NATO AWACS Requirement

FighterJock said:
That will be a big mistake that NATO will regret in the future when the current E-3 fleet has to retire.
Click to expand...

Not if they buy Globaleye...which seems to be the direction of travel for France as well.

WatcherZero said:
So NATO is cancelling because the US cancelled E7 in July, but then the US u-turned and uncancelled E-7 in September.
Click to expand...

Can't really blame them given the current US admin...
 
Global Eye will remove sovereignty issues that the Trump Administration has created for itself, even if indeed E-7 is ourchased, which IMO it will not be.
 
Global Eye I had forgotten about that timmymagic, that would be a good AWACS aircraft if NATO decide to go down that route.
 
But does Global Eye can still function independently when deployed halfway across the globe? E-3 is only tethered to logistics by maintenance issue but it has and is deployed regularly.

When was the last time we heard about Global Eye being deployed across an ocean seas in anger?
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
But does Global Eye can still function independently when deployed halfway across the globe? E-3 is only tethered to logistics by maintenance issue but it has and is deployed regularly.

When was the last time we heard about Global Eye sbeing deployed across the seas in anger?
Click to expand...
Presumably yes, because it's literally in the name "Global Eye".
 
TomcatViP said:
But does Global Eye can still function independently when deployed halfway across the globe? E-3 is only tethered to logistics by maintenance issue but it has and is deployed regularly.

When was the last time we heard about Global Eye sbeing deployed across the seas in anger?
Click to expand...

Given there is only one operational user, the UAE, at present...with Sweden arriving soon you're not going to find huge amounts out there about Globaleye ops....but the previous Erieye variants have seen lots of use...
 
TomcatViP said:
But does Global Eye can still function independently when deployed halfway across the globe? E-3 is only tethered to logistics by maintenance issue but it has and is deployed regularly.

When was the last time we heard about Global Eye sbeing deployed across the seas in anger?
Click to expand...
When is the last a NATO AWACS was deployed like that?
 
Well Global Eye is based on Business jets that use to convert their payload for range. That's how their are built. So, an heavy laden derivative might imparts disadvantagous constraints on users when it come to deployments across the globe.

Then, there are not much crew aboard. An AWACS is not just a radar, it's a command center, flying.
E-3 and E-7 AWACS are also regularly deployed and part of large multi-nation exercises. I don't see much of that with that airframe.
I understand that Erieye was part of small deployments before but shouldn't a major user like NATO, before making such choice, ensure their ability to provide strategic leverage by having them participate to redflag or similar far away from their home base?

It's OK to want European hardware. But less coherent to buy something that was not developed quite for such usage.

For example, how relevant would have been Global Eye if IAF latest airstrikes in Iran would have been done by NATO from bases in Europe? That's the modus operandi a NATO AWACS should be selected for.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Not quite sure it's relevant. No administration is in power for 20 years.
Click to expand...
But it still shook the faith, regardless of whether the administration resigned tomorrow. And the fact it was re-elected portends to things that might be to come.
 
www.hartpunkt.de

AWACS-Nachfolge: Niederlande und Partner wollen Boeing E-7 Wedgetail nicht beschaffen

Die Niederlande verzichten gemeinsam mit einer Reihe von Partnerländern auf den Kauf von sechs Flugzeugen des Typs Boeing E-7 Wedgetails für die Aufgabe als Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) der NATO.
www.hartpunkt.de www.hartpunkt.de

"The press release states that the withdrawal of the US from the program in July of this year has significantly altered the replacement program."

“The US withdrawal also demonstrates how important it is to invest as much as possible in European industry.” explained State Secretary Gijs Tuinman in a statement.

(German original, but autotranslate works well)
 
There's not much choice for NATO. The looming crisis will persist for at least twenty years. And if the battlefield is in Europe, there are plenty of existing command bunkers to rely on to take on the role. It's only global deployment that will be somewhat disadvantaged.
That said the business jets would afford more planes to be bought assuming they are cheaper. This would mean the fleet would be able to cover more space; and can deal with a higher rate of rotation which will be beneficial to the crew.
On a side note business jets have been used for Top Gun training in Europe so there's experience in high level aircombat with them.
I assume they have a higher probability to survive & escape than the larger E-3/E-7.
 
Its not so much that they are more survivable, just that they are massively cheaper to procure and operate (both in fuel consumption as well as maintenance costs). The trade-off is losing the ability to have a dozen staff onboard doing data analysis and C&C.
 
Most of the data is going to be off-handed to the larger network anyway so that won't be a real issue. In fact, the C&C will be located half a world a part in the future rather than local.
 
The Erieye system has also seen combat usage, fairly recently in Pakistan and possibly Ukraine? And is used in multiple countries outside of Europe in Asia, and both North and South America. The aircraft themselves can be easily serviced at thousands of airports around the world.
 
Indeed. But expeditionary is a different thing. Europe also hasn´t a resilient and robust space based infrastructure or dedicated mass launcher to make a light platform coherent with the defense posture.

Reading Global Eye marketing placard, it is stated an 8hr patrol time. That´s certainly at reduced airspeed and medium to high altitude. What that would be to deploy in the Pacific? Two stopovers with all the diplomatic impediments when you go to war and a second crew?

What would be the performances of such converted business jet supporting a raid of GCAP/FCAS at the expected strike range those future platforms are specifically designed for? Think operation Eldorado Canyon in something like Iran...

I think Erieye has proved to be a powerful platform for national airspace control. But I remember also how a 24hr full availability in the air was not possible. A smaller platform needs more airframe to achieve the same patrol time, hence more crew with staffs numbers more impacted by individuals unavailability. Think also maintenance (more engines in total, more hydraulic pumps, electrical systems, more parts to change etc...)

Inherently, there is less system resilience. What makes it an odd choice to claim more independence.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
But does Global Eye can still function independently when deployed halfway across the globe?
Click to expand...
TomcatViP said:
Reading Global Eye marketing placard, it is stated an 8hr patrol time. That´s certainly at reduced airspeed and medium to high altitude. What that would be to deploy in the Pacific? Two stopovers with all the diplomatic impediments when you go to war and a second crew?
Click to expand...
Wich letter in NATO stands for Pacific exactly ?

I thought the new motto was that Europe should defend Europe so the United States can allocate more resources to the Pacific Theatre
In that context, 2 dozen Globaleyes for Europe and E-7s for the US makes perfect sense to me.

The odd one is actually France choosing the Globaleye despite actually being an "indo-pacific state", for the reasons you rightfully mentionned.
 
While interesting from sovereignty point of view(though I doubt anything Saab can really work without American input), this will effectively reinforce US:NATO capability gap, with US capabilities being premium first tier.
Globaleye with its operator count is more of AEW rather than AWACS.
TomcatViP said:
Reading Global Eye marketing placard, it is stated an 8hr patrol time. That´s certainly at reduced airspeed and medium to high altitude. What that would be to deploy in the Pacific? Two stopovers with all the diplomatic impediments when you go to war and a second crew?
Click to expand...
I wonder what it's limited by, and how they came to these 8 hrs. I wonder if it's really onboard fuel.
 
TomcatViP said:
Not quite sure it's relevant. No administration is in power for 20 years.
Click to expand...
Its quite relevant there is extreme push for non US systems in NATO Europe we are seeing right now , if there is a choice , EU will buy or develop European big break with past practices where buying US gear was non issue.
 
Mr.T said:
Its quite relevant there is extreme push for non US systems in NATO Europe we are seeing right now , if there is a choice , EU will buy or develop European big break with past practices where buying US gear was non issue.
Click to expand...
As happy as I am to see sales of US gear, the other countries really should be developing their own stuff. It's in their own best interests!
 
Mr.T said:
Its quite relevant there is extreme push for non US systems in NATO Europe we are seeing right now , if there is a choice , EU will buy or develop European big break with past practices where buying US gear was non issue.
Click to expand...
If you aren't interested to reply to what I actually wrote, please refrain to quote me just to build your own argumentation.
 
I did not speak about prioritizing buying US but questioned the relevancy of choising a smaller platform for this mission.
 
Europe hosts the most successful airframe manufacturer that has a large choice of suitable airframe. I would think that such a potential large order for strategic system would see a bit of budget for a RFI/RFP.

IMOHO, anything based on something larger like an A220 would be a wiser choice.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Europe hosts the most successful airframe manufacturer that has a large choice of suitable airframe. I would think that such a potential large order for strategic system would see a bit of budget for a RFI/RFP.

IMOHO, anything based on something larger like an A220 would be a wiser choice.
Click to expand...
I agree, but nobody has bothered to integrate that radar onto a bigger bird.
 
FighterJock said:
Too True Scott Kenny, I think that the Airbus A-320 would be a good platform for the Erieye radar, plus the fact that being a larger platform it would have a much longer range than the equivelant Embraer aircraft that currently carry it.
Click to expand...
You also have to consider that Airbus France will already be fully occupied with designing the A321XLR MPA for the French Navy ... especially now that France appears to be accelerating the program with substantial funding starting in 2026.
Meanwhile, Airbus Germany has it's hand full with the infamous Eurodrone.

Maybe we could see a dorsal Eerieye option on a A321 MPA, but probably post 2035... or a belly mounted array like the AN/APS-154 on the P-8 Poseidon ?

I think there is a sense of urgency that plays in favour of the globaleye ... even France chose the Global6500 based Globaleye and didn't request a falcon 10X version, wich could have given the platform a much longer range btw
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    191.5 KB · Views: 45
I am pretty sure that the recent events at the border b/w India and Pakistan had as much play in this decision than a programmatic 5 year defense plan.
 
TomcatViP said:
I am pretty sure that the recent events at the border b/w India and Pakistan had as much play in this decision than a programmatic 5 year defense plan.
Click to expand...
No it's been a topic for a couple years now, the E-3 are aging faster than planned and some modernizations were even cancelled.

This article was posted 1 year before those events ...
www.intelligenceonline.fr

France/Suède • Paris finalise l'achat de l'avion de surveillance GlobalEye de Saab - 10/07/2024 - Intelligence Online

L'armée française est sur le point de conclure l'achat d'un avion de surveillance du constructeur suédois Saab, un appareil qui remplacera à terme les avions-radars Awacs opérés par la France. - 7/10/2024
www.intelligenceonline.fr www.intelligenceonline.fr
Paris finalises the purchase of Saab's GlobalEye surveillance aircraft

The French army is about to conclude the purchase of a surveillance aircraft from the Swedish manufacturer Saab, a device that will eventually replace the Awacs radar aircraft operated by France.
Click to expand...

From the french military programming law on the cancelled modernizations (before the indo-pak affair) :
The modernization of communication capabilities (radio and SATCOM) required for the command and conduct of air operations, the surveillance and management of airspace, as well as the tactical control of missions—both on national territory and during overseas operations—requires an upgrade of the SDCA.

Until 2024, the SDCA Interoperability program included two phases:
• Phase 1: replacement of the Link 16 terminals;
• Phase 2: addressing obsolescence issues in the mission system and integrating a sovereign satellite capability.

This program now includes only Phase 1, which has been completed.

Prepared in 2023, Phase 2 was not launched due to unsuccessful negotiations with industry. A study concluded in 2024 that the planned work should be abandoned in favor of a logistical solution allowing the aircraft to be operated until 2035.

The E-3F aircraft are expected to be withdrawn from service no later than 2035.
The program aims to replace these aircraft in order to modernize France’s sovereign airborne surveillance, command, and tactical control capability, enabling in particular the escort of “first-in” strike packages, deep-strike operations, and continuous Air C2 during missions.

The solution being considered is SAAB’s GlobalEye system (Joint Declaration of Intent signed at the Paris Air Show on June 18, 2025), which is included under the rearmament plan.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom