Why is USAF getting rid of its iconic AWACS planes?

[@Binkov]

Play World of tanks here: tanks.ly/499r2Mh Thank you World of Tanks for sponsoring this video. During registration use the code COMBAT to get for free: 250K credits, Cromwell B (Tier 6) British Premium Medium Tank, and 7 days of Premium access

[@trumanhw]

Not only a very good episode, but, you were candid re: confidence the A-50 was shot down. After all, some people allegedly ON the A-50 "and died" have been discussing their rumored deaths. And unlike the IL-22 (tho it landed AFTER "it was downed," at least had shrapnel in its tail) there is NO evidence except our oh so credible media & even more reliable Ukrainska Pravda; the former having brought us such gems as: • A pipe in GA made 4 OTHER states stop counting ballots • Withheld vax creation 'til AFTER 2020 election • 15 days to slow the spread • Natural immunity doesn't work • Masks don't work. • Masks are mandatory (even OUTSIDE). • Two masks are better. • IVMCTN ODs have overloaded ERs • Trust the science • When science literally operates on skepticism • Horse dewormer • Hands up Don't Shoot • Peacefully & patriotically incited a riot • Sicknik was hit with a fire extinguisher • Mostly peaceful protest • 51 intelligence officers said so. • Epstein committed suicide • Whitmer kidnapping plot • Russian bounties in Afghanistan • Floyd didn't OD • Pooty-Poot's Price-Hike • Very fine people. • Believe all women • Kav GANG RAPED Ford (she just doesn't know when or where) • Summer of love • Unarmed insurrection • MAGA racist threatens native-american vet. • Iraq = WMDs • Killing incubator-babies • Polar caps melted in 2013 • Safest and securestest election ever • Racism made Kyle shoot his white attackers • Inflating currency = Inflation Reduction • ID is the old racist, matching signatures = new racism. • Noticing the Virus' Origin = Racism • Claiming they eat bats & endangered pangolins ≠ Not racist? _Russia's so crazy, they:_ • ...shelled their own POW facility (when nazis began talking). • ...blew up NS pipeline they could shut off ... from a SAILBOAT!! • ...shelled the nuclear facility [they] control! Zaporizhzhya but hey ... maybe they're right this time?? 🤣🤣

[@riskinhos]

The Saab EriEye ER outperforms the radar featured in the E-7. Its advanced multi-channel AESA with GaN technology surpasses the capabilities of the Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) on the E-7, particularly in detecting stealth aircraft. Notably, the EriEye ER excels at discerning slow-flying UAVs, a task deemed nearly impossible for the E-7. With GaN's 4 to 7 times higher efficiency and 10-50 times greater output power, along with a GaN power amplifier that is 1/3 the size of the GaAs power amplifier, the EriEye ER boasts superior heat dissipation capabilities. This technological advancement results in a remarkable 70% increase in detection range compared to the older EriEye generation. To put it into perspective, if the previous range was 190 miles for detecting a jet ski, the EriEye ER can now detect it from an impressive 323 miles. Additionally, the GlobalEye, equipped with the Saab EriEye ER, flaunts an extended mission endurance of 11 hours, outshining the E-7's 8-hour capability. It can also fly higher and faster. Regrettably, the E-7 lags behind in current technology, with its only advantage being a lower radar cost. However, this cost-effectiveness can be deceptive, as the overall aircraft costs reveal a different reality - the E-7 is priced at 630 million, compared to the GlobalEye's 500 million. Furthermore, operating the E-7 proves to be more expensive. Consider the scenario where the United States opts to purchase superior and more cost-effective foreign AWACS. Such a decision would spark a national scandal. It's crucial to recognize that military costs of this nature can be alleviated through domestic production. Yet, the widespread preference for the GlobalEye over the E-7 by numerous countries underscores the compelling reasons behind this choice.

[@steveshoemaker6347]

🇺🇸 ❣ 👍👍

[@grxwpr20725]

Why is USAF getting rid of its iconic AWACS planes? NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS as a matter of fact what they might have got is way more better than you VATNYK has like 100times or next to none eh

[@grxwpr20725]

Why is USAF getting rid of its iconic AWACS planes? none of your business vatnyk as a matter of fact they have got like 10 better than vatnyk might have got eh

[@Kurzula5150]

A friend of mine used to serve on the AWACS. At an airshow a girl asked him what the dish was for. He said that the plane takes it up to altitude then releases it to fly top secret missions. Afterwards they have to rendezvous and dock with it and bring it home.

[@grahamdrew5512]

🤣LOL ya sure...hilarious that you she bought that.

[@williamlloyd3769]

He must of been a fan of Star Trek. Too funny

[@revolutionhamburger]

That's not true?

[@TileBitan]

@@revolutionhamburger......

[@tonykennedy8483]

My Dad used to run the Royal Engineer unit that did Airfield damage repair at RAF Waddington, where the RAF AWACS used to be based He used to have a picture in his office titled "The secret of the AWACS" It was a drawing of a parked AWACS with the top of the radar dome folded up showing a bunch of men lying on their belly's with super strength binoculars looking out

[@Inkling777]

For those who're wondering the E-7 is based on the B-737NG frame not that of the ill-fated B-737MAX. Also L-Band radars operate between 1 and 2 GHz, which is toward the high-end of UHF. It's harder to make aircraft stealthy at UHF.

[@PrograError]

but the NG line is gone ain't it?

[@daszieher]

The E-3 and E-7 share basically the same fuselage. The family, 707, 720, 727 and all the 737 variants from the 100 right up to the MAX all share the same fuselage construction. The wing boxes (incl. landing gear) as well as the actual wings do differ, however. There are re-engine programs that updated the KC-135s to the much more efficient CFM56, so there would have been an airframe upgrade possibility for E-3. Its "downfall" is the radar system proper. AESA is just so much better than a radome rotating at fixed rate.

[@stupidburp]

The military 737s often use the shorter NG fuselage mated with the slightly larger wings of the longer 737 NG. This and some other details make them different from the commercial 737s but still within the same type rating.

[@mylesdobinson1534]

E7 Wedgetail developed by Australia 🇦🇺 . Being bought by GB, Turkey, South Korea, NATO and now USA. it was first used over IRAQ to support the strikes on ISIS. And has seriously impressed other militaries there and on Red flag exercises.

[@Hurricayne92]

@@mylesdobinson1534 Something about the US buying an Australian made plane this time instead of the other way around feels pretty good as an Aussie.

[@Chuck_Hooks]

The most important point was that more than a thousand (and growing) F-35s will be networked with E-7s, E-2Ds to give Allied commanders near complete situational awareness in real time Well done

[@terrywilson4166]

99% of the public doesn't realize how game changing the F-35 block 4 is.

[@pogo1140]

So the cost per hour skyrockets?

