US AWACS recapitalization for the 21st century

Let me just add that I am not a fan of canceling E-7 regardless of my posts. While I think there are huge advantages to an orbital system, we are not there yet and aircraft have inherent flexibility that satellites do not.
 
bobthemonkey said:
The article actually agrees with my position.
Click to expand...
Well you did say physics was the problem and not fuel, which confused me since if we are able to go to the moon we should be able to move a satellite around.
bobthemonkey said:
2) This is something you are only really going to want to do for your large, infrequent, ‘exquisite” capabilities; this is not the kind of capability you want to put on low mass, high volume constellations, such as the type presumably hosting the AMTI payload.
Click to expand...
Yeah I guess thats true. Im not terribly familiar with space stuff so I had originally envisioned that an AMTI satellite would be an exquisite asset as an E7 would be relative to other planes, but if we are talking a lot of smaller AMTI sats then thats impractical. Out of curiosity, how much larger would your AMTI radar have to be relative to, say, a typical fighter radar to be useful on a satellite?
 
I'll be more invested in what will plays the role of a C3 center now that E-7 has been gutted. E-2 obviously doesn't have the facilities. But if the alternative is superhardened ground control, I'd trade E-7 and E-3 for them especially if the ICBM guys also get a cut.
 
This is where some of the peculiarities of orbital mechanics kick in- and there are far better informed people on these boards - who can explain better than me. Getting to them moon on a properly designed trajectory is a lot easier/more efficient than making a meaningful plane change in LEO, to the point that the latter is always avoided.

Size wise, the current generation of SAR radar Sats are pretty tiny;100 to 200kg and often launched in multiple alongside many other payloads as part of SpaceX Transporter ride-share launches. To help context that, recent “traditional” radar sats operated by the NRO were probably ~5000kg, based on the launch vehicle used.
 
bobthemonkey said:
Getting to them moon on a properly designed trajectory is a lot easier/more efficient than making a meaningful plane change in LEO, to the point that the latter is always avoided.
Click to expand...
Naturally so, for plane change you'd need to expend fuel mass. X-37B did that. Strapping nozzles and tanks on stand somewhere between absolute God hard and triviality but it's not even a serious point of contemplation if for that extra mass you can lift even more sats and optics. Just *builds* more, space is massive.
 
Orbital AMTI is going to need more than satellites.
It's going to need a network.
Networks rely on communications.
Communications = an opening into the system.
Such openings = potential entry for others.

Now....
IF the network is bouncing around Orbital space before downlink to a secure site in CONUS...then that site Definitely on the target list for 'must destroy or disable, whatever the cost'.
THEN you don't need 'regional' downlink sites and regional processing.
Like the US currently has for SIGINT and ELINT.....
Which be located in other peoples countries....
And part of the price for those, is you share with them.
 
zen said:
Orbital AMTI is going to need more than satellites.
It's going to need a network.
Networks rely on communications.
Communications = an opening into the system.
Such openings = potential entry for others.

Now....
IF the network is bouncing around Orbital space before downlink to a secure site in CONUS...then that site Definitely on the target list for 'must destroy or disable, whatever the cost'.
THEN you don't need 'regional' downlink sites and regional processing.
Like the US currently has for SIGINT and ELINT.....
Which be located in other peoples countries....
And part of the price for those, is you share with them.
Click to expand...
Pine Gap is shared with Oz which I don't think the USG would mind. She has always been a reliable partner.

Your mention of an "orbital data cloud" takes me back to the Battleship movie, how the aliens made their miss-home call. Sats beam data to a super sat that orients itself to shoot back info to the mother fleet (in our case, a station on Earth). Transmission line of sight and redundancy will be a problem.

My solution? Launch laser anti-missile sats. Make it bigger and build into the thing an encoder so that you hide laser comms as "range tests". Plus, anti-missile orbital laser. And because it's laser, not radio waves, at least a phase of the protocol will be SIGINT-free. Beam the data back to CVNs and OCONUS stations.
 
zen said:
Satellites follow a mathematically predictable orbit.
You know where they be now and where they will be tomorrow.

Aircraft have a tendency to be far less predictable.
Click to expand...
An AWACS parked on a runway is even more predictable and can be taken out with an FPV drone for <$1000k, a satellite on any orbit takes millions to down. There has also been developments on on-orbit manoeuvrability. Oh and did I mention the AWACS can now be seen from orbit at all times whether parked or flying?
 
