Template talk:US EW aircraft

__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-ZLEA-20241225145000","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-E-7-20241225145000","replies":["c-ZLEA-20241225145000-E-7"],"text":"E-7","linkableTitle":"E-7"}-->

E-7

__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-ZLEA-20241225145000","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-E-7-20241225145000","replies":["c-ZLEA-20241225145000-E-7"]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-ZLEA-20241225145000","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-E-7-20241225145000","replies":["c-ZLEA-20241225145000-E-7"],"text":"E-7","linkableTitle":"E-7"}-->

The Bushranger What's your source for this edit? I don't see any news articles about the USAF receiving E-7s, or that the RAAF designation has been carried over to the Tri-Service system. - ZLEA T\C 14:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241225145000","author":"ZLEA","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-ZLEA-20241225145000-E-7","replies":["c-The_Bushranger-20241225200000-ZLEA-20241225145000"]}}-->

@ZLEA: A direct Air Force source: Air Force identifies Boeing E-7 as solution to replace the E-3 capability. And mentioning the designation as part of the contract: The service is using the rapid prototyping acquisition pathway to acquire the first two E-7As ahead of a planned production decision in fiscal 2025. AW&ST. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241225200000","author":"The Bushranger","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-The_Bushranger-20241225200000-ZLEA-20241225145000","replies":["c-ZLEA-20241225202100-The_Bushranger-20241225200000"]}}-->
I'm still not entirely convinced, but I have no good argument against inclusion at this time. I guess I'm just holding out hope that the US Air Force will assign a sequential designation for once. - ZLEA T\C 20:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241225202100","author":"ZLEA","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-ZLEA-20241225202100-The_Bushranger-20241225200000","replies":["c-The_Bushranger-20241225210600-ZLEA-20241225202100"]}}-->
Agreed, it should be E-12 - but even if they don't, it's still better than EA-37B and OA-1K! - The Bushranger One ping only 21:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241225210600","author":"The Bushranger","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-The_Bushranger-20241225210600-ZLEA-20241225202100","replies":["c-BilCat-20241226015200-The_Bushranger-20241225210600","c-BilCat-20241226015700-The_Bushranger-20241225210600"]}}-->
Absolutely better than those two, and E-130J also. And I concur with adding it here as part of the sequence, per the sources. I'm fairly certain they're not going to redesignate it at this point, but we can always change it if they do. The original E-7 wasn't used permanently, and there is precedent with the C-10/KC-10 and a few others. BilCat (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241226015200","author":"BilCat","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-BilCat-20241226015200-The_Bushranger-20241225210600","replies":[]}}-->
I am holding out hope that Pete Hegseth or the next SecAF is a bit OC(D) about designations not following the rules! Beyond that, I don't see anything changing in the future. BilCat (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241226015700","author":"BilCat","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-BilCat-20241226015700-The_Bushranger-20241225210600","replies":[]}}-->

Strategi Solo vs Squad di Free Fire: Cara Menang Mudah!