Talk:Boeing E-3 Sentry/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orders to shoot down airliner September 11, 2001

Dear Netsnipe:

You recently commented after your edits, "E-3s are unarmed, so this source is highly doubtful. Please find more sources to corroborate."

I request that you please read carefully. No one at the University of St. Thomas nor Lt. Kuczynski, quoted in University publications, has claimed that E-3's are armed. The fact that the E-3 is unarmed casts no doubt whatsoever on the fact that the pilot of the E-3, a plane which coordinates battle commands, said he "was given direct orders to shoot down an airliner." You are conveniently ignoring the fact that Lt. Kuczynski's E-3 Sentry was accompanied by two well armed F-16 fighters. Two university publications have published these facts on two different occasions. These two university publications are within the standards of Wikipedia reliable sources. If have some actual evidence that the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) is a "highly doubtful" source please present it. The fact that the E-3 is unarmed is not in dispute and irrelevant to the facts established by the University of St. Thomas. Thomist 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. I think the problem is that, as posted, it implied that the Sentry itself would be shooting down the airliner. It'll need clarification if it's to stay in the article - which I'm not sure it should; it's a bit anecdote-ish. --Scott Wilson 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thomist has been insisting on putting conspiracy theories in other articles: United Airlines Flight 93, and Brett Kavanaugh. 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I have read in several aircraft books that E-3s are in fact armed with underwing AIM-9 Sidewinders for self-defence. 85.210.7.19 13:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The E-3C and later versions can be armed with 2 AIM-9Ps that fire backwards. However, I think that kinda disproves that conspiracy theory since it's nearly impossible to use them offensively. ZakuTalk 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless they've mastered the Russian "Cobra" aerobatic move ;} Akradecki 06:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh... well, since the AIM-9P isn't all aspect like the L or M, the E-3 would have to pass the airliner head on, lock onto the back of the airliner and fire. (sigh) ...nutjob conspiracy theorists... ZakuTalk
"All-aspect" is with respect to the seeker, not the target. Not that it gives the theory any more creedence. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The E-3 is unarmed. It has a common mount that could be used to carry an air-air missile, but there is no wiring, or cockpit controls for any weapon system.137.240.136.82 18:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has had operational experience on the US and NATO E-3 from 1985-2006, I can tell you the following, the E-3 is unarmed and it most likely will stay unarmed since diplomatically it is allowed into more foreign airspaces. When fighter aircraft are under it's control, they can use them as "weapons", however the kill command must come either directly from a higher authority or clearly outlined in the Rules of Engagement. The order to shoot down would never be given to the E-3 pilot, but to the Mission Crew Commander or Tactical Director in NATO. The mission crew is almost always in contact with a higher authority when operating, even in peacetime. On 9/11 the crews were in contact with NORAD regional headquarters. I have heard two unverifiable stories, one that the FAA tried to force an AWACS to land when NORAD declared SCATANA and one that the E-3 was told to look for one of the hijacked airliners without much information (A nearly impossible task given the sheer volume of air traffic in the US). It should also be noted that on 9/11 the AWACS were the only long range radars in most of the US interior but due to peacetime and timing of the attack I believe only a couple were airborne at the time. Radar on an aircraft was not enough to do an identification at that time. The hijackers turned off their aircrafts SIF making ground (FAA) identification impossible. Basically, we were blind inside the US at that time without SIF squawks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.122.140 (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The E-3 has no room for a weapons but is considered a weapons system itself in military jargon. Lawtonlawdawg (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

E-767

Should a page about E-3s really have a section Units Using the Boeing E-767 a completley different aircraft. There is also Japan has four Boeing 767-based AWACS aircraft. No problem with a mention of the E-767 as an alternate platform but I believe the other information should be removed - any comments from watchers ? MilborneOne 22:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As nobody has commented I have removed E-767 units and amended Future Direction MilborneOne 09:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

AN/SPY-2

Where does the reference to the SPY-2 come from? Isn't an SPY designation reserved for ships, while APY is normally used for 3-D Surveillance radar systems.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.82 (talk • contribs)

It's supposed to be APY-2 (I looked it up). As A and S are adjacent on the keyboard, it was probably a simle typo. Using detailed edit summaires for deletions is helpful to avoid others mis-understanding your reasons for deleting. - BillCJ 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I would just delete it, as you have to specify both APY-1 and APY-2, which are both in use, and the radome equipment for the radar is common to both, and mainly because it should be a more generic paragraph.137.240.136.82 18:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I would delete it as well. The antenna is part of the system, and APY whatever refers to the system in total. For example you wouldn't call it a AN/APY-1 12AT7 Vacuum Tube. You would call it a tube. Same with the antenna. K5okc 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tragedy

