Bombardier just moved into a brand new production facility at the Toronto Airport, with increased production capacity, beyond the 150 they are expected to build and deliver this year. I don't think industrial capacity will be a problem. We're only talking about something like 6 airframes. However, I don't know how long it takes Saab to build the radar, so I suppose there could be an industrial capacity issue on that side.
Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions
- Thread starter John Fedup
- Start date
There are some pretty dramatic difference in capability. Between the two.
The planes are quite different. A single E7 engine has about as much power as both of the Global Eye's combination. The E7 has two 90Kva generators. The 737 is a large commuter jet that has space for ~100 seats, while the Global Eyes BG6000 is like a 17 seat plane to start with. Conversion to a AEW reduces that dramatically, and one becomes a long endurance, long range platform for complex battlespaces, and the other becomes a minimally manned platform for short observation flights much like the El2085. The radar on the E7 is more advanced, more powerful (it is the most powerful radar flying), has way more processing capability, way more send receive capability and is 3+ times larger. It has other capabilities including sigint and electronic warfare.
The G550 EL2085 vs the BG6000 based Global eye would be a much more comparable match up.
The E7 is in another league. It would be like comparing a trainer jet, to a F-35. A trainer jet can fly, some have a radar, some can carry munitions, and some can even fire them. But it isn't an F-35. It isn't designed to go into a straight up peer fight and win. It can slot in with coalition partners, who operate the same platform, can use the same training pipeline, can work jointly with other pilots and jets and ships and munitions.
A large country would almost always choose the E7. For flights over its own territory, or for long range deployment and for the capabilities.
Plus the US and UK are acquiring and operating them, they having huge sums of money thrown at them to increase their capabilities. They have been impressive in the middle east and Europe. They will be able to integrate into the US/UK/AU/JP battlespace management systems.
They aren't the same thing. They aren't in the same universe.
But Canada needs to decide if they are a large country or a small country.
If they are worried about workshare, they can pretty much buy an existing airliner and build it all themselves. Yes, there is huge demand for them, but most of the bottleneck is at Boeing in the US. If Canada has available capacity, they would add to the total capacity, it would not have to be just Boeing. They could even pick up work from other partners. Because the E7 are in outrageously strong demand. Anything that gets them delivered sooner would be considered by any partner. While existing airliners would not have infinite life, they are very long lived planes. Under military use, they would live for half a century. Its not a big issue for a nation like Canada (or the UK or Australia). The US would want to keep them forever, possibly as their last AEW platform ever to be acquired, hence new airframes. Plus their fleet is much larger, and they don't want to have to manage 30 different aged airframes each with their own quirks and issues.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A few things strike me whenever there is discussion of AEW&C "solutions" and that often times one gets lost in discussion of the capabilities of a specific platform, when it really breaks down into what the specific capabilities are of the aircraft and then separately, what are the specific capabilities of the ISR systems. To a degree this seems to be happening here as well. It might be better to individually compare what the aircraft platforms bring, as well as what the radar arrays are (or are believed to be) capable of, and then maybe look at what the different combinations might bring together.
From my personal perspective, most of the details about the specific aircraft platform are not all that important when considering AEW platforms, since I suspect most of differences or advantages specific airframes might have are not of major importance, provided the airframe itself is of sufficient size to fit the required kit for the capability. An example of this would be the aircraft capability differences between a G6000/6500 and a B737NG, with the B737NG being a bigger bird, which also tends to mean that a G6000-based aircraft could operate from some smaller airfields that a larger B737NG could not. IMO however, more important capability differences revolve around potential mission endurance as well as the number of crew/workstations. From a PDF available from Saab, a Globaleye is supposed to have an 11hr+ mission endurance. I have not been able to locate a current mission endurance listing for the E-7 but recall discussions which discussed the mission endurance of it and the similar P-8 Poseidon with one having a mission endurance of up to 15 hours whilst the other had a max mission endurance of up to 18 hours. These numbers were separate max range with in-flight refueling, as there was/is an onboard stores issue which limits the time on station even with refueling. As I understood it, the limitation was that an onboard fluid which I suspect is a coolant would be exhausted after 15-18 hrs of operation. One of the other areas of potential comparison between the aircraft is the number of crew and workstations, but unfortunately I have not been able to locate a Saad document which lists the size of the Globaleye crew, or the number workstations. For the E-7 there are 10 workstations currently fitted and I believe there is room for two more, which leads me to suspect that a Globaleye would have fewer crew and workstations, being a smaller aircraft.
Where this can become important is that an AEW&C is not 'just' an ISR platform, but also a C4 battlespace management platform. Having more eyes able to look at sensor return and track data should me that the workloads for individual operators should be reduced, which should improve performance vs. forcing individual or small numbers of operators to multi-task. This could also become even more important for long endurance missions due to potential issues caused by crew fatigue.
Now for the different radar systems, most of the actual performance data is unknown since it is not something which would be in the public domain, for what should hopefully be obvious reasons. There are a couple of things which are known though, and that has to do with the main radar coverage arcs, with the actual Erieye AESA having ~150 degree arcs of coverage to port and starboard, whilst the Northrup Grumman MESA has port and starboard coverage arcs of 120 degrees, and the fore and aft coverage arcs of 60 degrees. As a result of the arc coverage for the Erieye, the Globaleye has coverage gaps ahead of and behind the aircraft, forcing the aircraft to fly a turning flightpath in order to scan the entire sky.
Given what is publicly available, I personally suspect that an E-7 AEW is more capable than Globaleye, though either might be sufficient for Canadian needs. Assuming of course that Canada does actually make a selection and spend the coin to actually acquire such a capability.
From my personal perspective, most of the details about the specific aircraft platform are not all that important when considering AEW platforms, since I suspect most of differences or advantages specific airframes might have are not of major importance, provided the airframe itself is of sufficient size to fit the required kit for the capability. An example of this would be the aircraft capability differences between a G6000/6500 and a B737NG, with the B737NG being a bigger bird, which also tends to mean that a G6000-based aircraft could operate from some smaller airfields that a larger B737NG could not. IMO however, more important capability differences revolve around potential mission endurance as well as the number of crew/workstations. From a PDF available from Saab, a Globaleye is supposed to have an 11hr+ mission endurance. I have not been able to locate a current mission endurance listing for the E-7 but recall discussions which discussed the mission endurance of it and the similar P-8 Poseidon with one having a mission endurance of up to 15 hours whilst the other had a max mission endurance of up to 18 hours. These numbers were separate max range with in-flight refueling, as there was/is an onboard stores issue which limits the time on station even with refueling. As I understood it, the limitation was that an onboard fluid which I suspect is a coolant would be exhausted after 15-18 hrs of operation. One of the other areas of potential comparison between the aircraft is the number of crew and workstations, but unfortunately I have not been able to locate a Saad document which lists the size of the Globaleye crew, or the number workstations. For the E-7 there are 10 workstations currently fitted and I believe there is room for two more, which leads me to suspect that a Globaleye would have fewer crew and workstations, being a smaller aircraft.
Where this can become important is that an AEW&C is not 'just' an ISR platform, but also a C4 battlespace management platform. Having more eyes able to look at sensor return and track data should me that the workloads for individual operators should be reduced, which should improve performance vs. forcing individual or small numbers of operators to multi-task. This could also become even more important for long endurance missions due to potential issues caused by crew fatigue.
Now for the different radar systems, most of the actual performance data is unknown since it is not something which would be in the public domain, for what should hopefully be obvious reasons. There are a couple of things which are known though, and that has to do with the main radar coverage arcs, with the actual Erieye AESA having ~150 degree arcs of coverage to port and starboard, whilst the Northrup Grumman MESA has port and starboard coverage arcs of 120 degrees, and the fore and aft coverage arcs of 60 degrees. As a result of the arc coverage for the Erieye, the Globaleye has coverage gaps ahead of and behind the aircraft, forcing the aircraft to fly a turning flightpath in order to scan the entire sky.