Forest Green said:
An AWACS parked on a runway is even more predictable and can be taken out with an FPV drone for <$1000k, a satellite on any orbit takes millions to down. There has also been developments on on-orbit manoeuvrability. Oh and did I mention the AWACS can now be seen from orbit at all times whether parked or flying?
Click to expand...
Sorry, which airfield?
For how long?

After all if POTUS has to get airborne during a crisis, you're suggesting his flight is knocked out prior?
 
The greatest distinction is that Ukraine already proved that drone swarms can neutralize strategic air at large solely because on the ground it's mainly a HUMINT thing. We haven't seen anything similar yet wrt spacecrafts.
 
zen said:
Orbital AMTI is going to need more than satellites.
It's going to need a network.
Networks rely on communications.
Communications = an opening into the system.
Such openings = potential entry for others.

Now....
IF the network is bouncing around Orbital space before downlink to a secure site in CONUS...then that site Definitely on the target list for 'must destroy or disable, whatever the cost'.
THEN you don't need 'regional' downlink sites and regional processing.
Like the US currently has for SIGINT and ELINT.....
Which be located in other peoples countries....
And part of the price for those, is you share with them.
Click to expand...

I would presume any propagated constellation used laser cross links like the SDA PWSA (and presumably the NRO starshield satellites). That would allow for a very secure, low latency, low earth orbit signal system that could be downlinked anywhere. That seems like easier part of the problem compared to actually providing a clear, consistent radar picture of an area of interest.
 
zen said:
Sorry, which airfield?
For how long?

After all if POTUS has to get airborne during a crisis, you're suggesting his flight is knocked out prior?
Click to expand...

It is a serious concern; there are a handful of aircraft equipped for that all at one airbase outside DC. Presumably there is some kind of anti UAV capability.
 
Josh_TN said:
I would presume any propagated constellation used laser cross links like the SDA PWSA (and presumably the NRO starshield satellites). That would allow for a very secure, low latency, low earth orbit signal system that could be downlinked anywhere. That seems like easier part of the problem compared to actually providing a clear, consistent radar picture of an area of interest.
Click to expand...
It doesn't even have to be laser. Just broadcast L16 tracks from space much like E-3 in the air today

https://www.sda.mil/link-16-tactica...tion-via-space-a-ground-breaking-development/
 
Just to add to the AEW on a runway security debate - not an AEW but similar-sized aircraft:

www.twz.com

IAF Destroys Iranian Aerial Tanker 1,400 miles From Israel, Farthest Strike Yet

Israel’s strikes on Tehran are now accelerating after achieving air superiority over the capital, with an eye towards Iran’s east. Israel’s strikes on Tehran are now accelerating after achieving air superiority over the capital, with an eye towards Iran’s east.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
1400miles is 1200nm that is equal to 2200km...

Don't tell me anymore about 6th Gen gigantism... Range comes with efficient design... (and cleverly picked engineers).
 
TomcatViP said:
1400miles is 1200nm that is equal to 2200km...

Don't tell me anymore about 6th Gen gigantism... Range comes with efficient design... (and cleverly picked engineers).
Click to expand...

Not sure where you are getting the idea that this was an unrefueled strike?
 
I feel that AWACS are easy to shoot down because they emit radio waves. The U.S. has never fought a full-fledged modern-equipped military before, what about when facing China, for example?
 
barrett said:
I feel that AWACS are easy to shoot down because they emit radio waves. The U.S. has never fought a full-fledged modern-equipped military before, what about when facing China, for example?
Click to expand...

The vulnerability in the air and on the ground is a major concern and one of the central topics of the thread.
 
Josh_TN said:
The vulnerability in the air and on the ground is a major concern and one of the central topics of the thread.
Click to expand...

The "survivability" concern within DoD centers around adversaries deploying long range air to air missiles. DoD made this clear in statements around their desire for a "stealth tanker" in the last year or two. With long range air to air missiles it becomes much more difficult and resource intensive to protect AEW and tanker aircraft. That is DoD's position.
 
quellish said:
The "survivability" concern within DoD centers around adversaries deploying long range air to air missiles. DoD made this clear in statements around their desire for a "stealth tanker" in the last year or two. With long range air to air missiles it becomes much more difficult and resource intensive to protect AEW and tanker aircraft. That is DoD's position.
Click to expand...
Which of course brings us to the question of "is it possible to make an LPI AEW radar?" Or is LPI tech by nature restricted in range?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Which of course brings us to the question of "is it possible to make an LPI AEW radar?" Or is LPI tech by nature restricted in range?
Click to expand...
LPI inherently has “low” not “impossible” in the name, and I think that’s your answer, *especially* operating over water where there is no background noise to hide behind. The shear amplitude of an AEW would likely make its waveform rather recognizable just with that attribute alone. I think hiding an active emission is not a thing you can do against a peer in broad terms, and for higher energy AEW, probably not something you can even conceal from orbit.
 
Josh_TN said:
LPI inherently has “low” not “impossible” in the name, and I think that’s your answer, *especially* operating over water where there is no background noise to hide behind. The shear amplitude of an AEW would likely make its waveform rather recognizable just with that attribute alone. I think hiding an active emission is not a thing you can do against a peer in broad terms, and for higher energy AEW, probably not something you can even conceal from orbit.
Click to expand...
B-2 and the BSAX/TACIT BLUE absolutely were intended to hide active emissions from a peer
 
Scott Kenny said:
B-2 and the BSAX/TACIT BLUE absolutely were intended to hide active emissions from a peer
Click to expand...

I am sure that was the goal, but I do not think it realistic now. AI likely can detect almost any attempt to obscure a signal, especially in an area mostly devoid of background noise.
 
Josh_TN said:
I am sure that was the goal, but I do not think it realistic now. AI likely can detect almost any attempt to obscure a signal, especially in an area mostly devoid of background noise.
Click to expand...
Admittedly, BSAX was going to be operating in a very "loud" environment, orbiting on top of the front lines to get radar GMTI data.

But B-2 was supposed to be operating over the Soviet Union directly, and I'm not sure about where the major RF emitters lurk there. I suspect that there are large parts of Russia that are as quiet as over the ocean.
 
16x retired 4 stars generals unite against SecDef last policy to cancel the E-7:

Deptula [...] called the Pentagon’s plan to scuttle the E-7 “strategically irresponsible.”
[...]
“The E-2 is unable to meet the combatant command requirements for theater-wide airborne command and control,” the generals said in the letter. “That is not the mission for which it is designed. Additionally, the E-7 can perform missions different from traditional AWACS roles that will be critical to the China contingency.”
Click to expand...

www.defensenews.com

Former Air Force chiefs sound alarm about planned F-35, E-7 cuts

Nearly 20 retired Air Force general officers, including six former chiefs of staff, urged lawmakers to reverse Pentagon plans to cut the E-7 and F-35s.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

www.afa.org

Generals to Congress: Buy More F-35s, Fund the E-7 - Air & Space Forces Association

Sixteen retired four-star Air Force generals, including 6 retired Chiefs of Staff, have joined AFA in a plea to Congress to increase investment in F-35 fighter jets and restore funds cut from the fiscal 2026 budget for E-7 Wedgetail.
www.afa.org www.afa.org
 
Last edited:
BlackBat242 said:
Well if you don't bother to submit a bid, you can't win.
Click to expand...

Well it was the third round of bidding in the past 18 months so maybe they've decided it's not worth jumping through the hoops for a four-frame order.

I'm unclear how the ROKAF would save money by inducting an additional type anyhow, let alone the complications to operations it would involve. The whole charade seems pointless. Just reorder as many E-7 as the budget allows and be done with it.
 
Last edited:
Boeing may also be now considering South Korea's new government as something of a credit risk, given it's attitude to defense programs and national defense in general.
 
House committee restored almost all of the E-7
2026 funds:

The chairman’s mark of the House Armed Services Committee’s NDAA, also released on Friday, would restore funding for the Air Force’s E-7 program. The E-7 is a Boeing-made airborne battle management that would replace the aging E-3 Sentry, or Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft.
[...]
The Pentagon’s proposed 2026 budget would cut E-7 funding to nearly $200 million, a reduction from $850 million in 2024 and $607 million in 2025.

The House’s proposed NDAA would add another $600 million to the E-7 program to continue its rapid prototyping phase, bringing its budget to nearly $800 million.
Click to expand...

As earlier quoted by @isayyo2
 
www.twz.com

Step Toward Blocking E-7 Wedgetail Radar Jet Program Cancellation Taken By Congress

The Pentagon wants to buy extra E-2 Hawkeyes instead of E-7s ahead of establishing a satellite constellation to do their job.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

An addition of $600 million for the “continuation of rapid prototyping” of the Air Force-specific version of the E-7 is included in a draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2026 Fiscal Year, which the House Armed Services Committee released today. The Air Force first announced its intention to buy Wedgetails in 2022. The service had been working to acquire two production representative prototypes for test and evaluation purposes as a lead-in to a finalized production configuration, examples of which were expected to begin entering operational service in 2027. The program had already suffered notable delays and cost growth, which the Pentagon has said were major factors in the cancellation decision.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom