Boeing E-7 Wedgetail AEW&C

Byeman said:
Don't need to schooled on satellites or anything spaceflight related. I know the capabilities of spacecraft, I have supported dozens of launch campaigns both military and civilian as both a service member and civilian. I supported the DOD post Challenger space launch recovery. Also, was involved with STAS, ALS and NLS.
Click to expand...

I'm certain your credentials are impressive. But experience doesn't eliminate the fundamental weaknesses of satellites in orbit and that since their inception they have become one of the highest priority target in a WW3 scenario. Only outdone with regards to priority by the nuclear assets of an adversary.

An AEW&C aircraft is vulnerable to everything any other aircraft is vulnerable to. Satellites are vulnerable to literally anything that manages to get up there, they're fragile, not exactly dynamic targets and the destruction of one creates a mine field for others in close proximity. Anti-Satellite Missiles are one thing, using other satellites to deorbit adversary satellites is another thing entirely. Or having an armed satellite to take care of this. Or using older, obsolete satellites to bring them on a collision course, using them as projectiles themselves. And all of that shenanigans in orbit, going on simultaneously at multiple points leads to large debris fields which rip other satellites apart, a beautiful cascading effect is the result.

And now imagine that this eliminates like 70% of your constellation, which was meant to replace your capable AEW&C aircraft. While your adversary has a large fleet of multiple such aircraft, from smaller ones to large and capable ones. With such an overwhelming advantage, that adversary would dogwalk over the force that thought relying 100% on orbital constellations would make them save, lol.

It doesn't take presumably decades of experience to know that putting all eggs in one basket, especially in such an important matter, runs against the instincts of any military. It also doesn't take several years worth of experience to know that satellites don't fare well against any form of somewhat sizeable debris ripping through at speeds encountered in orbit. Furthermore it should also be known to anyone that everyone and their mom which holds at least some power ambitions invests heavily in all sorts of satellite killers.
 
EmoBirb said:
Or using older, obsolete satellites to bring them on a collision course, using them as projectiles themselves.
Click to expand...
That is nonsense. Show me an "older, obsolete satellite" that shares an orbit band with GPS. Also, remember, you said they don't have much propellant.

EmoBirb said:
And all of that shenanigans in orbit, going on simultaneously at multiple points leads to large debris fields which rip other satellites apart, a beautiful cascading effect is the result.

And now imagine that this eliminates like 70% of your constellation, which was meant to replace your capable AEW&C aircraft. While your adversary has a large fleet of multiple such aircraft, from smaller ones to large and capable ones. With such an overwhelming advantage, that adversary would dogwalk over the force that thought relying 100% on orbital constellations would make them save, lol.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. Who has such a fleet? Anyways, while you are at it, their AEW&C fleet is now useless since their comsats and navsats have been taken out by similar action.
 
Byeman said:
That is nonsense. Show me an "older, obsolete satellite" that shares an orbit band with GPS. Also, remember, you said they don't have much propellant.
Click to expand...
Who am I to know what Soviet/Russian/Chinese satellites are doing their rounds and what they're intended or used for? Furthermore, if you can deorbit an adversary satellite, you can deorbit one of yours too. And deorbiting of satellites is something tangible that countries are working on.

Byeman said:
Yeah, right. Who has such a fleet? Anyways, while you are at it, their AEW&C fleet is now useless since their comsats and navsats have been taken out by similar action.
Click to expand...
China is building such a fleet. And unlike the US they're heavily investing in all sorts of AEW&C aircraft and drones for the PLAAF and PLAN. The largest KJ-3000 is just the newest addition. Also, I think you missed the point of me talking about degradation. It's highly unlikely anyone can take out the entire satellite network of any adversary. But having a portion of your satellites active and working together with your air based assets it's better than having your portion of your constellation still active but nothing else.

Relying entirely on fragile, easy to track assets that cannot reasonably evade or defend against multiple attacks just isn't a smart choice. SDI failed once and it will fail again, it's that easy. And if the US isn't bankrupting itself with such vanity projects, than the other side will make sure it's money wasted. I just sip tea and watch the chaos unfold when techbros and SpaceX nerds realize that earth's orbit is a very hostile place indeed, especially during wartime between two reasonably advanced nations.
 
