USAF News and Discussion

[swerve]

E2s limited max altitude will cut down over the horizon scan range. Making matters worse there are only 16 in the USN. Those 16 are supposed to be cycled with the active CVNs so increasing demand on fixed supply. Justified by hopes and Promises that the Spaceforce option will mature….

Are you sure about that? I've seen the figure of 88 E-2D built, mostly for the USN, & any that haven't been lost should still be in service. The E-2D is in production for France, Japan & I think still the USN.

 

[Terran]

You’re right I am wrong. I must have crossed my wires. It should be 78.

 

[swerve]

IIRC that's the number of USAF E-3s still in service. I can imagine that sort of obscure crossover of thoughts.

 

[StevoJH]

Given the recent IOTUS-Musk feud, it is surprising the E7 is being $hitcanned for a space based alternative using SpaceX rockets. Furthermore, this will take longer to deploy. Yes, aircraft vulnerability could be an issue but the E2 is perhaps more vulnerable than an E7 albeit more E2s can be acquired. Personally I believe the first consequence of a peer-to-peer conflict will the destruction of satellites by both nuclear EMP and kinetic hits thus ruining the future use of space near earth due to massive amounts of debris.

At least most of these satellites are in LEO, hopefully the debris would have all deorbited within 5-10 years depending on altitude.

But yeah, relying on space based sensors in a high intensity peer on peer conflict is asking for trouble.

There is a reason why advanced inertial systems are still under heavy development, along with deployable ground based systems such as eLORAN.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Ordinarily I'd say that not proceeding with the E-7 is a terrible idea. But given the advancement of Russian/Chinese missile range such that aircraft like the E-7 will be increasingly vulnerable to be sniped, investing in cheaper platforms like the E2-D as a stopgap measure until space-based assets are available might be the smart move. A single E-7 is roughly $1 billion, whereas a E-2D is at most $300 million.

What would the USAF rather have to deal with a particular emergency, a single Wedgetail or three Advanced Hawkeyes?

 

[swerve]

But E-2D is both less capable, & more vulnerable. Has to be quite a lot closer to what it's watching.

Current production E-7s cost about $700 mn, I think. The USAF's contracted to pay about $2.6 billion for two prototypes, including considerable changes to the design, so production cost should be significantly cheaper. They could get the current production standard quicker & cheaper.

 

[Todjaeger]

Ordinarily I'd say that not proceeding with the E-7 is a terrible idea. But given the advancement of Russian/Chinese missile range such that aircraft like the E-7 will be increasingly vulnerable to be sniped, investing in cheaper platforms like the E2-D as a stopgap measure until space-based assets are available might be the smart move. A single E-7 is roughly $1 billion, whereas a E-2D is at most $300 million.

What would the USAF rather have to deal with a particular emergency, a single Wedgetail or three Advanced Hawkeyes?

Another consideration is how long will it actually be, before a practical workable space-based AEW asset is in service? Keeping in mind that such a system would not only need to function properly under good conditions in peacetime, but also in bad conditions and/or times of conflict.

As already mentioned, such satellites would be vulnerable to ASAT systems, as well as systems which disrupt, damage or destroy their sensors and/or comms/datalink systems. There is also a question on just how many satellites would be needed to provide the sort of desired coverage for a given area of airspace.

 

[swerve]

Another consideration is how long will it actually be, before a practical workable space-based AEW asset is in service? Keeping in mind that such a system would not only need to function properly under good conditions in peacetime, but also in bad conditions and/or times of conflict.

As already mentioned, such satellites would be vulnerable to ASAT systems, as well as systems which disrupt, damage or destroy their sensors and/or comms/datalink systems. There is also a question on just how many satellites would be needed to provide the sort of desired coverage for a given area of airspace.

This has been mentioned by assorted experts, & current USAF officers. The consensus seems to be that space-based systems have considerable potential, but also risks, & on the most optimistic assumptions won't be able to replace aircraft in the timescale Hegseth seems to think.

 

[Terran]

What would the USAF rather have to deal with a particular emergency, a single Wedgetail or three Advanced Hawkeyes?

Indications are they wouldn’t be USAF but USN. Similar to how the USAF borrowed EA-6 units for SEAD roles. They would be Navy aircraft and navy crews attached to USAF bases with the procurement going to NAVAIR for additional aircraft. In essence the USAF would off load the entire AWACS mission to first the navy and then eventually the Spaceforce.