Given what is publicly available, I personally suspect that an E-7 AEW is more capable than Globaleye, though either might be sufficient for Canadian needs. Assuming of course that Canada does actually make a selection and spend the coin to actually acquire such a capability.
Terran
Well-Known Member
@Todjaeger , Thank you.
I thank you because you have just brought back something I was trying to get too.
That is the Question of What kind of capability does Canada think it needs?
Canada unlike Australia or South Korea is tied directly to the United States of America and the two countries are interdependent upon each other economically and geopolitically.
The two have the established NORAD treaty and joint command specifically because if of this fact. If Russia or China wanted to attack the USA they would probably be attacking through Canada and it’s just as likely that Canada would be attacked in the process.
So the question of its airspace defense comes to NORAD. Now the United States Air Force and the Royal Canadian Air Force do intermix in NORAD as well as in NATO. But at its core the RCAF is the smaller more home bound organization.
The question is does Ottawa feel the need for the Same albeit smaller in number capacity set as the USAF? Boeing/Northrop Grummans E7 Wedgetail. Which is a very high end mission set that will come at a steep of time, manpower and funding. It would give them an interchangeable mission capacity with the USAF. An exceptional over the horizon scan and endurance.
Or
Does Ottawa feel that a lower end complimentary capacity to the USAF and allied forces? The Bombardier/SAAB Globaleye I think fit that category.
At a glance it seems no contest yet being smaller does have its benefits. It can operate at more forward rougher fields, a smaller crew also favors that. E7 has more ground and surface scan capability. Very good over the horizon but much better as a gap filler picketing where the E7 is lacking.
@StingrayOZ
On the question of Big country vs Small country, Canada is in the position of being militarily risk adverse and slow in procurement process. So much so that such a program like following India’s indigenous Awacs program seems like a step too far. An existing offering or concept seems more realistic. Boeing is a backlog but there really isn’t an alternative to the E7A in that high end available unless Airbus drops an A320Neo M3 AEWC in the near term (which I doubt will happen.)
At the lower end IWI’s P600 I think is way too small. The IWI/ L3 Harris latest pitch for the CAEW has changed host from the G550 no longer in production to the Bombardier Global Express 6500 but I doubt Canada is willing to be a launch customer for anything. That risk aversion. So that leaves the Globaleye.
I thank you because you have just brought back something I was trying to get too.
That is the Question of What kind of capability does Canada think it needs?
Canada unlike Australia or South Korea is tied directly to the United States of America and the two countries are interdependent upon each other economically and geopolitically.
The two have the established NORAD treaty and joint command specifically because if of this fact. If Russia or China wanted to attack the USA they would probably be attacking through Canada and it’s just as likely that Canada would be attacked in the process.
So the question of its airspace defense comes to NORAD. Now the United States Air Force and the Royal Canadian Air Force do intermix in NORAD as well as in NATO. But at its core the RCAF is the smaller more home bound organization.
The question is does Ottawa feel the need for the Same albeit smaller in number capacity set as the USAF? Boeing/Northrop Grummans E7 Wedgetail. Which is a very high end mission set that will come at a steep of time, manpower and funding. It would give them an interchangeable mission capacity with the USAF. An exceptional over the horizon scan and endurance.
Or
Does Ottawa feel that a lower end complimentary capacity to the USAF and allied forces? The Bombardier/SAAB Globaleye I think fit that category.
At a glance it seems no contest yet being smaller does have its benefits. It can operate at more forward rougher fields, a smaller crew also favors that. E7 has more ground and surface scan capability. Very good over the horizon but much better as a gap filler picketing where the E7 is lacking.
@StingrayOZ
On the question of Big country vs Small country, Canada is in the position of being militarily risk adverse and slow in procurement process. So much so that such a program like following India’s indigenous Awacs program seems like a step too far. An existing offering or concept seems more realistic. Boeing is a backlog but there really isn’t an alternative to the E7A in that high end available unless Airbus drops an A320Neo M3 AEWC in the near term (which I doubt will happen.)