EmoBirb said:
Who am I to know what Soviet/Russian/Chinese satellites are doing their rounds and what they're intended or used for? Furthermore, if you can deorbit an adversary satellite, you can deorbit one of yours too. And deorbiting of satellites is something tangible that countries are working on.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Only a few select low orbiting satellites (few hundred miles) can be deorbited easily. For instance, to deorbit a GPS satellite would require about 3/4 the equivalent mass of the satellite in propellant.
 
Wrong. The equation at play in its dynamic form is dEc/dt=Sigma (Pext.) with Sigma(P) = Sigma (F*V(t))

The equation you are citing is one for total state that does not translate the way a solid move from State A to B... In other word, it can be via an engine with the row power of a Titan (deity) or one that made out of Ants farting in an appropriate direction. In your equation there is no way to say what mass fraction the propellant is.

The equation above should be known to anyone with an appropriate bachelor in many countries.

*Pext: is the power from an external force, considering there is no solid deformation.
 
TomcatViP said:
Wrong. The equation at play in its dynamic form is dEc/dt=Sigma (Pext.) with Sigma(P) = Sigma (F*V(t))

The equation you are citing is one for total state that does not translate the way a solid move from State A to B... In other word, it can be via an engine with the row power of a Titan (deity) or one that made out of Ants farting in an appropriate direction. In your equation there is no way to say what mass fraction the propellant is.

The equation above should be known to anyone with an appropriate bachelor in many countries.

*Pext: is the power from an external force, considering there is no solid deformation.
Click to expand...
Nope, you have shown once again you are out of element.

The change in velocity is only a function of the exhaust velocity (which is basically the ISP of the propulsion system) times the natural log of ratio of vehicle masses before and after the burn. Thrust does not play in the calculation. Thrust only affects how quickly the velocity change occurs
 
TomcatViP said:
You are a ridiculous fraud. Oh my God. The Intersmuck is such a Crazy place
Click to expand...
You really don't know what you are talking about, especially orbital mechanics and spaceflight in general.
And my career says otherwise.

Δv = ve * ln(mi / mf) is known as the
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, classical rocket equation, or ideal rocket equation is a mathematical equation that describes the motion of vehicles that follow the basic principle of a rocket: a device that can apply acceleration to itself using thrust by expelling part of its mass with high velocity and can thereby move due to the conservation of momentum.

Delta V required to change an orbit via Hohmann transfer is
Δv = √((GM/r₁)(√(2r₂/(r₁+r₂)) - 1)) + √((GM/r₂)(1 - √(2r₁/(r₁+r₂))))

Power (force x speed) does not play into it.

Again, thrust (force) only determines how quickly the delta velocity is achieve.


Edited
 
Last edited:
The practical reasoning behind AWACs cancellation is that protecting it in a modern battlefield will require too many supporting assets and still then produce lower-quality results (because of the stand-off requirement) than building a space-constellation. For every threat to a satellite, there is an equal (or greater) threat to an AWACs.

China can afford to build both because of higher resources and more numerous qualified engineering teams, the US has to be more strategic.

I do agree that national air defense missions could probably use airborne radar, but such a system would have to be low-cost, as it serves a purely secondary role.

PS: this is the sort of debate that anyone who actually knows why can't answer. It is a straight question AWACS survivability versus Satellite-Constellation, which is a question that can be answered, but not publically shared.
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
You really don't know what you are talking about, especially orbital mechanics and spaceflight in general.
And my career says otherwise.

Δv = ve * ln(mi / mf) is known as the
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, classical rocket equation, or ideal rocket equation is a mathematical equation that describes the motion of vehicles that follow the basic principle of a rocket: a device that can apply acceleration to itself using thrust by expelling part of its mass with high velocity and can thereby move due to the conservation of momentum.

Delta V required to change an orbit via Hohmann transfer is
Δv = √((GM/r₁)(√(2r₂/(r₁+r₂)) - 1)) + √((GM/r₂)(1 - √(2r₁/(r₁+r₂))))

Power (force x speed) does not play into it.

Again, thrust (force) only determines how quickly the delta velocity is achieve.


Edited
Click to expand...

Sincerely, you should stop. It's evident you don't even understand the meaning of a differential equation (usually requested in entry college level in many countries).
My personal opinion has always been to accommodate people that came to me w/o the right academic knowledge when it comes to a technical discussion. (We are all imbecile on many domains). But the way you speak to others here is so wrong and often so horrendous (I can't believe that it is tolerated) that I will let you on your own dig out this time the appropriate paragraph in the right book. Sadly for you, it's not usually the easiest lesson. Differentials is often a big chunk to swallow for many young students.

For the reader,
Power = F*V = F*dx/dt , hence in the integral form, the kinetic Energy variation is depend of the time of application of the force (see post 198);
You can increase the magnitude of the force or Extend the Time the force is applied to the same result...
Think at all the deorbiting offers we have today from tether to drag chute that propose to apply a deaccelerating force during an extended period of time.

Do you think a drag chute weights 2/3rd of a satellite mass at launch?
 
Last edited:
WTF is this sht?

Currently, for spacecraft including satellite, the most realistic way to change velocity is using rocket equation, which means shooting your own mass against vacuum to gain speed.

The point of byeman is valid. Most old satellites are lower orbit vs something like GPS. So, if you deorbitting your old sats, your dont have the energy to touch higher altitude sats like GPSs, that is his point, and it's valid. But the important question here is, rather than GPS, are other military important satellites in such high orbit?

But still, GPS is one of the most importance for military coordinating system, which again, his point is valid.

For a little more information, here is some rough estimation of sats speed vs altitude. GEO sat, 36000km vs 3.1km/s, GPS 20000km vs 3.9km/s, ISS 400km vs 7.7km/s. So, the potential energy of them is vastly different. For a satellite at low orbit like ISS to reach GPS altitude, the energy needed is from 3.9km/s to 7.7km/s. And, how could they change their velocity (which also means they potential energy balanced against graviy)? The only way is eject some mass using rocket equation. I dont want to mention the equation using the name of the Russian, because it is hard to remember and write exactly.

There may be some methods to change speed rather than rocket like using solar photon, which doesn't involve much of satellite own mass but that is rather unrealistic because it's small compare to the mass of the satellite. So thereotically, it's possible, but realistically, the rocket method is the only way. At low orbit, you can still use parachute to deorbit a sat, because while called space, the air still there in low Earth orbit, but with much lower concentration. For high altitude like GPs, the vacuum is much lower, which means the only way to deorbit is using rocket method, and byeman is right.
 
publiusr said:
I’m staying out of this one…except to say that the ISS deorbit package would make for a pretty agile satellite bus with loads of propellant—only a recent development.
Click to expand...
not really. It doesn't leave much for an actual payload on the bus.
plus it is only a one off. The propellant amount is more than the shuttle OMS and is more like an upperstage than spacecraft bus.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
What if Congress just comes back and says build the fleet of E-7? If they give them the money and direct them on how to spend it then I don't think the DoD has a choice. I doubt Congress will be happy with two E-7 airframes.
Click to expand...
I think they could, but it depends on how much they want to play hardball. I’m not sure, but I think congress appropriated money for the yf-12, but McNamara just sat on the money and the program never got off the ground (if anyone knows I’m wrong, please set me straight). Congress can direct how money should be spent, but I don’t think they have direct authority over the various programs and offices of the DoD, so if someone’s dragging their feet they basically have to resort to coercion. “Do the thing we told you to do, but you don’t like, or the money for the thing you do like and do want to do will go missing,” sort of deal, which is an uglier fight, so I don’t think it would be as easy as setting the funds aside and telling the Air Force to get to work.
 
MrTopaz said:
I think they could, but it depends on how much they want to play hardball. I’m not sure, but I think congress appropriated money for the yf-12, but McNamara just sat on the money and the program never got off the ground (if anyone knows I’m wrong, please set me straight). Congress can direct how money should be spent, but I don’t think they have direct authority over the various programs and offices of the DoD, so if someone’s dragging their feet they basically have to resort to coercion. “Do the thing we told you to do, but you don’t like, or the money for the thing you do like and do want to do will go missing,” sort of deal, which is an uglier fight, so I don’t think it would be as easy as setting the funds aside and telling the Air Force to get to work.
Click to expand...
McNamara impounded the FY65 procurement funding for the YF-12, but Congress outlawed that practice by the executive branch in 1974.
 