Wow! BillCJ, you've turned the whole thing into a tragedy. Might as well delete it all, as it is worthless to read now. 68.12.189.249 05:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Having verifiable sources is not a suggestion or guidline on Wikipedia, it's POLICY. If you aren't going to supply sources for the material you've added, then you're right, we might as well delete it. However, we have some good editors here in the Aircraft Project, and we'll get some sources lined up soon, and toss what what we can't cite. - BillCJ 05:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Standing Over Shoulder

"(Reverted erroneous change by K5okc; please do not change template fields, as they will only work with specified words; Range is fine)"

BillCJ, please don't edit quickly like that. Give it a few minutes, and the person will be able to correct their error. If you want to jump in like that, it only causes more problems. I don't think you need to stand over everyones shoulder here. Take a deep breath and back away from the keyboard for a minute. I appologize for hitting the wrong key, I mean't to hit preview, and missed. Your jumping in there only caused me more problems. That may have been your intent, and I wish you would stop it, but I will give you the benefit of doubt this time. K5okc 01:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact you even mention it might have been intentional is insulting, and violates WP:AGF. I'm sorry we had an edit conflict, but that often happens. I've not seen you editing aircraft articles very often, and so have no idea the level of your competence in editing. A mistake like that is indicitive of a novice, and I don't apologize for reverting it, given the information I had at the time. I totally understnad now that it was a mistake on your part, having hit the wrong key many times myself. However, a simple edit conflict does not warrant the response you gave above. I'd suggest may you should stap away form the keyboard for awhile, and calm down. The more you edit on Wikipedia, the more these things will happen, given the amount of editors on WIkipedia at any one time. Remember, any edit can be reverted, and the change I made was constructice, as you had to use the same field anyway.
A hint: when it gives you the edit-conflict screen, it shows the conflict, and gives your edits in the bottom edit screen. JUst go th that screen and copy the changes you made, then paste them into the new edit. It's what I do when someone esle jumps in while I'm editing.
Second, if you intend to make a lot of changes you don't want interupted for a period of time (15 mins, for example), consider placing the {{tl|inuse} tag at the top of the page before you begin editing. This will let other users know you would like them to "step away from the keybord" for awhile. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cost of the E-3?

What was the cost of the E-3 manufacturing? Usual articles state the cost of the 68 aircraft and then the cost per aircraft when it's all averaged out. Tempshill 06:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

When I first started at Tinker and the planes started arriving, we were told they were 250M USD per copy. We were paying for R&D as well. At any rate, the first crews were composed of high ranking and high flight time personnel, and even the lowly airman on the ramp knew that to lose one would be the loss of a national asset. By the time the first two E-3's were destroyed, the total cost had come down, and there are a lot of aircraft that cost more today. K5okc (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Expand How?

What exactly are we looking for in the requested expansion? ComputerGeezer (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not explaining sooner - I had hoped those familiar with the subject would regognize the deficieny, but I negleted to account for those not familar with the subject who might like to help out too!
The article covers none of the history leading up to the creation of the AWACS program, the competition, nor the early development of the E-3. For example, the section should mention that the aging EC-121 Warning Stars needed replacement, and the new capabilities that the USAF wanted. There is no mention of the original designation, "EC-137D", or the fact that the original design was to have been powered by 8 TF34 turbofan engines. In addition, almost all of the existing "Development" section should be placed in the "Design" section, as that is what it covers. Also, there is no variants section in the article listing the variants summary, which would include the EC-137D and all current or proposed designations. I have a few print sources with relevant info, and hope to get to it sometime in the future. However, my wiki-plate is pretty full for the time being, so it may be awhile, hence the tag. - BillCJ (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

edits by 62.253.240.2 replacing "France" with "Saudi Arabia" in two places

Was patrolling changes and noticed two replacements (opening paragraph and side bar) of "France" with "Saudi Arabia." Quick research indicates that E-3 is used by both, so it is fine for Saudi Arabia to be added, but no need to remove France. Is there? (I'll leave it to the page experts to decide.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Only the top 4 users are listed in the Infobox. Saudi has more than France. Good point about the Lead though. No reason both can't be listed there. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Added France back into intro paragraph, infobox is probably OK as RSAF operate 5 aircraft one more than France and it is usual to use number operated as a qualifier for the more operators entry. MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidents and Accidents

Why does the E-3 have a coveted section (can't be deleted), while for example the B-52 does not? Where is the proof that a tanker collided with an E-3?

I think BillCJ is coveting a lost cause here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.245.203 (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Listing notable accidents and incident is OK with the Aircraft project (see WP:Air/PC). Besides the B-52 is a combat aircraft and goes into defended enemy territory. The E-3 does not. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not notable if you can't find proof of it ever happening?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.245.203 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Please sign your comments. The collision already has a fact tag applied (since January 2009) if a reliable source does not appear it will be deleted in due course. Removing the whole section because you dont like one bit is vandalism which is why it was reverted. MilborneOne (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't remove it because I didn't like one bit, I removed it because there is no need for the incidents section, because none of them changed any procedures in the aircraft flight procedures, or resulted in any modifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.245.203 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Please sign your comments. I think you will find 24 people being killed and a hull loss are both notable. MilborneOne (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There was a lot of B-52 hull losses, and more than 24 people killed. Yet, there is no "Incidents" on B-52. It seems that some sort of exception is being made here. 72.56.245.203 (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like at least two accidents in the B-52 article but remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress and is never complete just that nobody had got round to working on it yet. MilborneOne (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
There are other mainline US combat aircraft articles with incident/accident sections, so the B-52 page is the exception here. There are 3 B-52 accident articles listed under the "See also" section. There are some other issues with the B-52 page such as a non-standard article layout, so I will try to address those this week, and add an accidents section at the same time. - BillCJ (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between "incidents" and "accidents" you know... Lawtonlawdawg (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"On 28 August 2009 a USAF E-3 was damaged while landing at Nellis Air Force Base, causing it to catch fire and forcing its 32-member crew to escape.[26] The aircraft has been declared destroyed due to structural damage, and is being disassembled for parts at Nellis AFB."

While the first sentence is true, is verifiable, and has sources that can be sited, the second sentence is lacking (at least to the public at this time). Can we remove this second sentence untill a public source can be sited? - Kesterj(talk)

You just tagged it. Give that some time to work. There's no pressing need to remove that immediately. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

197941G4

Does anyone happen to know what the this planes predecessor will be? Lawtonlawdawg (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends on whatever a 19791G4 is and if it has anything to do with the E-3. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

E-3 Deliveries

Under "operators" it shows 34 E-3A's were ordered and then modified. I believe 24 E-3A's were ordered, and 10 E-3C's were ordered. The E-3A's were then converted to E-3B's. The E-3C's were not modified from A models, they came from the factory that way. K5okc (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fix what is needed and cite the corrected entry. These details really belong in the Operational history section though. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree, 34 E-3As were ordered, the last nine were completed as E-3C on the production line. The changes were mainly avionics. So you are right they left the factory as E-3Cs but they were ordered as E-3As. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe renegotiated order, as I don't think Boeing modified them for free. I forgot that TS-3 was originally an A model, so 9 had to have been ordered, or order modified to C's. I seem to recall it was 5 more consoles, the maritime radar rack being the biggies, with RATT (radio teletype, later deleted on US), JTIDS, and the added radios. I think it was called "The NATO Standard" but I don't have anything published with that data. K5okc (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
That looks a lot better now. K5okc (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Manufacturing Personalities

I removed the reference to Gardner Fox. While it is true the phase shifters are called Fox phase shifters, this information is way too technical for an opening paragraph. Similar to the Edwin Sloane FFT that was deleted earlier in the year. This information might be good for their bio's but not material needed for a system designed and built by hundreds of engineering teams. K5okc (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Parachutes

An interesting story about the parachute deletion is located at: AEWA Forum K5okc (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I propose to change the picture from this to this. Any objections?--RandomLittleHelpertalk 02:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Or this more recent one? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boeing E-3 Sentry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Boeing E-3 Sentry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Saudi RE-3A electronic intelligence gathering aircraft

Dear all, yesterday I discovered a variant of the Boeing E-3A Sentry that I'd never heard of; an electronic intelligence gathering version flown by the Saudis. I went to WP eager to learn about this unusual aircraft, but found no mention of it whatsoever. I was frankly very surprised -- the aviation experts here are usually pretty good. So I clicked around, found https://theaviationist.com/2021/09/30/rsaf-re-3a-raf-waddington/ about a recent transfer across the Atlantic, corroborated by our Royal Saudi Air Force article which lists the RE-3A with 19 Squadron, and added a note to the variants section of the article.

I was surprised to be reverted by Mark83 with the edit summary "Undid revision 1047627725 by Buckshot06 (talk) Happy to discuss this further of course, but this doesn't feel right to me. This article is about AWACS. The RSAF R-E3A started life as tankers to support RSAF E-3s (KE-3As). These were modified into Rivet Joint-comparable aircraft. Therefore they are more relevant for discussion at this article. The E-3 part of the desingation is an historical quirk."

