Hi /n/, got a question for you
In terms of fuel efficiency and general capacity, what would be the best airliner to replace the E-3 sentry?
Its airframe is based off the Boeing 707 which is a pretty old design and the E-3s themselves were introduced 40 years ago. So what features do you think would be important? I hear twin engines are more efficient but wouldn't 4 better for redundancy since this is a military aircraft?
>>892084
>In terms of fuel efficiency and general capacity, what would be the best airliner to replace the E-3 sentry?
777 or 787
>>892084
>>892085
>In terms of fuel efficiency
that would be some AIRBUS of course...
A330 is untouchable in fuel economy
>>892088
>shitposting this badly
>>892084
A 767 is the closest and most plausible replacement. But ideally, a 787 would replace it because it in turn replaced the 767.
>>892099
What a hilariously false statement.
>>892085
787 is too narrow
>Id say 777NG
>though JASDAF went 767 as we know
>>892162
>"787 is too narrow"
>currently based on the 707
>>892084
If you want 4-engine redundancy, there are a shitload of 747-400s and A340s being cast off by airlines all over the world
>>892162
The 707 is 12'4" wide. The 787 is 18'11" wide.
You are, in fact, retarded.
>>892084
>Fuel efficiency
This is something that the military doesn't care about. That being said, the 767 line is still open because Fedex is taking orders for them. I work at an airline so I have no clue about the E-3's typical mission profiles, but either the 767 or A330 in this generation should be able to exceed it in range and capacity easily.
That being said, we've seen how corrupt the US government is when it came to the tanker deal, so I really doubt that they'd pick Airbus.
>>892222
First off, the KC-46 is a far bigger reason the 767 is staying open than the FedEx orders are.
Also, there's no fucking way they'd ever allow a foreign company to design and manufacture a major military airframe. The A330-MRTT may have somewhat better range and fuel capacity than the KC-46, but it doesn't fucking matter because the US operates a 2-tier strategic tanker network: KC-135s on the lower end (to be replaced by the KC-46), and KC-10s on the higher end. The latter has significantly more range and fuel capacity than the A330-MRTT and the most likely longer term replacement for it is a KC-777.
>>892222
OP here, I thought fuel efficiency would be one of the most important things, considering they'd want it to fly for as long as possible to do its job
>most fuel efficient plane searched
>everyone is posting boeings
>>892276
Give it up, putz.
>>892276
Shut the fuck up you shitposting cockstain.
The Air Force wouldn't really care all that much efficiency per se; range is more important for the E-3's mission profile but in-flight refueling makes that something of a non-starter.
Realistically, the 767, 777, and 787 would all fit the bill. They probably wouldn't go with the 777 because it's more plane than they need, so it would probably come down to the 767 and 787. And making the decision there would depend on how soon they want it.
btw.. where is the turboprob sucker?
Hey Boeing Faggots
AIRBUS is holding the record for ULTRALONGDISTANCE with the A340-200
Its holding it since 1994
>>892316
I thought that was getting replaced by the XWB
>>892316
Too bad they only sold a few dozen of them, kek
>>892084
Does the airframe even need replacing?
Just replace the engines with modern high bypass turbofans, leave everything else as is.
>>892836
yep. just replace them with airbus engines
>>892836
You don't know how military projects work. They will design a whole new thing for billions of dollars and then the project will be delayed and cost even more because someone will want to add arrow-slits to the design, so you can shoot at things.
Jokes aside, won't a modern airframe not be more efficient because of better materials and stuff?
>>894031
Airbus doesn't makes engines you fucking mongoloid.
>>894031
>Shitposting this badly
>>894083
>>894210
boeing isnt either...
