I'm not the most knowledgeable person in the world when it comes to aircraft, but the failure to procure a new generation of AWACS alongside F-22/35 seems like a fucking colossal blunder. We dove cock-first into this highly networked approach to air war but... just kinda "forgot" to similarly advance early warning capabilities? E-3, according to General Wilsbach, is insufficient for the "timely detection" of J-20. China has potentially over 300 of them. If E-3 is insufficient, doesn't that mean we're looking at a very fast and brutal air campaign against China with heavy attrition? What am I missing here?
>>64416996You're missing the fact the Pentagon planned to replace these unstealthy flying targets with satellites doing the job. AWACS are limited by the horizon. A global satellite network has full planetary coverage from takeoff to landing, redundancy, and is harder to shoot down in the first place.
>>64417022Why is the Pentagon filled with incompetent niggers?
>>64416996>I'm not the most knowledgeable person in the world when it comes to aircraftthat's true, otherwise you'd know we're acquiring the e-7 to replace the e-3s
>>64417022So, what... just wait another twenty years for the program to get off the ground and hope China stays in its cage until then? It strikes me that we are vulnerable at this very moment, probably unacceptably so.
>>64417022I do wonder how vulnerable sat based sensors are to ground based disruption. As an AWACS, being limited by the horizon means that opposing ewar is equally limited, while a satellite with a camera or big ass radar has to worry about anti-sat dazzlers/jammers that can be deployed basically anywhere in the theatre, and can be massively more powerful than what an airborne jammer can afford to output.All of this isn't getting into doing things like just slapping the sensor satellites with ASAT weapons - a space worthy sensor capable of tracking aircraft is going to be a hell of a lot more expensive than a rocket capable of reaching space with some decent guidance (regardless of how dirt cheap launch costs are), so relying entirely on space based sensors might invite disaster in a near-peer war (as is the normal for over-relying on any one technology).
>>64417048>we're acquiring the e-7He doesn't know
>>64417092congress overruled kegbreath's stupidity
>>64417092I think the house stepped in and blocked the cancellation of the program. Because ya, cancelling it would be fucking retarded
>>64416996>What am I missing here?there will never be another air war
>>64416996Correct, it's a colossal error that will be a massive detriment in a hot war with any sizable power. That the USAF isn't getting a bunch of E-7 ASAP is awful. Satellites are also not a replacement given their vulnerability to jamming/destruction, predictable flight paths, and other pitfalls. They can work alongside AWAC though.
>>64416996>>64417092>>64417103https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/64313100>The AF turned back from the proposal to axe the E-7 completely and use 'space based' sensors. I wonder who has a big space based business and whispered that idea into Trump's ear?>>This is the same guy that said F-35s were useless and doesn't understand drones>2 E-7 units are currently in retrofitting in the UK to USAF spec and then full production will start in Kansas after their 2027 delivery. IMO the AF should retire the E-3s right now to free up funding for the E-7s as the 70s radomes are nearly obsolete, the E-2s can fill in the gap as the AF had proposed.To answer your question OP, yes, it is a very valid concern. E-7s have better performance than E-2Ds against LO targets such as J-20s, but both are limited by physical horizons against conventional targets. Having E-2Ds as a stopgap while getting E-7s would be a great idea considering the Navy has a surplus of 40 E-2Ds not assigned to any carrier wings and the Navy and Air Force have operated electronic warfare assets jointly under MOUs, see the 5 expeditionary Growler squadrons, AF basing, crews, Navy in name only. But the idea was to phase out AWAC completely, which is idiotic considering sat tech is still decades out form being able to provide the level of networking and sensors that an AWAC can have.So now we can at least sit tight knowing that E-7s will slot in with the very capable E-2Ds very soon despite the purely 'cost-saving' efforts of Hegseth.
>>64417085radar horizon to an airborne jammer at high altitude is about 800km, not that different from a satellitejamming the radar completely does not work because of sidelobe blanking and high antenna gain, you only affect a small part of the observed volumewith airborne radar the affected area will be a few degree slice of the circle when projected onto a mapwith spaceborne radar the geometry is different because look down and scan the beam in two planes, it will be a few degree cone looking down so a much smaller region, you will need many more jammers to achieve the same effect
>>64416996what is needed is an all purpose P H A T battle-bomber about size of FB-111/ B-58/B-47 that can serve as mach 1.5 PHAST tanker, PHAST awacs, PHAST ASW, PHAST missile-truck/heavy fighter, and last butt not least Snell Bomber.Give it baked in RATO scheme and make it barely possible to operate off super carrier, even if that means that version needs 20 Niggers with impact wrenches and 10 minutes to put the wings on.PS...only stealth that works is ground hugging.
>>64417194Fuck off elon
>>64417037DEI was pretty shit but, at least they had some experience and kinda knew what they were doing. These, MAGA cunts like Hegseth are just fucking mentally retarded
>demoralization thread backfires because OP didn't update his shill script
>>64417261Take it to /pol/ troon.
>>64416996An AWACS is just an airliner with a giant radar, you can upgrade the avionics and keep the same airframes in service for 50+ years."Stealth AWACS" is a completely retarded concept as it needs to be emitting to do it's job and it'll be detectable beyond it's own detection range because that's the nature of radar.As for attrition systems like Loyal Wingman allow networked radar coverage without risking lives so they can operate well forward of AWACS.
