Talk:Boeing E-767

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military aviation task force

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Aviation Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated projects or task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
	Aircraft WikiProject

[edit] E-10

The E-10 AWACS version should be similar. If the E-10 goes through, seems like this article unless expanded should be merged. Still some ifs there.. -Fnlayson 03:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for a place to put this, but forgot about the E-10! We'd have to re-tool that page to make it fit there tho, as the E-10 is managed by NG. In addition, as you said, the E-10's future is very iffy. THe E-767 is basically the E-3 in the 767 airframe, while the E-10 will be more like the 737 AEW&C, only more capable and multi-role. THe Japanese E-767 page (which I somewhat based this on)is long and well-sourced, and is a good candidate for translation to English, which would expand this article alot. Anyway, this is a work in progress, and I should have put it on a sandbox, but got mixed up. Oh well, it's here now, so I guess we'll see what we can do. - BillCJ 03:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw, thanks for finding the specs! I went to take a shower, and when I got back, you had them done! Much appreciated! - BillCJ 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I copied most of that from the KC-767 article. Basic dimensions and specs are the same. -Fnlayson 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New translated material

Yasobara has done a GREAT job on translating the ja:E-767 (航空機) article from Japanese. He did this at my request, and I greatly appreciate his work on it. Although ordered in very small numbers (4), the E-767 has a unique story, and it deserved to be told here. Thanks again! - BillCJ 00:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks a lot! Question: did anything related happen between 1976 and 1991? I assume nothing happened. -Fnlayson 01:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Japan has E-2s, so evidently they got them in that period. -Fnlayson 03:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's implied in the text, but it probaly needs to be claried. I'll check some sources on Japan using the E-2, and see if I can get some more sourced info. - BillCJ 03:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

True, it is implied. On first read, I thought something with the E-2s fell through. Some rewording would be enough. -Fnlayson 03:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice job all around! AKRadecki 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

JASDF is continuing to use 13 E-2C based in Misawa Airbase. According to the ja:E-767 (航空機), in 1992, JASDF rationalized its request for E-767 as follows: (Typical military talk which is not clear to me)

1. It is very important to improve our intelligence gathering capability whether in peace time or in conflict to defend ourselves.

2. AWACS possesses longer range and endurance, wider radar coverage, which will greatly improve our sueveillance capability.

3. In light of the improvement of missile performance of our potential threat, it is desirable to have airborne early warning and control capability, which has superior survivability compared to land based warning and control facilities, which is vulnerable to missile attack.

--Yasobara 03:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AWACS or AEW&C

E-767 and E-3 have almost common system and in the article of E-3 they use the word AWACS. And the page of Boeing, Japan Air Self-Defense Force, the uses the word AWACS too. If you want to change to AEW&C, we have to change the word AWACS to AEW&C in the article of E-3 too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvcc (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And the Boeing page uses the term AEWC also, yet you conviniently ignore that. Basically,, the two terms mean the same thing, but the E-3 has always been called the AWACS, after the name of the original USAF program. Aircraft before the E-3 were called AEW, because all they did was early warning. The AWACS system added the increased capability of command and control, but it didn't remove the "early" part of Early Warning - that was still there. Later, the term AEW&C was used to emphasize the early part, and to distinguish it from the E-3 AWACS.

So, while the E-767 uses the E-3's systems, and hence uses the AWACS system, it IS still an AEW&C aircraft. Calling it an AEW&C that does nothing to change the fact that is uses the same systems as late-model E-3s. AEW&C is the more generic and comprehensive term. I see no reason to change the term in the E-3 page (or here) when discussing the specific AWCAS system, but it's silly to say the E-3 and E-767 are not AAEW&C aircraft, unless you can prove they only give current and late warnings! - BillCJ (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)