Now there is no technical entry for the RE-3A variant anywhere on Wikipedia. This constitutes a gap in our coverage of 21st-century Western military aircraft, which is generally among our most excellent subjects of coverage, given WP's systemic contributor bias. WP should have an entry on such aircraft, and the Boeing E-3 Sentry article is the logical place to look. To go looking at EC-135 or RC-135 when one knows nothing more than the 'RE-3A' designation seems illogical to me. I would strongly suggest that mention of the RE-3A variant be readded back into the Boeing E-3 Sentry article. What do others think? Will copy this to WT:MILHIST and WT:AVIATION. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I would say, if the Saudi aircraft started life as an E-3 and had the spinning plate removed to make the RE-3 it goes here.
If it started as another aircraft and was modified to be something else (that doesn't function as an E-3) it goes in the other article (or articles - aircraft modified from + aircraft equivalent to).
If the designation makes readers look here but it isn't because of the rule I set out, then add a hatnote sending them elsewhere.
In short I think the RE-3A content belongs, if anywhere, under the Boeing RC-135. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
The RE-3A (there is only one) is a conversion of a KE-3A tanker that was part of the contract for E-3A aircraft so it was easier to call them KE-3As as they were based on the larger 707-320 airframe the same as the E-3A rather than the smaller KC-135/RC-135. MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
That supports my argument as well: the 707-320 is not the baseline aircraft type as the RC-135. But there are three RE-3s, (s/ns 1901-1903, two RE-3A and one RE-3B), not one, according to this article: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20250/one-of-saudi-arabias-re-3a-spy-planes-now-looks-just-like-a-u-s-air-force-rc-135. What's your source for only a single aircraft? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
The "spotting" database I use has-
1901 RE-3A converted from from KE-3A 1817
1902 YE-8B converted from an E-6A Mercury, also called an RE-3B in some sources.
1903 no mention MilborneOne (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I agree this aircraft should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia, I just don't think it's this article. It is however a messy issue and I think discussion here is a good thing to clarify where the content belongs (i.e. messy in the sense that the development and designation(s) are non-standard). To answer GraemeLeggett's question, no the KE-3As are tankers based on the E-3/707 airframe rather than the KC-135 and never carried radomes or any AEW&C/AWACS equipment. As Buckshot06's original article states, there were 8 delivered alongside 5 AWACS. I have so far had difficulty finding sources for when the 3 were converted to RE-3A and RE3-Bs (and I searched for those terms, Peace Sentinel, Tactical Airborne Surveillance System, TASS) Mark83 (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Mark83 Circa 2004 according to Spyflight.co.uk, Boeing. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Mark83 We do not usually have separate articles for variants with different roles. This article is about the E-3 as an airframe, which has not been exclusively used as an AWACS aircraft. - ZLEA T\C 17:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is about "The Boeing E-3 Sentry .. an American airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft developed by Boeing. E-3s are commonly known as AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System). Derived from the Boeing 707 airliner..... The E-3 is distinguished by the distinctive rotating radar dome (rotodome) above the fuselage." What we do usually doesn't really apply here due to the bespoke nature of the aircraft and designation. The only commonality is the basic fuselage; the aircraft we are discussing have zero AEW&C equipment and most significantly does not have the radome. Hence the discussion and differing views. Mark83 (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps a mention in Boeing C-137 Stratoliner which lists the E-3,E-6 and E-8. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I feel the RE-3A and any others with the E-3 designation should at least be mentioned in the E-3 Sentry article for clarity. Details on these can be covered elsewhere if more fitting. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I concur. BilCat (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be for incusion which I'm happy with. Can we clarify (with sources) the position then?

  • So 2x RE-3As TASS (Tactical Airborne Surveillance System) modified from KE-3s? [1]
  • 1 x RE-3B Improved Tactical Airborne Surveillance System (ITASS) [2] modified from an E-6A ??
  • And on the KE-3s, they're already in the variant list. So am I correct in saying the original 8 became 6 with the 2 RE-3As? And do the KE-3s remain in service?

Thanks everyone for your time so far. Mark83 (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

USAF Block 40/45 - Red Hat Linux

Is it know if "Red Hat Linux" was the actual operating system used? Red Hat has produced several Linux-based operating systems, and Red Hat Linux was already discontinued by the time this upgrade program went into effect. While the long lead times of military upgrade programs might cause that obsolete system to be used, it's seems more like they would have used Red Hat Enterprise Linux instead. I also changed the text from "Linux Red Hat", which made no sense, to "Red Hat Linux", the actual name of the operating system (Or the name of the company, and the "Linux-based" operating system, respectively, if the OS used wasn't actually "Red Hat Linux"). Perhaps the correct phrasing should be "Red Hat Linux-based"? Strongbow (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_E-3_Sentry/Archive_1&oldid=1081430143"