[@dianapennepacker6854]

People are forgetting the B 21 is supposed to also be a sensor sweep monster. Although the USAF isn't too keen on saying exactly the capabilities. All I know is it will also have load outs. It will be used for recon. Something tells me it will be able to be eyes in the sky like an F 35. Possibly even better due to the size being able to carry bigger equipment. Something also tells me it can do A2A combat. Not dogfight. Just carry either a lot or bigger missiles and target/fire on its own.

[@mufasachainbreaker7757]

​@@pogo1140 The block 4 upgrades and tech refresh 3 address the cost per hour issue you are describing. They will cost around as much as the f15 per hour to fly after the next generation upgrades. They will also be much cheaper to build than their original form. It is in part why they are shifting away from the f15ex procurement, because now the f35 seems like it will be cost effective enough to build the f35 out as the stop gap before NGAD comes out in the 2030s

[@pogo1140]

@@mufasachainbreaker7757 The cost of 1 E-7 + 1 F-35 cost more per flight hour than 1 E-3. The F-35 actually costs almost as much as the E-7 does per flight hour

[@TDCIYB77]

I heard Russia is also retiring its AWACS.. One at a time..

[@shinchan-F-urmom]

"one at a time" 😂🤣💀

[@lape2002]

Who still believes that A-50 shootdown story anymore??

[@AC_702]

I see what you did there 😂

[@gneeley5393]

​. Lmao

[@Ps5GamerUk]

They are converted to submarine

[@fidel-3470]

I worked on the KC-135R, similar airframe. It's crazy that they were still flying at the time, as the tail number I was assigned to was got it's tail number in 1957, no joke my Grandfather worked on the same aircraft I did. Part of the E3's problem is that it never got the modern F108 engines that the KC-135R's got, as the old engines were very maintenance heavy. Within the KC-135 fleet the aircraft operating the older engines had significant maintenance problems. The Air Force simply looked at the old engines on the E3 and figured they were good enough for the job and didn't want to upgrade all 60 of them, but simply put: they weren't good enough - those engines were awful. Another consideration with the E3 is that most of it's components could be scrapped from the hundreds of other 707 airframes the USAF had in the bone yard, so it was probably a shortsighted decision. Either way, I wouldn't be surprised if the E3 actually continues flying for another 2 decades as reserve. Engine pains put aside, the 707 airframe is incredibly durable, much easier to work on than modern aircraft, as it was clearly built in the 50's to last for 50+ years.

[@MattWeberWA]

Between the Wedgetail, the Peregrine, the Growler and the F-35, RAAF is becoming an ELINT/EW powerhouse. Not to mention whatever clever tricks get put into the MQ-28s various nose cones.

[@AndrewinAus]

It will be interesting to see if in time the Wedgetail has the capability to control Ghost Bat to it, that would be an interesting capability.

[@NPC-fl3gq]

Don't forget the P-8's.

[@nedkelly9688]

@@AndrewinAus Every platform can control it.. but it's AI is so far advanced no human needs to control it and it does a preprogrammed mission all on it's own. RAAF Commander head of the programme is in a video discussing it. Said it will only have a human as a over watch to make sure it runs fine. It has no joysticks to fly it no keypad to type in. all commands are touch screen Ghost Bat is designed to plug and play with every Australian platform

[@anydaynow01]

@@nedkelly9688 Yep exactly this! They are using top pilots to train AI pilots right now, even with the G restrictions a top pilot can shoot down eight or so AI before they are shot down. In the real world it's pilots not air frames that hinder air forces in protracted conflicts. So while meat sack pilots get worst over the course of a war AI's can not only just be uploaded to a new drone, but they can be much more maneuverable and they only get better with time as they learn and are re uploaded to spread the lessons learned to all the AIs in the air arm. Best of all, the AI drone assets in the area can be controlled by a central air commander on the ground coordinating information from ground based forward air controllers and satellite constellation cameras, no reason for them to be vulnerable in a slow moving AWACS which sticks out like a sore thumb in satellite imagery.

[@nedkelly9688]

@@anydaynow01 And where did you hear human pilots are shooting down the AI so easily.. it is not what i have heard.. This Ghost bat or some other programme.

[@Lightningalleyproductions]

The airforce for awhile has been neglecting their AWACS planes. While i was stationed at Nellis AFB in 2009, one had a nasty emergency landing and was taken off to the side. Years after i was discharged in 2010, that plane was still there despite the Air Force having a huge budget.

[@jasonbowles4591]

They sent the nose landing gear through the cockpit. There is no fixing that one.

[@thomasfx3190]

Sometimes things don't make sense because there is a much bigger picture.

[@terrywilson4166]

@@jasonbowles4591 Did the pilots survive?

[@MustangsCanTurnToo]

@@terrywilson4166everyone survived, minor injuries. It wasn’t an emergency landing, just an incredibly bad one.

[@nikolaideianov5092]

​@@jasonbowles4591 how does that even happen

[@Pwj579]

Glad you mentioned the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. The Grumman E-2A first entered service with the US Navy in 1964, to replace the Grumman E-1 Tracer. The E-2C Hawkeye, which was the definitive production version was in service for more than 4 decades from 1974 until Present. Note: The USAF E-3 was developed in the 1970s to replace the EC-121 Warning Star (Super Constellation). The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye entered service in 2013, and 75 aircraft are planned to replace the existing E-2 fleet by 2025. One feature that was added on to the E-2D, like the E-7 was inflight refueling which increased mission time endurance from 4hrs to 7hrs. PS the E-2C had a cousin with the US Navy and US Customs and Border Control/DHS with the Lockheed P-3 AEW. It utilized similar radar equipment, but had more space for more work stations and greater endurance. Funny that the P-3 and E-3 are being replaced by variants of the 737.

[@riskinhos]

The Saab EriEye ER outperforms the radar featured in the E-7. Its advanced multi-channel AESA with GaN technology surpasses the capabilities of the Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) on the E-7, particularly in detecting stealth aircraft. Notably, the EriEye ER excels at discerning slow-flying UAVs, a task deemed nearly impossible for the E-7. With GaN's 4 to 7 times higher efficiency and 10-50 times greater output power, along with a GaN power amplifier that is 1/3 the size of the GaAs power amplifier, the EriEye ER boasts superior heat dissipation capabilities. This technological advancement results in a remarkable 70% increase in detection range compared to the older EriEye generation. To put it into perspective, if the previous range was 190 miles for detecting a jet ski, the EriEye ER can now detect it from an impressive 323 miles. Additionally, the GlobalEye, equipped with the Saab EriEye ER, flaunts an extended mission endurance of 11 hours, outshining the E-7's 8-hour capability. It can also fly higher and faster. Regrettably, the E-7 lags behind in current technology, with its only advantage being a lower radar cost. However, this cost-effectiveness can be deceptive, as the overall aircraft costs reveal a different reality - the E-7 is priced at 630 million, compared to the GlobalEye's 500 million. Furthermore, operating the E-7 proves to be more expensive. Consider the scenario where the United States opts to purchase superior and more cost-effective foreign AWACS. Such a decision would spark a national scandal. It's crucial to recognize that military costs of this nature can be alleviated through domestic production. Yet, the widespread preference for the GlobalEye over the E-7 by numerous countries underscores the compelling reasons behind this choice.