At the lower end IWI’s P600 I think is way too small. The IWI/ L3 Harris latest pitch for the CAEW has changed host from the G550 no longer in production to the Bombardier Global Express 6500 but I doubt Canada is willing to be a launch customer for anything. That risk aversion. So that leaves the Globaleye.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,825
WRT an indigenous Canadian program, the only chance that made this a remote option was using the C-Series to develop alternatives to the P-8 and E-7. This larger platform would have had better export potential. However this is a bridge too far for risk adverse Canadian pollies. Unfortunate because such a project might have kept the C-Series in Canadian hands long enough for Bombardier to take advantage of Boeing’s MAX C-F.
Terran
Well-Known Member
John I don’t think that was ever an option. Bombardier was trying to unload the C series for some time. They had bitten off more than they could chew were deep in debt. They offered it to Boeing twice all but giving it to them as a gift, But Boeing boned that up. So Airbus got it. As Bombardier off loaded the A220 they went through a major restructuring off loading a number of other divisions.
Besides that they would have needed a radar set. That would have required a whole other R&D program and major investment or foreign procurement followed by systems integration and certification.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
R&D and major investment become an 'interesting' question for AEW. The US has been the largest user of AEW-type aircraft for some time, and has experience utilizing such capabilities for decades. One natural outgrowth of that is that there is both significant operational experience as well as technical expertise to exploit and/or improve future usage. Whilst there is a growing pool of Erieye AEW radar users amounted on a host of different aircraft, what I do wonder about is the future potential growth/further development of the AEW radar and systems.
By my count, it appears that as many as 45 E-7's could end up getting built both the US and UK do decide to have the types enter into their respective services alongside that of the RAAF, Turkey, S. Korea and NATO. I would expect that a fair bit of new/additional development could be undertaken on the E-7, particularly since I believe there is room for at least two additional workstations. Also worth considering is the potential for some future developments for the similar P-8 Poseidon could also migrate over.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,828
The Beaudoin family’s preferred share ownership of Bombardier, the late decision to develop the C-Series, and the developmental and delivery of P&W’s geared turbo fans doomed the C-Series. If the latter two issues had positive outcomes perhaps this could have made the project successful but Beaudoin control and management was a negative.
As for the radar, signifiant foreign partnerships would have been required.
India is a bit of a different kettle of fish. They are non-aligned. They are the most populous country to have ever existed akin to the combined population of China and Russia. They can throw 10,000 engineers at an problem and work up and indigenous solution, which only they need to adopt. Their threat matrix is different. They typically do not do expeditionary warfare. They aren't in NATO. They aren't even US allies. They regularly operate Russian gear.
Not even the US could do the E7 in the time frame to make it relevant by itself, its a 20 year program that is maturing nicely. The 737 ended up being a good sized plane, slightly smaller than 707, but way more modern with growth potential over very cramped business jets and things like the E-2 Hawkeye. Japan had the 767 and ended up in an orphaned development that was more E3 than E7.
Even then, that would not see the money, priority and effort being thrown at it as the E7 is. The E7 is filling in a USAF technological/ideological failure or misjudgment that satellites will replace everything. They can't, nor will they ever. The E7 development has been a trial by fire, on a very ambitious platform that is blowing everything else out of the water, and has proven itself within 4th gen and 5th gen modern peer battlespaces.
Its not just about size, or power, or range. Its about software and processing, and integration. You need something that can fly 500-100km away from the front line. No development of the fighter jet or space sats will ever replace that.
If you go Globaleye or similar, sure, there is some capability, there, but its very different. It is much more like the older E3 in terms of it being able to do some traffic control in the air, particularly for forces that don't have high level integration and ultra modern systems as small ops can be coordinated from that platform, but its not the same as the E7.
The E7 is a enabler of and order of magnitude greater. If you want to operate F-35's and low observable munitions in a battlespace, you will want the E7.
It also has way better endurance and operational tempo capabilities. 4 E7's would likely be able to operate more, cover more, control more, than 8-12 smaller AEW aircraft.
The 737 platform itself, is extremely durable and cheap to operate and maintain. The people thing is always a major concern, but the E7 requires only fractionally more manning, even with just 10 consoles, they don't all need to be manned. Which is another strength. Buy the plane, and there is already a massive pool of operators from Australia, Korea, Turkey, UK and the US to fill seats on any deployed mission. The computer systems are very much next level, with huge effort put on integration between systems like Aegis, Cooperative engagement capability, general battlespace management, F-35, weapons, ground stations, satellites etc. These are flying daily along Ukraine, along Turkish boards in the Mid east, along the Korean front line. Nothing from Europe offers that. Which is why NATO is buying E7's. How many global eyes are currently flying? How much money have they poured into the platform? How much combat has it seen? What is its development potential?
But acquisition costs are definitely a thing. But work share, you can basically do all of the refurbishment and fit out in Canada. The airframe is not the main game in this build.
If you want to increase Canada's aviation industry, get Air Canada to cancel 4 of their 737 max order instead, and buy 4 used 737's. Then force air Canada to buy and operate BG6000. This would also be dumb, but not as dumb as not buying the E7 because the Global Eye might have potentially, perceived, more workshare. Life time costs and operational costs would be likely greater on the Globaleye, while offering much inferior capability.
An E7 can remote fire weapons from fighters or ships, guide those weapons on complex trajectories to avoid threats and detection, while also scanning for drones and smart munitions, listening and then degrading enemy radars and communications on planes, ships and ground and space, while, moving at 900kmh, across thousands of km2 ever second with hundreds of aircraft in the air in a mix of military and commercial airspace, with essentially un-jammable coms/radar and do it for 12 or more hours, all day every day. From full high intensity peer war, to sanctions to just observation to intelligence.
It would be a very worthy area for Canada to throw money and effort into.
No need to over-egg the pudding. 17 seats vs over 100? Yes - but in drastically different configurations. A Global 6000 with 17 passenger seats is in a luxury bizjet configuration, with massively more room per seat. The SAAB 340, which I've flown on, has 34 passenger seats - & it's tiny compared to a Global 6000/6500, a much bigger relative difference than between Global 6000 & a 737. And "short observation flights"? Before you put the radar on the roof, it has twice the range of the 737 & flies higher & faster. Of course, that'll be affected by the radar, & I expect more than the radar affects the 737's performance, but "short observation flights" is just silly. SAAB is marketing it on range & endurance. I'm sure customers aren't stupid enough to be fooled by complete nonsense, so there must be some truth in that.
I see no reason to doubt that the E-7, with almost twice the take-off weight (not "3+ times larger") & power, has performance advantages over the Globaleye/Erieye ER, but I'd like to see a realistic comparison without exaggeration.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,831
I guess the RCAF might see such a comparison but unfortunately we won't.
Terran
Well-Known Member
My point was they developed an entirely indigenous or atleast an attempt at an entirely indigenous AWACS program in the Netra program. But that happened because of the drive and acceptance in India to be a launch customer and indigenous development even if the end product is lack luster.
India has a long tradition much like the Middle East of buying from both sides of the eastern western divide. In fact before the Netra project India’s previous AWACS was a Russian A50 airframe fitted with an Israeli Radar set. The EL/W-2090.
By contrast Canada is conservative to a fault. All their projects are iterative and slow. Where most countries took 4 years to get a drone program Canada took 15. We were talking in a purely hypothetical.
The E767 of the JASDF was a E3. The Japanese jumped in to the E3 program way too late and there were no 707 worth conversion on the market. Boeing had just enough supply chain to provide the radar and equipment sets but dropped them into 767 airplanes.
E737 what would become the E7 started over 20 years ago. The Australian government drops the RFI in 1996. First flight was 20 years ago first delivery in 09 with last of the original order delivered to Australia in 2012.
What allowed the US order was the British order. In a repeat of the C130J The MOD of the UK jumped in to a cold line and asked for new planes.