NMaude said:
True but the whole USAF E-3 fleet needs replacement.
Click to expand...

Does it need to be replaced 1 to 1 with an E-3 class manned platform though?

We might be better off with a lot of smaller cheaper and attritable unmanned AEW aircraft that can get closer to the threat without risking as much. The enemy might be willing to trade a couple fighters and/or a Gravestone radar for an AWACS kill by moving those assets forward for an ambush, but not to kill something as cheap and plentiful as an MQ-9 with an AEW loadout. It might be possible to have persistent coverage from multiple cheap platforms that are difficult to attack without the enemy exposing far more expensive platforms to do so.
 
Fwiw: Imo the point of cancelling something vital like the E-7 was to force Congress to fund it anyway. They knew the E-7 would be funded regardless. The idea of cancellation was to pry more funds out of Congress, so they can get what they want (space constellation) and what they need (E-7). Yes, this only funds 2 platforms, but let's see what happens later this year, and into the next.

"But if ya try sometimes.... you might find..."
 
CastleBravo said:
Does it need to be replaced 1 to 1 with an E-3 class manned platform though?

We might be better off with a lot of smaller cheaper and attritable unmanned AEW aircraft that can get closer to the threat without risking as much. The enemy might be willing to trade a couple fighters and/or a Gravestone radar for an AWACS kill by moving those assets forward for an ambush, but not to kill something as cheap and plentiful as an MQ-9 with an AEW loadout. It might be possible to have persistent coverage from multiple cheap platforms that are difficult to attack without the enemy exposing far more expensive platforms to do so.
Click to expand...
Arguably, yes.

Remember that E-3 isn't just airborne early warning. It's a flying air traffic control center and command post. So if you go to unmanned aircraft, you still need that command post SOMEWHERE. The E-3 can simply fly somewhere and take command. A drone would need the command post set up somewhere.

Also, how much does a good AEW radar cost? 100mil for the E-2D radar (APS-145)? IIRC the Wedgetail radar or the EriEye are hundreds of millions. That's not going to be an attritable thing, regardless of whether there's a crew in the airframe or not.
 
NMaude said:
When he pulled that stunt the US Congress should've impeached and removed him from office.
Click to expand...
Why bother having the DoD then, rather than just letting Congress run the military?

McNamara didn't do anything fraudulent, he just didn't dispense the funds to a project that he evaluated as pointless and which would eat vast chunks of operational budget in the future, once Congress fixated on something else.

Seems to be the point of delegated decision making.
 
Kiltonge said:
Why bother having the DoD then, rather than just letting Congress run the military?

McNamara didn't do anything fraudulent, he just didn't dispense the funds to a project that he evaluated as pointless and which would eat vast chunks of operational budget in the future, once Congress fixated on something else.

Seems to be the point of delegated decision making.
Click to expand...
Because SecDef is supposed to execute the decisions of Congress, not to decide "Congress is funding things I don't like" and refuse to release the funds.
 
https://breakingdefense.com/2026/03/following-congressional-rebuke-air-force-awards-e-7-contracts/
“In accordance with the Fiscal Year 2026 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Department of the Air Force (DAF) has approved an updated acquisition strategy for the E-7A Wedgetail program. This strategy executes Congressional direction to continue development and transition to an Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase,” the spokesperson said.

“This strategy continues the prototyping and development effort through the execution of two sole-source contract actions with Boeing, which include exercising one pre-priced option and awarding one new modification,” they added. “The aircraft acquired for the EMD phase will allow the Air Force to mature the system design, conduct risk reduction, and perform comprehensive test and verification activities in accordance with Congressional intent.” (It’s not clear how many EMD aircraft are being procured.)
Click to expand...
 
Well at least the program is on life support until someone can appoint a sober secdef.
 
$2+Billion is hardly a life support line. It´s a commitment. Let´s hope that an order follows next.
 
Too true TomcatVIP. I would like to see a one for one replacement of the E-3 Sentry, but lets wait and see what happens next with the potential order.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom