one will tell you how they fly, how the missiles and fighters interact.
          1. 0
            18 July 2026 11: 52
            Quote: KCA
            If the R-37M has a launch range of 300 km, then the radar sees the target, or perhaps the missile itself provides precise guidance, but still, for a 1000 km front, 4, or better yet, 5 fighters would be enough

            My God, where do you guys come from? wassat
            What does the R-37M missile have to do with this, the actual specifications of which are a state secret? What universe are you living in? Are many MiG-31Ms used to intercept Ukrainian UAVs?
            And read this carefully again:
            Quote: Bongo
            How many interceptors are required for this, how long can they remain on duty, how do they interact, maneuver, and how is communication between the aircraft and the ground control center carried out?.

            Or do you think it all magically happens on its own?
    3. 0
      18 July 2026 10: 13
      In principle, Russia can build AWACS aircraft on any existing aircraft in our aviation

      Build it maybe, equip it with filling, rather no than yes...
    4. 0
      18 July 2026 13: 20
      Before shooting down an aircraft, the consequences must be carefully considered. There are more humane methods. For example, sending a drone into the reconnaissance aircraft's flight zone, which would create navigational hazards and raise the risk of collision.
      1. -2
        18 July 2026 13: 39
        When NATO supplies and targets missiles, do they calculate the consequences? They understand that sooner or later they'll receive an adequate response, meaning they'll understand and forgive us. NATO isn't ready to officially fight us yet, but rather operate covertly through Ukraine. We shot down a Boeing reconnaissance or provocateur plane over Sakhalin. So what? The Koreans and Americans grumbled and then brushed it off. We don't even need to explain; everything will be clear. bully
    5. -1
      18 July 2026 13: 25
      And if they shoot them down, then they will do so with captured anti-aircraft missiles from a submarine or an unknown aircraft carrier, and claim that they shot down the aircraft by mistake.
    6. +2
      18 July 2026 16: 57
      A civilian aircraft is in any case cheaper and more reliable and has a longer service life than a fighter.
    7. +1
      19 July 2026 15: 13
      In principle, Russia can build AWACS aircraft on any existing aircraft in our air force. Sergei's article shows that the world, and NATO itself, doesn't bother.

      There are a lot of complications. First, it will be a completely different plane. You need to throw out what the passengers need (the extra toilets, the air conditioning system, the wiring, etc.) and replace it with what the equipment needs (more electricity, which means either additional generators or auxiliary power units (APUs/APUs), new equipment mounts, additional fuel tanks and pumping systems, fire extinguishing systems). This means redesigning the plane's floor and other balance data and mounting systems for the antenna, defense systems, etc., maybe different engines (due to the generators and increased drag), which means different pumps, etc., one thing leads to another. Even the fire extinguishing system needs to be different, so that everyone doesn't burn out from the wiring. Seven minutes after the fire starts in the electrical equipment compartment, there will be nothing left to put out, and no one will, since at a height of 1 meter from the floor it already reaches 140 *C (although this is old USSR data).
      And protecting aircraft systems from radar equipment interference is not like turning off your phone before a flight.
      1. 0
        20 July 2026 15: 19
        Quote: Andrey62
        We need to throw out what the passengers need (these include extra toilets, the air conditioning system, wiring, etc.)

        The air conditioning system will need to be redesigned rather than thrown out - the avionics system doesn't like heat.
        Quote: Andrey62
        and replace it with what the equipment needs (more electrical energy, which means either additional generators or auxiliary power units (APU/APU), new equipment mounts, additional fuel tanks and pumping systems, fire extinguishing systems), which means reworking the aircraft floor and other centering data and the mounting system for the same antenna, defense systems, etc.

        The most fun will come when it comes to re-laying cable routes and the scary words "electromagnetic compatibility". smile
        Even Boeing, already having experience developing the Sentry and a ready-made production PAX as a basis for the new Wedgetail, still missed the deadline for the Australian order twice.
  3. +2
    18 July 2026 06: 22
    Since the Boeing 707 was discontinued in 1969 year ...

    Sergey, are you sure about this?
    1. +1
      18 July 2026 09: 20
      Even Vika knows that the years of production were 1957 - 1978. lol
      1. +2
        18 July 2026 10: 03
        Quote: Melior
        Even Vika knows that the years of production were 1957 - 1978.

        If we take military and special-purpose variants into account, then, if I remember correctly, they were built before 1991. However, one shouldn't judge the author too harshly. No one is perfect, and anyone can make mistakes.
        1. -2
          18 July 2026 12: 27
          One still has to grow up to condemnation, for now he is below any criticism! laughing