Back in 01 the USAF had wanted to replace the E3. But they had a grander ambition to also replace the E8 JSTARs and RQ135 in an all in one the E10MC2A a derivative of the 767. They rapidly had issues and changed things so by 03 they were looking at 3 maybe 4 variants each filling different mission ISR, AWACS, Electronic reconnaissance, Doomsday. By 07 that was all canceled. The Budget wasn’t there, war on terror. So E3 modernization, satellite and drones took the lead. The war on terror put more wear and tear on E3 than hoped, E8s were deemed to risky and RQ135 is waiting for it’s replacement which will likely be a mix of drones and buisness jets.
Yes because it’s a smaller budget and different force structure. Which is why is said I doubt it would happen. If this was the French military I am sure they would have the budget was available do a full A320 AWACS. But this is Canada. It was a pure hypothetical.
A good deal of the mission gap that lead to the USAF E7 is simply that the E3 is 1980s technology at best and the Aircraft that plays host dates to the Eisenhower administration. The procurement of the E7 is similar to the procurement of the F15EX. Not based on new capabilities so much but gap filling as the existing aircraft has aged out and the wings are proverbially falling off. The E3 mission available rates are low. To low to sustain.
Overall you are making the case for what I call equivalent capability. I am not sure what you’re saying about Air Canada’s MAX. I mean atleast one Canadian airline already operates 9 737-700 of the E7’s parent type. Its not a question of what is superior of inferior but what is deemed in the best interest of Canada and meets the budget.
As to getting Bombardier Global Express The RCAF may have to do that anyway. Well the CC330 vip means the issues with the CC150 are ending the CC144 are still a Challenge (pun So intended) the Canadian PM broke down in a fairly new ones in Jamaica back in January. Those planes don’t just fly the PM but many other officials often into places a big A330 would be poorly suited.
This is the bit I struggle with in Canada's procurement. I think there is a disconnect in what the best interest of Canada and real capability.
I agree, but there is some I think additional information. There was a movement that flying planes as AWAC type platforms was a technological dead end from the air force perspective. Plenty of papers were published in the late 90's and early 2000's.
Defense Technical Information Center
apps.dtic.mil
So given that, and they already had a large oversized fleet of E3's, it was an easy program to cut. It had few supporters, it didn't support the airforce moving into space and interservice rivalry in that area, it was teeth, it was perhaps a technological dead end, and Boeing wasn't going anywhere and had heaps of commercial and military contracts, it didn't need saving from a late 90s early 2000 perspective. But the US has always had an eye on the E7 program.
People think the E7 is a E3 replacement. Its not. That isn't how it was born. That was not its requirement. Australia never operated the E3. Its development spilled into multiple areas things like the USAF would like to keep as separate programs and not integrated on a single platform. It owns the airspace like nothing really before it. The fact that Australia could fly it into Germany, and start ops for Ukraine speaks volumes. As did the Turks, who are very effectively using theirs to keep conflict well away from them.
Modern airspaces may involve thousands of drones launched by both sides being in the air at the same time. How does Canada intend to manage that battlespace where allied army units are firing off smart stealthy munitions and drones wildly at threats on complicated trajectories and flight paths, while the enemy is doing the same, all while commercial flights are occurring all around the outer edges. Ensuring you aren't engaging your own munitions is going to be a part of things going forward. Your 155mm shell doesn't have IFF. You need a dozen people at terminals in the air managing everything, blocking, degrading, categorizing, scanning, prioritizing, with a huge amount of computing power and the largest most powerful and complicated radar in the air.
The E7 is so important, it may even affect Blk IV F-35 feature development and later developments. As now the E7 exists in US doctrine, the F-35 doesn't have to be a one man warrior anymore which will hopefully free it from some of its development issues.
I guess all I am saying is Canada should really assess the E7, and its use and need with its F-35 purchase.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,834
Sadly, no pollies here are willing to analyze what kit fits best because the electorate has shown zero interest so instead free stuff is their battle cry. We need a way to address this in order to have serious defence capability.
Going to be very difficult going forward. Because it isn't about just replacing existing platforms. Its about systems.
For a country that has a massive front directly facing Russia, and a side directly facing China, that is a huge area most countries would want to be able to track and control. Not just against those national entities, but people, drug, resources smuggling, etc. Drones are clearly not just for state actors. Criminal organisations can easily afford and operate them.
Its not just about high intensity war fighting. Again, Australia didn't develop and acquire the E7 to fight Russia or China. Or control operations far, far away. Is isn't about the cold war or super powers or anything like that.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IIRC it has been reported that some drug smuggling operations along the US-Mexico border have used drones to fly contraband over the border into the US. This in turn indicates that can criminal orgs afford and operate drones, they already do.
TBH though, I suspect that long-ranged radar pickets for Canada would be of more interest, as the smaller/shorter-ranged drones are just not going to have the reach unless operated from coastal waters and/or the US. Having said that, if the E-7 does currently have or receive an EA capability in the near future, that might be worth the RCAF getting a few.
I rather doubt we would ever see much info in the public domain, but a potentially potent defence vs. drone swarms and/or autonomous PGM's might be the energy output from the T/R modules in large AESA radars like the E-7's MESA. Concentrate enough RF energy in a beam aimed at a drone and the object could end up getting essentially microwave into oblivion.
It's very hard to get public data on e7 capabilities, but it is very much capable, pretty much all your dreams are realities with this.
Drones and sats will never have this level of power or processing. But it can work and enhance those platforms.
This Is What USAF's Future E-7 Radar Jet Is Actually Capable Of
The E-7A Wedgetail is now set to replace the Air Force's aging E-3 Sentry AWACS and we got a very in-depth look at its capabilities.
www.twz.com
It has the loudest voice and the longest ears on the battlefield. It can change its proximity and deliver that voice and ears anywhere in that area of operations.
It's like 600 e3s. It's like two dozen f35s or growlers. It is different from those as it can do everything from 300 miles away. It's total em spectrum management. It's total em spectrum superiority.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,838
If the polar region becomes ice free or close to it, public awareness on our vulnerability in the north might start to register wrt drones from criminals and hostile states/terrorists. Until then it will be business as usual short of another Russian invasion (Baltics) or China moving on Taiwan.
In a world of global chaos, that is a huge front with some already hostile neighbours. Unmonitored airspace will make it unsafe for commercial air travel and infrastructure up north.
The drones are already arriving. They are already here..
Canada is literally sitting in a polar air current that allows very easy delivery from both Russia and China, both state and non-state actors. Small drones, balloons, large drones, are already arriving.
It is extremely low energy pathways for them.
When the ice melts, northern Canada will look like the Malacca straits. And larger states will muscle in to control it. Their interests, and Canada's interests will probably not be directly compatible.
Canada isn't the main game, but they will literally roll over it. If the US and China go to war, Canadian airspace will be thick with munitions both friendly and hostile. They will be taking everything out. Blue on blue engagements could wipe out Canada's entire military capability in the crossfire.
Forget Russia. Canadian/NATO obsession with Russia is so misplaced. They are a minor threat becoming less every day. Russia isn't going to try to out muscle the US in a flat out confrontation. China has stated that is their open goal. To the Chinese, Canada is an easy target. Try could strike at it and be reasonably confident that the US wouldn't budge. You guys are literally the buffer state. You are Poland.
China doesn't want to invade, they want to run the place. They can do that from China.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,840
Agree, China is the main threat, not Russia albeit this would not be the case in a major nuclear exchange. As for drones, they are a threat but what can they really threaten at present? The majority of Canadian infrastructure and population is within 100 miles of the US border with a major portion of this along the Windsor Quebec City corridor. All of this is below the region where the buffer zone is. I doubt US anti-missile defence assets will be held back to 100 miles north of the border . Same applies to the West coast.
Given the distances involved, attacking with land based long range missiles or drones seems unlikely at present. Naval strikes seem more feasible, especially via submarines. P-8s and CSCs hopefully will address this somewhat. A bigger threat is the thousands of Chinese immigrants out of the 1-2 million that have not been properly vetted by junior’s government.