[@Pwj579]

@@riskinhos Sorry, but the Erie Eye ER in the form of the Saab GlobalEye AEW is still a pipe dream with only 1 aircraft which first flew in November 2023. 5 are on order for initial user, the UAE. Sweden (home country for Saab) has only committed to purchase 2 aircraft, possibly a maximum of 4 aircraft. 14 E-7A have been operational for over a decade with RAAF, RoKAF and Turkish Air Force. A further 26 are on order for USAF , 5 for RAF and 6 for NATO. It's possible other NATO and Asian-Pacific Rim allies will purchase E-7s and/or P-8As. I would respectfully DISAGREE that this statement of yours HAS any bearing " Yet, the widespread preference for the GlobalEye over the E-7 by numerous countries underscores the compelling reasons behind this choice." Given that there's 1 GlobalEye in Service vs 14 E-7As and there's only orders for possibly 9 GlobalEyes vs nearly 4 times as many E-7As. The GlobalEye AEW aircraft (Bombardier 6500 with ErieEye ER) will be niche alternative to the mainstream Boeing product, not unlike the Kawasaki P-1 vs the Boeing P-8 Poseidion maritime patrol aircraft.

[@riskinhos]

@@Pwj579 we found the ameritard.

[@imjashingyou3461]

​@@riskinhos Yeah the E-7 is far superior that the GlobalEye. 1 having a better radar isnt as relevant in the E-7 can generate far more power and cooling for its radar negating any GaN advantage there. Also the radar being a phased array can be upgraded over time, making that advantage even less relevant. The E-7 can also aerial refuel far easier, its range without is comparable, it has a far bigger crew capacity enabling longer missions better, while featuring better crew amenities which enable better crew performance. The massive increase in internal volume and load capacity means that the E-7 can fit far more server racks and cool them to process intelligence, sigint, and radar data. It can also display it in more usuable forms with that processing data. The E-7 is also going to be far more maintainable over the long run with economies of scale related to training pipelines, and parts availibility. The E-7 airframe is also far more upgradeable via space, and general support for the airframe.

[@josephahner3031]

Makes sense to have the E-7 and P-8 built on the same airframe. Simplifies logistics for both aircraft.

[@casbot71]

FYI The *Wedgetail* Eagle is the largest Bird of Prey in Australia. And no, it's not venomous. It can however see into the ultraviolet spectrum, and it soars high riding thermals while watching the ground below.

[@qbi4614]

Thanks

[@Bellthorian]

Is it capable of preying on Drop Bears?

[@arjovenzia]

@@Bellthorian No, they are in alliance with them. thanks to the wedgetail, the drop bear can sort of parachute in, except its more like a falcon punch. so you don't need to be under a tree to get hit. a fairly specialised subspecies, most are in forests and scrub, but out in the deserts where there arn't many trees it opens up more prey options for the both of them. as big as a wedgetail is, its still only limited to wallabies and young sheep. whereas the drop bear can take out a big roo, maybe even a camel or cow.

[@Bellthorian]

@@arjovenzia Wow so they have a symbiotic relationship. It probably works great for nabbing tourists out on bird watching trips.

[@NPC-fl3gq]

German and Swedish backpackers are disappearing at alarming rates but the tourism commission is pressuring the media to cover it up. Plz take care guys!!

[@solandri69]

Phased array radars work by rapidly performing math on the signal received by each radio element in the array. Think of a radar return signal reflected from a target as a wavefront striking the array at an angle. You just add the appropriate delay to different elements so it's like the wavefront is hitting each element at the same time. Add up the signal for all the elements (with their delays), and presto - you have a cumulative signal as if the wavefront had hit your flat radar head-on. The rotating dish (phased array in the vertical plane, but physically rotated in the horizontal) was a concession to the limited processing power available back when the older AWACS planes were built. Modern processors are able to rapidly perform the math needed to sweep in both the vertical and horizontal planes at much higher refresh rates. So a non-rotating, completely electronically steered array is now sufficient.

[@mamarussellthepie3995]

Sufficient is cool and all, but constant 100%, 360-degree capability would be nice 😅

[@AllanBrogdon]

Working on the C-9 at Tinker we were warned not to get close to the red line, which was between us and the AWACS. Two guys did and I watched people rappelling from the hangar. Each guy wound up with one rifle to his head on the ramp with another guy who had his foot on his back. Real or exercise they were rough and meat business.

[@specialnewb9821]

Is this one of those times where if they actually go over the red line instead of near, then they are just killed?

[@Comm0ut]

Were they civilian workers or exceptionally wetoddid Airmen? Normally the red line IS the red line and there is no "too close" so something or more than one was off if that went as described. SecFor can respond quicker from their usual ground locations so where were those troops?

[@idcanthony9286]

Who hasn't crossed red at least once in their career?

[@stab74]

I do enjoy me some meat business. 😋

[@jimbo92107]

Back in the 1980's I got to ride in an AWACS plane on a fairly short mission - maybe five hours. Very impressive - the radar covered an entire 5-state area. At one point an operator pointed at a dot moving visibly faster than the rest from west to east. It was some kind of jet (SR-71?), going about 2.5 mach. California to New York in an hour and a half...

[@jameswalker7899]

One thinks this was an excellent, detailed overview of the AWACS. Warmest compliments. Thank you, sir. :)

[@jeffkruth2226]

Having worked on the AWAC radar parts at Westinghouse Defense in the late 70's-early '80's, I found your presentation pretty accurate and informative. One reason to move to more modern radar system implementation is the fact that the E3 system used a very high voltage, vacuum tube based S band transmitter, hard to maintain now, while the modern L band AESA system will no doubt use GaN solid state trays, allowing graceful degradation and easy upgrade as the transistors inevitably become better, cheaper and more powerful. Look into cockpit blanking of the radar beam. The comment that the airframe is old is misleading: B-52's are older, and still flying...

[@paulmicelli5819]

Worked at Westinghouse BWI, West Bldg., 1973-93

[@jeffkruth2226]

Cool! I was at ATL where we built AWACSlow noise VCOs ("6 Pack") & RAC's and I was in charge of the phase Noise test set ( rebuilt it). Also worked in the East Bldg. '78-'86 Learned so much there, I should of paid them instead of other way around. Set me up for a long Career in MW electronics. @@paulmicelli5819

[@BrandonLeeBrown]

My father was the lead engineer designing the AWACS RADAR system. He was officially a US Navy employee, but he designed RADAR systems for the US military and for NASA, beginning in 1959. He was a Navy aviator RADAR operator in the Korean War, flying in WWII PB4Y-2 planes and then used his GI Bill to go to college. His squadron delivered spy planes for the CIA, from California to Taiwan, shortly after Stalin died. He also designed one of the two RADAR systems on Skylab, which may have been more military oriented than the other one. He designed several RADAR systems to measure ocean wave heights for Navy. I still have one of his flight uniforms with an AWACS patch on it. In the late 1970's, I was wearing my father's new Navy flight jacket on the street. A Marine pilot asked me where I got it snd told me it was the latest design and that they couldn't get them yet.

[@bret9741]

We keep them flying. It’s amazing that we can keep a plane flying safely almost indefinitely. It’s expensive but so is building a new platform ie Boeing tanker and max programs.

[@albertmax9662]

The E-7 was first made and used in Australia not the US, the Americans later realised it was good. It had a reputation from guys in the RAAF that it could detect F-22 and B-2.

[@jgw9990]

Detect of achieve target lock. Knowing its out there is NOT the same as missile lock, which is the point of stealth aircraft. You can know they're in the area but it's useless if you cannot hit them

[@Rob_F8F]

​@@jgw9990Not a weapons grade track but probably proximate enough to send fighters to investigate. The Wedgetail is never going to be totting around AMRAAMs. 😄

[@jgw9990]

@@Rob_F8F Yeah that's fine. Just sick of people saying- oh this can detect stealth fighters, as if that means they're defeated. Hear a lot of that, especially from countries that don't have stealth fighters lol

[@Triple_J.1]

It means stealth does not give the advantage of surprise any longer.

[@Jaxymann]

I wouldn't at all be surprised if Japan buys the E-7 in the near future: The E-767 operated by the JASDF is the same rotating radar system but on a Boeing 767 instead of a 707 with the same issues around systems capability & dated electronics having been procured almost 20 years ago, the Wedgetail is a perfect replacement for the 2020s.

[@Teampegleg]

I doubt that the JASDF is considered replacing their E-767s in the near future. They are currently undergoing an upgrade program on their E-767s. Unless they are planning to expand their fleet, I give it a decade before they consider replacing them.

[@mikeharvey9184]

I live in the Seattle area... every time you drive by Boeing Field/King County Airport on Interstate 5, there always seems to be at least one Wedgetail parked out front.

[@12733s]

@@wst8340 ?

[@sextond]

@@wst8340 Thank you comrade

[@kevingil1817]

​@@sextond😂😂😂

[@calvinmasters6159]

@@sextond Boeing is located between Seattle and Tacoma. Does that help, tovarich?

[@ICB-vl3ym]

Australia and Turkey have the E-7 Wedgetail, (designed for Australia, with Australia paying the R&D cost, cost over-runs and delays). Best AWACS in the world. Named after the Australian Wedgetail eagle. USAF now to order to replace E3Cs. For the last 5 years Australian Wedgetails have supported US/ Allied air operations in the Middle East.

[@Harldin]

Boeing actually accepted responsibility for the cost over-runs and paid out $770m in charges.

[@dday881]

The 707, even upgraded, is just too damn old.

[@danpatterson8009]

It first flew the same year I was born. That's not so... um... what?

[@leongao5120]

⁠​⁠@@danpatterson8009i don't know what 70 year old writes like that

[@riskinhos]

1958. it's hilarious

[@chheinrich8486]

Tell that to the tanker fleet😂 they aren’t abandoning the kc135 that’s based on the 707😂

[@riskinhos]

@@chheinrich8486 perhaps they are too afraid to fly the new generation boeings that fall from the sky or lose doors along the flight.

[@samuelweir5985]

Kind of sad to see the old, large 4-engined AWACS planes go. They look so impressively powerful and majestic when they take off or are in the air.

[@ronmaximilian6953]

Originally, we were planning to replace the E-3 Sentry and E-8 JSTARS with the Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A . The E-10 was supposed to be built on the Boeing 767. The AWACS version would have two radar sets, one being a modified version of the L band radar on the wedgetail, The other being an S band radar to detect cruise missiles. Sadly, this program was canceled in 2007 or 2008. It's my understanding of the US Navy is also purchasing a handful of Gulfstream CAEW, which is an AEW platform carrying the Elta EL/W-2085 with conformal L band radars on the side of the fuselage and s band radars in the nose and tail. It would be nice to have these from more than just missile tests. We could certainly use a few of these in the Philippines and Japan

[@petefoti1041]

Flew a few missions with T-5s in Saudi. Missions were long. We sat with the Mission Crew Commander (MCC) who was usually a 0-6..

[@raptor1672]

As an Aussie I'd just like to say, you're welcome everyone!

[@conductingintomfoolery9163]

>Boeing

[@conductingintomfoolery9163]

>Boeing

[@stevetaylor9926]

Too right mate, Cheers !

[@archlefirth2279]

Thank you 🙏 and thank you Boeing for making sure the radar wasn’t down under

[@paulpowell4871]

we thank all 27 of you

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

An important point (I’m at work and can’t watch the full video till I get home) is that with Project Overmatch, all US Systems whether land air or sea are going to be networked together. So AWACS are going to have a little bit less of an important role because everything that can detect an enemy will automatically share it with every nearby system. Don’t know if the question being asked is why are the getting rid of the AWACS role or if you are just referring to the actual Spinny disc at the top.

[@silaskuemmerle2505]

Just the spinning radome is being retired in favor of an AESA radar

[@nedkelly9688]

Lol even Australia JORN most advanced radar in the world is being added to USA, Australia and Japan combat systems to detect enemies and give early warning and said with new upgrades will detect hypersonics to give more warning of them and stealth of USA was never invisible to this since day one. Can see further then public know of even detecting missiles in Iraq war and can see China launch missiles in China..

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@silaskuemmerle2505 Oh, well that is easy. Spinny disc=Not needed. AESA Radar is 10x better and does the Job without having to spin. Thanks for letting me know!

[@jamesholden5664]

Did you actually watch the video the answer is very clear. New AWACS plane more advanced radar. That's what it says.

[@billyponsonby]

Sounds like the most sensible DoD procurement decision ever.

[@jackofall2305]

I know, its really hard to believe

[@capt.squiggly6354]

Might be a hot take, but I think the Skywardens were a fairly good investment too.

[@geoffsmith82]

@@jackofall2305 Probably to make up for a stupid decision somewhere else!

[@CheapCheerful]

I say the US should take on the WedgeTail name. It's so-called after the Australian WedgeTail Eagle. A ferocious large bird, similar size and wingspan to the US Bald Eagle. It's badass.

[@Pyroteq]

The Wedge-tail Eagle is much larger than the Bald Eagle. The Wedgies will even team up to take down large prey like Kangaroos.

[@BobarissGish]

The south Korean wedgetail is called the peace eagle.

[@jon2922]

I know it was mentioned in passing at the end but the datalink capability of modern aircraft is going to be huge for the AWACS role, instead of one set of eyes and 100 fighters, you'll have 101 sets of eyes and 100 fighters. This is going to make survivability in a peer conflict far better, where previously a destroyed or pushed out of range AWACS would leave the other aircraft vulnerable, now they can act as their own distributed AWACS. There'll always be a role for a dedicated aircraft, long loiter times, better range and more versatility, but now the load can be more distributed.

[@bixbysnyder-00]

Russian AWACS planes have the added benefit of anti-missile defense, with a 100% kill rate. Unfortunately, this works both ways for the missile as well as the plane.

[@Markfr0mCanada]

Up there with inventions like the T-72 anti Javelin interceptor.

[@rickbase833]

In all fairness here.....all AWACS/AEWC aircraft are considered high value targets for any military......but they have no defensive abilities and are sitting ducks in an ambush. The Chinese AF built the J-20 specifically to counter AWACS and flying tankers. The Russians have upgraded AAMs to target these high value targets as well. Same with USAF. The key to protecting these high value assets is the deployment strategies and control of airspace.

[@Re.Configured]

I think another good thing is to consolidate as many future medium-big-ish aircraft into a single airframe as possible. That being the variants of the 737NG. US has the C-40, P-8, and now the E-7. I wonder if a tanker variant would be a good idea. Perhaps even variants to replace the RC-135 series as well.

[@joestendel1111]

A tanker variant of the 737 would be a great idea. Tho it’s possible they don’t want to cause civilian versions of the plane to be targeted. These awacs versions have radar that make them easily identified as military craft

[@Re.Configured]

@@joestendel1111 I was watching a video topic on some other military commentary channel (it might have been Ward Carroll or SubBrief) discussing how the Chinese have developed the technology and doctrine to disguise their aircraft or hypersonic missiles (can't remember which) as civilian airliners. So, I'd say all bets are off on that and in the event of some sort of conventional war it would be best for all civilian aircraft to stay far away.

[@Inkling777]

It's look like a subsonic jetliner. You can't make a hypersonic missile doing Mach 5 look like anything else.@@Re.Configured

[@arkboy3]

Or even a Rapid Dragon/ arsenal version.

[@Re.Configured]

@@Inkling777 for sure. That was also brought up that an airliner traveling at mach 5 would be a giveaway, but for that split second of hesitation it may cause, combined with the fog of war, might be enough to allow the missile to get through

[@m4rvinmartian]

*5:02** Remember cars in the 90s with all those antenna on them?*

[@Archer7871]

A modern Awacs provides more than just a radar it provides Datalinks, IFF, radio relay, and satellite communications to all nearby aircraft, ships, and ground Control agencies. In some cases they theoretically can even be used to guide surface to air or air to air missiles, they enable 5th gen fighters with datalink capabilities to minimize their radar usage and still receive an air picture allowing them to Avoid detection for longer maximizing their ability to close the distance without being detected, even something as old as a E-3 can still bring value when it’s in the air but that’s the problem the mission capable rates and maintenance issues are the main problem if you were to try to fly them at a wartime tempo.

[@-DM]

That weight savings is very impressive!

[@HRHolm-bi6zu]

It would have been interesting to serve aboard an E-3 AWACS as a battle management specialist, but these aircraft can be *very* high priority targets for enemy AA defenses, depending on the capabilities. In any high-intensity/capability combat environment, crew life expectancy would probably be 30 min max, unless some very high-powered friendly fighter and EW/radar jamming protections are provided/enabled.

[@MRxMADHATTER]

The E-8C JointSTARS is also on the way out. The KC-135 is not a 707 airframe. It's a 717 airframe that looks similar, but it's smaller with a reinforced tail section.

[@stupidburp]

I would like to see them develop a new semi stealthy blended wing body aircraft for use as command and control aircraft and other specialized missions. Even a modest improvement in visibility and fuel efficiency could help significantly.

[@Nordy941]

The Bombardier AWACS recently acquired by the UAE are very interesting.

[@danpatterson8009]

I always felt the US was in debt to Australia for getting the Wedgetail program going. Technical advances, an existing platform, and interoperability with Australia make it a slam dunk for the US in the Pacific.

[@chrisrabbitt]

Us Aussies are pretty grateful to our Mates in the US without whom the Wedgetail wouldn't exist. It was a joint project between US defence industry and Aussie government and Airforce. The version of Wedgetail binkov is going on about in his video is the export model, not the Aussie version which is what you guys are getting along with the UK and Nato. Having the US on board means instead of Australia having to do all the upgrades ourselves, now we can have 2 upgrade programs going at the same time, one in Australia and the other in the US.

[@chrisnamaste3572]

​@chrisrabbitt Thanks for the acknowledgment of the USA helping out allies.

[@chrisrabbitt]

@@chrisnamaste3572 as I said mate it wouldn't exist without the help from the US and I can go one further, if it wasn't for the USA beating Japan in the Coral Sea in WW2 Australia wouldn't exist as we know it. It seems to be popular these days to bash America but the reality is without the sacrifices America has made, the free world as we know it wouldn't exist, and that is something I for one do not take for granted.

[@raptor1672]

@@chrisrabbitt That's some revisionist WW2 data you have there. There's no way Japan would have impacted Australia in even a slight measure if the US lost in the Coral Sea. Japan was running out of material and men even before that. They weren't going to send landing ships below the Great Barrier Reef, so stop making up shit.......

[@zaco-km3su]

Satellites will not replace AWACS planes completely. We still use reconnaissance planes and drones because satellite footage isn't good enough. having something off the shelf that's good is better than not having anything.

[@Vermiliontea]

Once again: The KC-135 is *NOT* a 707. (5:49) It only looks like it. The military designation for the Boeing 707 is C-137, so if it were, it would be "KC-137" not "KC-135". The C-135 is smaller and has both a different fuselage section and a different wing than the 707. They both emerged from the "dash 80" (Boeing 367-80) project, so shared much. The E-3, otoh, is based on the 707.

[@jedispartancoolman]

Hey we are building the discless planes where i work!

[@MRptwrench]

As a former employee of the US Dept of N, I appreciate the respect in this video to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. Those aviators are unique. I've witnessed seafoam crashing over the deck and those brave souls launching a prop driven plane off a pitching deck. Although catching a cable seemed much easier due to their lower stall. But what do I know, I was just lower enlisted USMC.

[@ryand2413]

NATO also said it would replace its E3 fleet with E7s in a press release late last year. Seems they'll be on board before 2028, which is awesome cause the E3 is tired.

[@jg3000]

Hopefully the E 3 goes to a museum. The 707 needs to be preserved.

[@Rob_F8F]

An E-3 is sure to end up in Dayton at the Museum of the USAF. Likely other museums as well.

[@jg3000]

@@Rob_F8F Another reason it's good to have a preserved 707. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHvPhqmOaK2IgbMsi=-oqS4FiwVf8KIOPT AWACS is pretty legendary as well. Another legendary passenger jet is the DC 8. It's the first passenger jet to go supersonic. Grant it was downhill.

[@benjones4365]

I am surprised that the technology is not there yet, to have the 10 crew members on the ground and the information beamed down to them. Those 10 crew members are very skilled people and you do not want to lose too many of them.

[@PrograError]

latency... if you can solve the latency issue, it might be done...

[@stupidburp]

Electronic warfare and anti satellite weapons could degrade the ability to operate remotely

[@Xorgye]

The amount of data that radars produce is the main issue. These 10 crew members are there to sift through that data and dumb it down to an amount that can be beamed up (to satellite) or down (to other near assets).

[@benjones4365]

@@Xorgye Thank you for the explanation.

[@thorwaldjohanson2526]

Also, a high flying awacs can have direct li K communication with naval assets and f35 in a huge area. When satellites are taken out or jammed, this becomes important.

[@khanalprabhat]

AESA antenna can't scan beyond +-60 degree is not completely correct. Most application don't need to scan beyond +-60 degree therefore most antenna engineer don't design it for wider field of view. However, Awacs is one of those rare applications where scanning beyond +-60 degree is required. In my PhD, I studied antenna array which can be integrated within aircraft fuselage that can scan upto +-80 degree for long range surveillance radar application (Awacs application). The antenna scanning performance and it's mechanical strength (since the antenna is integrated within the fuselage, it must able to handel mechanical loads of such aircraft) were demonstrated by doing measurements. The research paper is publicly available and if anyone is intrested to read it, I can send you the link.

[@tonysu8860]

Without reading your paper, I'd guess that the difference is discussing a hard vs soft limit. If a physical limitation exists at 180 degrees, the question is actually at what point does the performance start to degrade noticeably as the physical limitation is approached, and that is probably determined by a number of different factors. There is probably also a practical load limitation as well, if you know that 2 back to back side facing arrays can't cover 100% and you need to implement forward and aft facing arrays, then it might make sense to either overlap or allocate more coverage to the non-main arrays to even the overall system load. Plus or minus 60 degrees coverage may be only a practical allocation of coverage and not strictly a physical mimitation.

[@khanalprabhat]

@@tonysu8860 In phased array antennas: The larger the antenna size, the higher the antenna gain, the higher the antenna gain, the larger the radar range. The highest antenna gain (hence the longest range) happens when scanning at the broadside (normal direction of the antenna array). When we do scanning, the antenna gain decreases by cos(theta). For example, when scanning to +-45 degrees, the gain is decreased by 30% (and range by 16% assuming everything else is equal and ideal), when scanning to +-60 degrees, the gain is decreased by 50% (and range by 30%), and at +-80 degrees the gain is decreased by 83% (and range by 58%). This is why, when you want 360 coverage, having 4 antenna arrays of +-45 degree scanning (each covering a 90-degree field of view) or 3 antenna arrays of +-60 degree scanning (each covering a 120-degree field of view) are preferred in stationary radars or base station antennas on mobile networks. This also is the main reason why most antenna engineers do not design antennas that can scan beyond +-60 degrees (higher drop in antenna gain at wider scan angles). Boeing E3 is a rotating antenna but these +-45 or +-60 degree scanning 4 or 3 sectoral phased array antennas can also be installed inside that rotodome structure (like some Russian and Chinese AWACS do). However, these rotodome structures are not very efficient from an aeronautical point of view. Also, these sectoral antennas will be smaller than a single rotating antenna (because the diagonal of a circle is bigger than each side of a square or triangle shape inside a circle). Therefore, these 3 or 4 sectorial phased array antennas will have smaller gain and lower range when compared with a single rotating antenna. When we come to side-looking antennas like Saab Erieye, it's different. They do not have those rotodomes (which significantly improves aircraft aerodynamics) and the antenna size can be as long as the aircraft length. This means these aircraft will be smaller, more aerodynamic, agile, or/and much higher gain and larger range. However, these side-looking antennas do not cover the full 360 range. Some extra antennas or sensors cover the front and back sides. Nevertheless, scanning beyond +-60 degrees with a side-looking antenna can still be beneficial. For example: at +-80 degrees, the antenna gain drops by 83%. And by decreasing the antenna length by 83%, the antenna gain also drops by 83%. So, if our side-looking antenna is 1x10 m2 and if we can scan to +-80 degrees, we only need a 1x1.7 m2 array in the front to back to cover 360 degrees. 1x1.7 m2 size is small enough that it can fit inside the aircraft's nose and tail. Having the main sensor (side-looking antenna) scan up to +-80 degrees means that we can this radar features and functions up to 320 degree coverage. Therefore, AWACs are one of the few cases where scanning beyond +-60 degrees is beneficial despite having a higher gain drop at wider scan angles.

[@e21big]

Should be noted that China outnumber US AWAC fleet, only when you're counting the AWAC in service of PLAAN as well. So it's really not that fair to discount the number of AWAC in service of the USN

[@haakonsteinsvaag]

I think you are underestimating the control part. Having an AWACS guide your fighter to an optimum course and altitude towards a target while simultaneously providing radar data so that your fighters can have their radars off and use the data from the AWACS to track and target the enemy planes is a huge advantage if the enemy does not have the same capabilities in the area.

[@AdurianJ]

France went with Globaleye as it's E3 replacement. It does not have front and rear facing radar dishes instead it has a rotating radar on the belly that's good for low altitude and sea search and it provides 360 degree coverage below the aircraft at a shorter range then the main AESA radar dish. This is a good compromise as any friendly datalinked ground radar will provide the coverage at altitude in the dead zones.

[@TheFlutecart]

Russian AWACs are an endangered species. But the new UTCM system will greatly improve their survivability in hostile environments. Sophisticated UTCM is a shield against drones and small bombs. UTCM * Used Tire Counter Measures.

[@mikelanglow-bi2sv]

Very interesting. A civilian military history enthusiast I knew little depth of AWACS and its changing future. ❤😊

[@SuperBicycleRepairMan]

Quality content Binkov. Nice visuals that are on topic too. 👌🏻

[@gregorycoogle7621]

They upgraded to new electronics and radar same thing better with a smaller aircraft… 😮

[@riskinhos]

The Saab EriEye ER outperforms the radar featured in the E-7. Its advanced multi-channel AESA with GaN technology surpasses the capabilities of the Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) on the E-7, particularly in detecting stealth aircraft. Notably, the EriEye ER excels at discerning slow-flying UAVs, a task deemed nearly impossible for the E-7. With GaN's 4 to 7 times higher efficiency and 10-50 times greater output power, along with a GaN power amplifier that is 1/3 the size of the GaAs power amplifier, the EriEye ER boasts superior heat dissipation capabilities. This technological advancement results in a remarkable 70% increase in detection range compared to the older EriEye generation. To put it into perspective, if the previous range was 190 miles for detecting a jet ski, the EriEye ER can now detect it from an impressive 323 miles. Additionally, the GlobalEye, equipped with the Saab EriEye ER, flaunts an extended mission endurance of 11 hours, outshining the E-7's 8-hour capability. It can also fly higher and faster. Regrettably, the E-7 lags behind in current technology, with its only advantage being a lower radar cost. However, this cost-effectiveness can be deceptive, as the overall aircraft costs reveal a different reality - the E-7 is priced at 630 million, compared to the GlobalEye's 500 million. Furthermore, operating the E-7 proves to be more expensive. Consider the scenario where the United States opts to purchase superior and more cost-effective foreign AWACS. Such a decision would spark a national scandal. It's crucial to recognize that military costs of this nature can be alleviated through domestic production. Yet, the widespread preference for the GlobalEye over the E-7 by numerous countries underscores the compelling reasons behind this choice.

