Boeing E-7 Wedgetail AEW&C

Good news to hear that the RAF Wedgetail will be based at Lossiemouth alongside the Poseidon aircraft fleet, makes sense to base the two together.
 
Regarding the vulnerability of this type of platform: it should boted that they spend the overwhelming majority of their work operating in peacetime, and even in war, against non peers. I think even the VKS would struggle to kill an AWACs protected by fifth gen aircraft; I suspect their fighters would struggle to make it to the FEBA. For the U.S. facing the PRC, other options need to be developed. But even then an AWACs is perfectly useful in peacetime.
 
Buried in the story: "The E-7 Wedgetail has also recently been selected by NATO as their next command and control aircraft." I, for one, missed this news.
20 years too late... Granted there were a couple of problems during its development but Turkey, South Korea and Australia were spot on for procuring this aircraft when it first came out.

I don't know if they've changed anything from the base design for these new-found customers; i mean It's an excellent AEW aircraft but I also think that it needs to go under a quarter life update real soon.
 
Regarding the vulnerability of this type of platform: it should boted that they spend the overwhelming majority of their work operating in peacetime, and even in war, against non peers. I think even the VKS would struggle to kill an AWACs protected by fifth gen aircraft; I suspect their fighters would struggle to make it to the FEBA. For the U.S. facing the PRC, other options need to be developed. But even then an AWACs is perfectly useful in peacetime.
What's the particular influence of generation in defca? It isn't about fair fight.
Toolset against AWACS is extreme range AAMs and SAMs.
VKS is tied with PLAAF as world leader in those.
 
What's the particular influence of generation in defca? It isn't about fair fight.
Toolset against AWACS is extreme range AAMs and SAMs.
VKS is tied with PLAAF as world leader in those.
The Israelis have shown that western level air forces can deal with Russia's 'world class' ADS when needed.
 
The Israelis have shown that western level air forces can deal with Russia's 'world class' ADS when needed.
When? And how it's related to ability to lob VLRAAM/SAMs against simple targets?

Also, i'd rather avoid this "western level airforces". Or one may question if UK, Denmark or Romania are even western countries by this criteria.
There are exactly two western nations with full SEAD/DEAD capability - that's US and indeed Israel. With ability of the latter limited to its size (i.e. even without losses Israel can maintain high intensity air operations only on american support).
 
Last edited:
An artistic rendering of a U.S. Air Force E-7A Wedgetail, which is set to replace the aging E-3 Sentry AWACS and become the Air
Force's next-generation early warning and control aircraft.
Source: Air & Space Forces, Sept.-Oct. 2024

1738064039974.png
Photo: Boeing illustration
 
Last edited:
What's the particular influence of generation in defca? It isn't about fair fight.
Toolset against AWACS is extreme range AAMs and SAMs.
VKS is tied with PLAAF as world leader in those.

I do not think Russia would have very many opportunities to use either long range AAMs or SAMs without the launching platform being engaged. Flight times at these ranges approach or exceed ten minutes - guidance updates are necessary if the target can detect the incoming and reverse course. I think that in practice, the VkS would be severely challenged to actually complete an end to end long ranged engagement given its huge technical and numerical inferiority in most any imaginable conflict with the U.S. / NATO.

But more broadly there’s plenty of uses for AWACs platforms outside management of peer conflicts in forward areas. Neither US or PRC AEW likely has a long lifespan in the face of the other, if they are going to place them near the FEBA.
 
I do not think Russia would have very many opportunities to use either long range AAMs or SAMs without the launching platform being engaged.
I personally think that unless Russian AA is completely suppresed (which is unlikely - per Ukraine experience - for a rather modern force larger than entire land AA of the combined west, including beyond NATO), neither Russian fighters nor VLR SAMs will face significant problems doing that.
Much the same way as Ukrainian S-200s or SS carriers did the same job.

As much as Russia is behind in numbers, average western fighter is a mid-block F-16, followed(after long gap) by F-35A and F/A-18E/F.
None are worth much as fast reaction aircraft, and F-16 in particular(majority of the force by the way) have as of yet proven unable to even interfere with VKS operations.

Neither for current fleets(i.e. rather dated centry), neither +5 years from now(Wedgetail against updated VKS threat).

As a matter of fact, bigger AWACS and AEW aircraft will have to carefully adjust safe enough stand off, acceptable attrition and effectiveness.
 
Last edited:
I personally think that unless Russian AA is completely suppresed (which is unlikely for a rather modern force larger than entire land AA of the combined west, including beyond NATO), neither Russian fighters nor VLR SAMs will face significant problems doing that.
Much the same way as Ukrainian S-200s or SS carriers did the same job.

As much as Russia is behind in numbers, average western fighter is a mid-block F-16, followed(after long gap) by F-35A and F/A-18E/F.
None are worth much as fast reaction aircraft, and F-16 in particular(majority of the force by the way) have as of yet proven unable to even interfere with VKS operations.

I think fifth generation fighters would force the VKS to operate rather far from the front even without a significant suppression effort. If F-35s can be lurking a few dozen miles back from the FEBA, or worse F-22s, it seems to me they can reach out and engage any Russian fighter as soon as it makes itself a threat rather easily. They may have to immediately maneuver and not be able to guide their missiles all the way to target, but it seems like they would be in a position to drive opposition away with little risk to themselves.

Suppression efforts need not handle the entirety of Russian AD to make a little more wiggle room for support aircraft to operate in.

As for aging NATO aircraft, the legacy aircraft are older but well updated, with USAF F-16s getting AESA. And there is no shortage of F-35s, even if they do not yet outnumber the VKS on the continent yet. The USAF has about 500 fifth gen aircraft by itself; any Russian effort would have to be complimentary to a Sino-American war for the disparity of air arms to not be overwhelming.
 
I think fifth generation fighters would force the VKS to operate rather far from the front even without a significant suppression effort. If F-35s can be lurking a few dozen miles back from the FEBA, or worse F-22s, it seems to me they can reach out and engage any Russian fighter as soon as it makes itself a threat rather easily. They may have to immediately maneuver and not be able to guide their missiles all the way to target, but it seems like they would be in a position to drive opposition away with little risk to themselves.
(1)can they?
I am kinda doubtful that anything modern, big and manned will lurk(high) nearby on more or less same conditions(lo/no regardless), especially if it isn't even broadband 360 VLO. Attrition will kick in fast. Even Ukrainian AD network(Fulda wargame collection) has proven itself formidable - Soviet legacy battlefield SAMs in cover-heavy ETO environment are just a menace.
Russian AD threat is generations ahead in quality, in numbers, and it is backed by relevant airforce and strike capability.

(2)For AWACS(loitering aircraft by mission) engagement isn't "operation"(meaning continuous presense), it's darting in into launch position. Midcourse updates can be provided by others. Russian modern aircraft selection is such that there's plethora of options. Near future options(if they're even future yet?) provide more still.

(3)AWACS are rewarding targets. Given relative weakness of E7, pushing them out of effective envelope doesn't appear too difficult to outside observer.
Suppression efforts need not handle the entirety of Russian AD to make a little more wiggle room for support aircraft to operate in.
As Ukraine amply shown, they not just need suppresion, the need is full DEAD, to full threat depth. You can suppress enough semi-stationary AD networks for tactical aircraft(that can break ambushes). It doesn't apply to 707 or 737 the same way it doesn't apply to Il-76 or Il-18.

Otherwise, SAMs just emerge from cover, already hot and primed for launch. "Even" Ukrainian vanilla Buks proven themselves deadly in this role. Much(most) Russian ones aren't old; threat from such pop-ups can go extremely deep into blue rear.
If something like wedgetail is engaged at altitude, it will die.
As for aging NATO aircraft, the legacy aircraft are older but well updated, with USAF F-16s getting AESA. And there is no shortage of F-35s, even if they do not yet outnumber the VKS on the continent yet. The USAF has about 500 fifth gen aircraft by itself; any Russian effort would have to be complimentary to a Sino-American war for the disparity of air arms to not be overwhelming.
Yes, that very well updated F-16s which we see in Ukraine. Better AESA(especially one that doesn't even provide more range for fighter fire control) doesn't change anything substantial here in my opinion - it's a mission where defensive aircraft can launch by external queing. The problem is getting weapon in time into range, reliably, every attempt, and doing it in such manner that outweights attractiveness of a very juicy expensive target full of operators(who, as practice sadly shows, won't even get chances to out).

F-35 are, for all their modernity, are arguably the single worst modern interceptor aircraft out there. More so because there is no even LO fuel tanks for them.
Yet it's interceptor qualities that are needed for the mission - loiter qualities on one hand, speed of reaction and reach on another.

Especially since attacker holds initiative by default(i.e. can easily have local numbers and chose opportune moments), and opfor(VKS; PVO SV) contains arguably single most annoying VL BVR setup out there - other than Su-30 family maybe, everything else is pain in its own personal way.
Yes, chinese aircraft are far more numerous and their electronics are arguably better - but they're all far more conventional, direct threats.
 
Last edited:
This discussion is well off topic now. If you would like to open a new thread, I will join you there. Otherwise we will agree to disagree.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom