USAF News and Discussion

[FormerDirtDart]

Plans to acquire E-7 Wedgetails axed, E-2D Hawkeyes will be leveraged as E-3 Sentry becomes unsupportable and reliance on future spaced based AEWC becomes the path forward

Yeah, I don't get it either.

Hegseth questions Air Force plan to buy E-7, touts space-based recon

E-2 Hawkeye Replaces USAF E-3 Sentry, E-7 Cancelled In New Budget

The E-2D is far smaller than the E-7 and lacks some of its abilities, but it can fly from austere forward bases where the E-7 cannot.

www.twz.com

 

[Terran]

Plans to acquire E-7 Wedgetails axed, E-2D Hawkeyes will be leveraged as E-3 Sentry becomes unsupportable and reliance on future spaced based AEWC becomes the path forward

Yeah, I don't get it either.

Hegseth questions Air Force plan to buy E-7, touts space-based recon

E-2 Hawkeye Replaces USAF E-3 Sentry, E-7 Cancelled In New Budget

The E-2D is far smaller than the E-7 and lacks some of its abilities, but it can fly from austere forward bases where the E-7 cannot.

www.twz.com

I hope this proposal is poisoned, stabbed, shot, hung, stretched, disemboweled, drawn and quartered. Although space based is an interesting concept to do so would require a huge investment in space launches and hundreds of satellites in LEO. long term okay maybe but near- Mid term it’s not like the latest Hollywood blockbuster. The E2 is not as capable as the E7 and even if they did it still would cause issues as there is just as long a lead time between placing an order for them and getting them as E7 for a platform that is significantly lower endurance with lower altitude and a major disadvantage in manpower.

 

[John Fedup]

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.

 

[Terran]

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.

My understanding is that this doesn’t even call for more E2 rather the existing USN fleet would be mission stretched to cover the USAF.
As to EMP if a nuclear ASAT is used the effects would be destructive to both sides and given how orbital mechanics works a space based AWACS capability would require hundreds of satellites to provide 24/7 coverage.

 

[John Fedup]

My understanding is that this doesn’t even call for more E2 rather the existing USN fleet would be mission stretched to cover the USAF.
As to EMP if a nuclear ASAT is used the effects would be destructive to both sides and given how orbital mechanics works a space based AWACS capability would require hundreds of satellites to provide 24/7 coverage.

Agree the effects of anti satellite weapons would be detrimental to both sides, if things are desperate, $hit will happen IMHO.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Im kinda stunned by this. The USAF was pretty clear, they desperately needed the E7 and its priority was extremely high. The E3 are already essentially phased out, with mission capability approaching zero, and even when operating, they aren't a good match for modern airwar with stealthy munitions and planes, and hugely complex battlespaces with drones and nodes.
The USAF had planned to use sat based systems, but it turns out there are hard and fast laws of physics problems with that idea. I don't see how anything has changed. If anything, the situation in Ukraine and the recent India/Pakistan conflict shows the huge value AEW and robust C&C.

I'm also not sure sats are survivable in a peer conflict with China. AFAIK the sat solution isn't all the way there either. The constellation isn't in place. There were still issues to resolve even for the simplest functionality.

If anything I thought the E2s would be canned and E7 would take over their mission, freeing up space on the carriers, and again, it's better suited to the mission in modern battlespace's. Instead the E2 lives on. If space based is the future, why not can the E2 as well?

E7 can fly from austere bases, but not as austere as E2. Plenty of 737 capable airfields on small islands. At least E7 737 parts are available and common. How many E2's still exist?

 

[swerve]

The USAF is pretty clear. It needs the E7 and its priority is extremely high.

None of that has changed. It hasn't yet been cancelled. Contracts are still in place & work is still going on. There's a proposal (not yet approved by Congress) for a joint USN/USAF unit of five E-2Ds to plug the short-term gap left by the dire state of the remaining E-3s. The budget for that unit is much less than the price of one new E-2D, so it must be using existing USN aircraft, & the extra budget for additional aircraft "to fill the near-term gap" would only pay for a handful.

The USAF has said that space-based surveillance can't do the job yet, & E-7 (or at least, something higher-flying & with longer range than E-2) is still needed, & everyone else who can afford it agrees. That's why Boeing is pushing the E-7 to NATO, Saudi Arabia, & France (though France seems to be looking at GlobalEye, & Dassault is pushing its own Falcon 10 based proposal).

 

[John Fedup]

The USAF is pretty clear. It needs the E7 and its priority is extremely high.

None of that has changed. It hasn't yet been cancelled. Contracts are still in place & work is still going on. There's a proposal (not yet approved by Congress) for a joint USN/USAF unit of five E-2Ds to plug the short-term gap left by the dire state of the remaining E-3s. The budget for that unit is much less than the price of one new E-2D, so it must be using existing USN aircraft, & the extra budget for additional aircraft "to fill the near-term gap" would only pay for a handful.

The USAF has said that space-based surveillance can't do the job yet, & E-7 (or at least, something higher-flying & with longer range than E-2) is still needed, & everyone else who can afford it agrees. That's why Boeing is pushing the E-7 to NATO, Saudi Arabia, & France (though France seems to be looking at GlobalEye, & Dassault is pushing its own Falcon 10 based proposal).

Perhaps GlobalEye will be the beneficiary of this questionable decision, especially from a Canadian perspective.

 

[Todjaeger]

Perhaps GlobalEye will be the beneficiary of this questionable decision, especially from a Canadian perspective.

TBH if I were on Bombardier's board, I would probably be trying to reach out to Northrop Grumman to see what would be needed to fit the MESA aboard a Global 7500 or 8000. Otherwise Airbus might want to look into seeing if the A220 or A320 or their variants could fit the MESA and necessary onboard systems.

 

[Todjaeger]

Im kinda stunned by this. The USAF was pretty clear, they desperately needed the E7 and its priority was extremely high. The E3 are already essentially phased out, with mission capability approaching zero, and even when operating, they aren't a good match for modern airwar with stealthy munitions and planes, and hugely complex battlespaces with drones and nodes.
The USAF had planned to use sat based systems, but it turns out there are hard and fast laws of physics problems with that idea. I don't see how anything has changed. If anything, the situation in Ukraine and the recent India/Pakistan conflict shows the huge value AEW and robust C&C.

I'm also not sure sats are survivable in a peer conflict with China. AFAIK the sat solution isn't all the way there either. The constellation isn't in place. There were still issues to resolve even for the simplest functionality.

If anything I thought the E2s would be canned and E7 would take over their mission, freeing up space on the carriers, and again, it's better suited to the mission in modern battlespace's. Instead the E2 lives on. If space based is the future, why not can the E2 as well?

E7 can fly from austere bases, but not as austere as E2. Plenty of 737 capable airfields on small islands. At least E7 737 parts are available and common. How many E2's still exist?

Honestly I am not, not really. Then again, I am not making certain assumptions about plans and programms coming out of the Pentagon these days since there is the potential for money to be made, regardless of whether or not a system or capability is appropriate for (never mind whether it might be "best") the US.

Space-based AEW being one issue which might take years to develop and successfully deploy, OTOH it also might prove something to be which from a practical applications standpoint is simply unfeasible due to technical limitations as well as physics and astrophysics. One thing which has been getting observed is that the operational lifespans for some smaller satellites (like the Starlink constellation) is getting reduced due to solar radiation activity. Between that and the potential for other actors to start beaming signals at satellites to disrupt their function, making decisions based upon a system that is supposed to be getting developed rather than one which is ready to go into service seems unwise.

 

[Terran]

TBH if I were on Bombardier's board, I would probably be trying to reach out to Northrop Grumman to see what would be needed to fit the MESA aboard a Global 7500 or 8000. Otherwise Airbus might want to look into seeing if the A220 or A320 or their variants could fit the MESA and necessary onboard systems.

The global might be able to fit the radar but the internal equipment is designed for an Airliner. Buisness jets have narrower fuselages it makes the more efficient and allows smaller engines but for the mission systems, work stations, servers…It’s like trying to fit the interior of an American sized RV into a minivan. It would have to go to the Airbus. Unless Bombardier is flush with cash or someone is quite insistent and has money burning a hole in their pockets. Besides they are already partnered for CAEW and Globaleye.
I doubt AB would do it just because right now they wouldn’t have a customer. European market is being pushed for “Independence”. They are more likely to clean sheet a radar or partner with Saab or Thales at the behest of Versailles.

Of course we have digressed.
The E2 Scheme proposed in the Budget proposal is the same degree of penny wise pound foolishness that has left Europe and Canada reeling in light of a long obvious absolutist neo Czarist Russian Threat and the Imperialist Communist China. It would leave a decades long if not longer gap with only a half arsed AEW to patch. Pulling E2s from the navy a platform that is already a major trade down in capacity and on top is a large step down in capability. E2 is designed to cycle up and down on a carrier deck it has three mission stations with no provision for crew rest even a head. So the Crew is going to impose a major penalty vs the E7 which could easily cover an 18 hour race track with 10 mission stations able to easily cover large scale operations. 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….

 

[Todjaeger]

The global might be able to fit the radar but the internal equipment is designed for an Airliner. Buisness jets have narrower fuselages it makes the more efficient and allows smaller engines but for the mission systems, work stations, servers…It’s like trying to fit the interior of an American sized RV into a minivan. It would have to go to the Airbus. Unless Bombardier is flush with cash or someone is quite insistent and has money burning a hole in their pockets. Besides they are already partnered for CAEW and Globaleye.
I doubt AB would do it just because right now they wouldn’t have a customer. European market is being pushed for “Independence”. They are more likely to clean sheet a radar or partner with Saab or Thales at the behest of Versailles.

Of course we have digressed.
The E2 Scheme proposed in the Budget proposal is the same degree of penny wise pound foolishness that has left Europe and Canada reeling in light of a long obvious absolutist neo Czarist Russian Threat and the Imperialist Communist China. It would leave a decades long if not longer gap with only a half arsed AEW to patch. Pulling E2s from the navy a platform that is already a major trade down in capacity and on top is a large step down in capability. E2 is designed to cycle up and down on a carrier deck it has three mission stations with no provision for crew rest even a head. So the Crew is going to impose a major penalty vs the E7 which could easily cover an 18 hour race track with 10 mission stations able to easily cover large scale operations. 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….

Not sure that the examples and analogies are accurate, because Bombardier's smaller Global 6000 serves as the platform base for the Saab Globaleye, which means that there should be enough power and space aboard the Global 7500 to fit the sort of systems an AEW aircraft would use. It would be more about whether the specific systems used by the MESA could be fitted, and whether there would be sufficient power and cooling available. Hence Bombardier possibly approaching Northrop Grumman to check.