[@Youtubeuser1aa]

@@riskinhosso why didn’t Australia buy the Saab one? Because Saab made it unaffordable?

[@patthonsirilim5739]

consuming half the fuel amount will be a massive relief to tanker fleet which can spend the extra fuel on fighter and other strike assets instead awacs will expected to be constantly flying so they can organise strike pakage and provide situation awarness to friendly forces so the same amount of fuel can either double the duration of coverage or provide aditional fuel to other assets.

[@swedizzle12]

I would argue that the awacs planes are pretty safe from any missiles because of the powerful electronic countermeasures and they are well protected.

[@RatusPretentious]

The Wedge-tail probably wont be operating alone! Expect it to buddy up with loyal Wing-man derivatives ie HARM & other mission specific platforms! Then it will have piloted platforms sent up for missions!!!

[@grahamdrew5512]

THE E7 LOOKS LIKE THE SAAB Globaleye...same new style Radar mount. Guess Saab/Ericsson is pretty similar.

[@dne9394]

The 737 frame is well proven and seems a good base for the E-7, as the Navy’s P-8 is a 737 base also. The newer electronic/sensors are a major plus. And how does the F-35 integrate with the E-7/P-8? 🤔

[@grahambaker6664]

No problems integrating in Australian service where it operates with F-35, EA-18G, F/A-18 E/F, MC-55A, P-8, MQ-4C, and MQ-28.

[@rickdiesel2k]

F-35's are mini AWACS as well. There wil be the main hubs while F-35's are the hubs giving a huge coverage area

[@richardjonsson1745]

Interesting to see the Saab GlobalEye in the lineup. Good research.

[@tonysu8860]

I'd be curious what scenarios an E-7 is expected to perform in. In today's near peer scenarios, any dedicated AWACS is probably a highly visible sitting duck, unable to defend itself well or for very long. Because of that, I envision the E-7 deployable only in situations against less capable threats and in areas that are less patrolled . The F-35 is likely the radar and sensor platform against near peers... Networking data from numerous aircraft to a C&C deployed almost anywhere in the globe on sea, air, land or even space. The range might be less for each F-35 compared to the equipment in a legacy AWACS, but as long as the adversary can't target and destroy F-35, it's the more logical option in a hot conflict.

[@bradhig]

I remember seeing an AWAC 707 approaching Lambert Field in St. Louis after I got off the Metrolink in the mid 90s.

[@clarkbutler]

Relying on stalites seems kinda dumb, pl 17 is probably anti satalite as well, if its anything like phoenix was

[@John-qv5ux]

The Phoenix missile was not an ASAT weapon, and I have found no information on the Phoenix being used in an ASAT role. Even if PL-17 has this purported ASAT capability, I doubt that the PLA would employ it, because shooting down the Americans' satellites will lead to the Americans shooting down their satellites, resulting in an ablation cascade. It would deny Earth orbit to anybody for decades, and is the closest thing we have to a space version of MAD.

[@Bob-b7x6v]

The Wedgetail was a good solution to JSTARS and E-3.

[@Hurricayne92]

I think the role of modern AWACS like planes is less about them using their own radar but by being a network hub for all other assets in the theatre and more of a Command and Control element.

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

And the F-35 can do that role now. It's a flying supercomputer

[@Chrischi3TutorialLPs]

I would assume the Wedgetail also has a massive amount of tech upgrades in general. The AIM-260 for instance can actually use datalink to guide itself into attack position against an enemy aircraft. This way, the plane in question doesn't know it is being targeted until the missile's internal radar goes active. At which point, you're probably already dead.

[@HiwasseeRiver]

To defer the cost the operators should sell billboard space on the sides of the radar.

[@YahBoiCyril]

Always here for awacs content. Weirdly been curious about them and asw aircraft lately.

[@bret9741]

The E7 is ok. It has about 1 hours less cruise time but its cost of operation is less.

[@riskinhos]

Globaleye can fly higher and faster and has a 11 hour mission endurance. It also has a much better radar. E-7 can only fly for 8 hours.

[@dexon777]

E7's radar is work of art.

[@casbot71]

It can take off and land from smaller airfields, which is also a bonus.

[@specialnewb9821]

​@@casbot71big deal in the pacific

[@johnsilver9338]

Best of all it uses the same aircraft of maritime P-8 Poseidon which will undoubtedly simplify logistics.

[@Stewart001]

Do a video on the C-5 Galaxy, a monster next to the Globemaster III and the Globemaster is a huge plane. Canada is ranked 28th with transport aircraft right behind Britain.

[@ssdd4424]

I wouldn’t say China has 60 awacs planes. Seeing that some of their fleet consists of Sukhoi fighters with a radar dome welded on top.

[@spxram4793]

Great video, as always! Thinking about the concept of the E-7, and also the similar Swedish design as well, I was wondering why the sidewards looking EASA radar arrays were not integrated into the airframe body or the vertical stabilizer - this would probably improve fuel economy and range, and made it easier to "hide" an E-7 among other 737 in the air, or on the ground as well. Further along those lines, if the wings or the winglets had integrated downward looking EASA arrays, ground target detection and tracking could be improved even more.

[@concinnus]

Have to get it high enough so the radar shadows of the wings etc. aren't an issue. One array per side will give better performance than integrating multiple arrays.

[@spxram4793]

@@concinnusyes, makes sense. It just bugs me ;-)

[@Istandby666]

My grandfather worked on the Warning Star Program at Kwajalein Marshall Island.

[@Sierra-208]

Hopefully the USAF gives the E-3s a big send off like the Navy did with their Tomcats

[@petergarrone8242]

I am curious if the MESA radar on the E7 can be focused to cause a distant target to reflect radiation that is detected by an aircraft or SAM site with radars turned off to hide from the enemy. If so, what is the range of this aspect of operation compared to normal detection mode.

[@RatusPretentious]

Best analysis of the mark-4 Wedge-tail I have seen! :)

[@danjohnston9037]

Now please tell me thaoe navy Mini-AWACS can detect surface ships and share targeting data with Marine Island Units with Anti-Ship Missiles

[@johnphillips4708]

after the chinese missile controversy not long ago, I wonder if we aught to assume or believe much about the chinese military. whose to say half of the shiny new fighters don’t have even older engines or no radar under the skin?

[@berrigo2]

Could be right but it's safer to assume they work as advertised and prepare for that

[@Boxmediaphile]

i saw a wedgetail at RAAF Williamstown during an air show recently

[@DocBigB]

I consider F35 as most advanced awacs because my hero of 5th gen FIGHTER craft is YF23.

[@mosesracal6758]

The US buying the E7 would also make it a bit cheaper for other nations to buy, specifically those that dont have the same satellite capability as the US so the AWACS will still stay but would be shouldered more by NATO allies than the US itself which I think Canada is buying soon.

[@kiketve2]

the B-2 or pure wing will be the whole plane radar with the whole plane been a radar fused with infrared like the F-35, also the plane should have defensive missiles like the AIM-260, which can reach 300 miles, maybe even more, these planes have to be self defended, you can't have these planes with zero defensive capabilities, those days are over, also have to be able to fly at such high altitudes to reach way over the horizon, incorporate a powerful laser to defend them is a most

[@billmilosz]

Do these E7's include the bolts?

[@dennislam8065]

So far the most numbers of carrier strike group US has deploy in asia pacific at the same time is three CSG and two ESG . Total 5 strike group . During war time ,US could probably double the numbers to 10 strike groups . So China will need at least 8 -10 carrier . If they can launch a carrier strike group very 5 years , it will take them another 20 - 25 years to match the US navy in asia pacific .

[@briancooper2112]

AWACS are old and spare parts are running out. Maintenance issues cause missions late or cancelled. The new AWACS plane based on 737 looks promising.

[@teashea1]

good that you transitioned to these info videos

[@enoynaert]

Spare parts may be one reason for grounding several AWACs before the new system is ready. It may be hard to get parts for the AWACs. Now the retired planes can be cannibalized for parts.

[@iwantyourcookiesnow]

I love the big whopping radar disk on top.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

I can totally see command-control and AWACS aircraft being combined into one platform. I'm not sure there is a need for the two tasks to be separated anymore, but space could still be an issue

[@Shaun_Jones]

They are also looking into distributing command-control and detection throughout all aircraft, essentially turning every single aircraft into a local AWACS sharing its data with everyone else. Air combat is on the cusp of becoming much harder to understand for laymen, but also easier for those in the cockpits.

[@vzzzb2vzzzb124]

the AWACS provides long loitering time which a fighter plane cannot. L band is definitely an improvement to S band to detect low observability fighter size airplane.

[@Daginni1]

AWACS are the primary target of any aviation air force. They're providing so much intel to the fighter craft that they would NEED to die. God. If I was aboard one, I would expect a ejection system, no matter my seat on the plane. No matter how uncomfortable the ejection system. I would want a way to quickly unboard the aircraft.

[@BackgroundSpace]

Great overview of an important element in our doctrine of situational awareness. Though I have to wonder why drones haven't been more utilized in this? Maybe have "tactical AWACS" as a drone attached to the E-7 that can detach and move in closer to hostile areas to extend coverage. Suppose satellite coverage could make this mute.

[@DonVigaDeFierro]

Agreed. They could just make a big ass drone out of an E-7 and fill the crew compartments with additional fuel tanks and more powerful radars, although the utility they have as control centers may be lost, but they may serve as on-demand and quickly-deployable communication relays as much as early-warning radars. Still, a crackpot idea, but drones have potential, maintenance costs aside. Satellite may not replace AWACS, because they have periodic, predictable orbits and only cover a single area for a brief period of time. Geostationary satellites are too far away to be of use as radars. The US could fill space with a swarm of satellites so that 24/7 surveillance is achieved, but it's not terribly difficult to shoot down or jam a satellite. Also, launch costs are still... Astronomical. The U-2 still covers an important gap in surveillance and SIGINT, but can't be fitted with more powerful radars. So, the Wedgetail it is, at least until drone technology becomes... Cheaper and more reliable, I suppose.

[@bulldogcoryhardeland]

It would be cool to see smaller awacs drones that can network with the full size one and fighters and get closer to the action to help spot stealth fighters without our fighters having to turn their radar on. I think our tanks should come with recon drones too. They could help scan the area around them for threats relay best paths to travel or places to hide. It would be a cheap way to help our tanks stay hidden and yet active with surveillance in real time.

[@ashleygraufalke1510]

Tactical AWACS already exists. Its called the F-35.

[@rhino5681]

You're thinking of the MQ-28 Ghost Bat (also a Boeing Australia developed aircraft)

[@JohnSmith-zi9or]

I wonder if the E-7 can turn off the forward looking radar while air refueling? If so, this would be a be improvement over the E-3.

[@peterclarke3020]

Maybe send some of the retired ones to Ukraine ?

[@aiguowang9517]

Aerial warfare today without awacs not possible

[@perelfberg7415]

Will se how other AWACS will do. Recently heard about Globaleye to france as a possibility.

[@stuartyablon7184]

Thank you for your interesting programs.

[@invertidols1307]

And Russia is over here crying about a SINGLE one being shot down lmao

[@MostlyPennyCat]

America: Throws all 68 in the bin

[@droman608]

Their aircraft may have “range” although how many refueling is required to travel from coast to coast? Also it’s a big country.

[@28ebdh3udnav]

Actually, they still haven't confirmed or denied it at all. They're still hush hush. Iran got two Ex-Iraqi AWACS back in 1991, they lost one in 2009, so my assumption is that Iran may hand over the sole remaining one to Russia. Russia may put it into service and still deny they lost one. If Russia did lose one and they admit they lost one, to a SAM, it will be a major morale dropper.

[@tagheuerwoods6241]

Well it's because they don't have more than 10 currently accounting the one downed recently. Knowing they're encountering difficulties to source spare parts since the blocus, I guess some part of this fleet might be unable to fly for an undetermined period. Edit : Also, it's priced at $300 million so this is consequential for them

[@FinsburyPhil]

It would be interesting to know why Boeing offered the system on the 737 rather than on the 767 platform so as to have commonality with the KC-46. Looks like for whatever reason that was right for Australia has caused it to be the standard - which in some ways is a refreshing procurement decision but it's resulted in an aircraft with a much shorter endurance than they could have had. Also interesting that the UK didn't propose a version using the A330 MRTT airframe for the same reason.

[@Rob_F8F]

Integrating a big AEW radar on an new aircraft is an expensive development project. I'm sure Airbus would love to offer it, but with the limited remaining available market.

[@hornman101]

Are you feeling ok Mr Binkov? you sound a bit down today.

[@burningphoneix]

E-3 retirement got him down

[@burningphoneix]

E-3 retirement got him down