INS Vikrant (IAC1) & INS Vikramaditya - News & Discussions

[randomradio]

Hi, sorry seem to have forgotten about this reply. Just noticed again.



It's mostly done to prevent platform obsolescence but upgrade a non-AESA as much as you like, the jump to AESA is always a quantum leap in capability.

Most of perceived superiority of a fighter based radar dissipates once you remove the ~40 year gap between the E-3's base technology and that of F-22/35 AESAs.

No next gen fighter has demonstrated such a capability against an E-7 for example. Reason why its now positioned to replace E-3.



The type of platform depends on needs & launch options of the user, but my point was that next gen fighters are not meant to serve the role of a AWACS at all.

F-35 for example is only designed to operate its radar in small pings or bursts, which then serve as cues for EODAS to take over the tracking passively, minimizing the probability of intercept. VLO fighter doctrine simply doesn't allow for acting as illuminators for all warfighting elements in theatre (all of which don't have acquisition or tracking capabilities of their own) as its directly antithetical to their role as low observable attack platforms, continuously operating one's radar at full power negates it.

Manned, unmanned, fixed wing, rotary wing, whatever the case may be, AEW & Battlespace Management will be offloaded to a different platform for the foreseeable future.



An AEW radar of the same era & base technology (size & weight of TRMs, and type of substrate) can always have far more TRMs, far more transmission power (thanks to ability to house larger dedicated APUs) and a consequence a far greater ability to acquire and track targets compared to a fighter radar of the same generation.

The equation gets thrown out of the window if your fighter radars are two or three generations ahead of your AEW though (which is currently the case with most Western AFs. However it's set to change in the near future).

There was a time when fighters were entirely dependent on AWACS. Current fighters enhance the capabilities of AWACS, but even that time's swiftly going away. With more modern jets coming up, AWACS have been relegated to the second circle, outside the family of systems. So an ISR/AEW drone will provide everything necessary to the fighter, to the point where the fighter itself won't have anything capable of active emissions, minus the comm system. In the meanwhile, dedicated AWACS will be taken out in the very first day of the war with standoff missiles. Hell, their expected survival time is measured in minutes.

The E-7 plan is a stopgap for a new drone-based AWACS capability being developed by NATO after 2035. So, when new gen jets step in, the time of the traditional AWACS will be over.

Tracking targets is all about software and processing. Yesteryear fighters did not have enough processing, while AWACS and ground radars did. Now fighters have all the processing they need. But what it means is with fighters now tracking 1000 targets, ground-based radars will track 10,000.

 

[Parthu]

There was a time when fighters were entirely dependent on AWACS. Current fighters enhance the capabilities of AWACS, but even that time's swiftly going away. With more modern jets coming up, AWACS have been relegated to the second circle, outside the family of systems. So an ISR/AEW drone will provide everything necessary to the fighter, to the point where the fighter itself won't have anything capable of active emissions, minus the comm system. In the meanwhile, dedicated AWACS will be taken out in the very first day of the war with standoff missiles. Hell, their expected survival time is measured in minutes.

The E-7 plan is a stopgap for a new drone-based AWACS capability being developed by NATO after 2035. So, when new gen jets step in, the time of the traditional AWACS will be over.

Tracking targets is all about software and processing. Yesteryear fighters did not have enough processing, while AWACS and ground radars did. Now fighters have all the processing they need. But what it means is with fighters now tracking 1000 targets, ground-based radars will track 10,000.

An AEW drone is still an AWACS in the sense its still going to remain a role offloaded to a different platform, not something the fighter itself would do as was your initial assertion.

Any platform that has to constantly operate its radar at max or near max power to acquire every possible bit of information about the enemy's movements can only be so survivable. Its not going to matter much if the platform itself becomes stealthy, instead of active radar seekers, EBVRAAMs with anti-radiation heads will come up. And outmaneuvering Ramjet missiles with vast NEZs isn't easy even for fighters.

The AEW drones will not be able to fly down to the same areas where the fighters are, if they do they won't be able to see anything that the fighters themselves can't see. They have to remain at higher altitudes than the fighters to maximize radar horizon & negate effects of terrain. The trick for survival of these platforms will again boil down to them remaining as far from the threat environment as possible (to maximize response times & room to evade), and compensating that with a more powerful radar that can scan over those distances in 360 degrees (to accommodate for evasive maneuvering).

In the end that's not so different from current AWACS doctrine.

 

[randomradio]

An AEW drone is still an AWACS in the sense its still going to remain a role offloaded to a different platform, not something the fighter itself would do as was your initial assertion.

Any platform that has to constantly operate its radar at max or near max power to acquire every possible bit of information about the enemy's movements can only be so survivable. Its not going to matter much if the platform itself becomes stealthy, instead of active radar seekers, EBVRAAMs with anti-radiation heads will come up. And outmaneuvering Ramjet missiles with vast NEZs isn't easy even for fighters.

The AEW drones will not be able to fly down to the same areas where the fighters are, if they do they won't be able to see anything that the fighters themselves can't see. They have to remain at higher altitudes than the fighters to maximize radar horizon & negate effects of terrain. The trick for survival of these platforms will again boil down to them remaining as far from the threat environment as possible (to maximize response times & room to evade), and compensating that with a more powerful radar that can scan over those distances in 360 degrees (to accommodate for evasive maneuvering).

In the end that's not so different from current AWACS doctrine.

The point I'm making is crewed AWACS will come to an end. And fighters themselves will become AWACS, of course, with the help of offboard assets like AEW drones, ground/space based sensors etc. For example, the CROWSNEST will be replaced by ISR drones. So the fighter will become central to the decision making. Even NATO's planned AWACS for 2035 is a family of systems centered around drones. If there is a manned component, it's more likely to be a bunch of people in a business jet operating passively with only the comms being the active component.

An AEW drone will be able to function better than a manned fighter, let alone a big, bumbling jetliner. We can make it capable of performing beyond human limits, while reducing the size and complexity of the sensors, thereby cost, since it can fly closer to the enemy at higher altitude.

 

[Parthu]

The point I'm making is crewed AWACS will come to an end. And fighters themselves will become AWACS, of course, with the help of offboard assets like AEW drones, ground/space based sensors etc. For example, the CROWSNEST will be replaced by ISR drones. So the fighter will become central to the decision making. Even NATO's planned AWACS for 2035 is a family of systems centered around drones. If there is a manned component, it's more likely to be a bunch of people in a business jet operating passively with only the comms being the active component.

An AEW drone will be able to function better than a manned fighter, let alone a big, bumbling jetliner. We can make it capable of performing beyond human limits, while reducing the size and complexity of the sensors, thereby cost, since it can fly closer to the enemy at higher altitude.

Fighters can perform C&C for the small drone swarm/loyal wingmen that they control in the pursuit of their specific mission - but this is not the same as performing C&C over the entire battlespace consisting of hundreds if not thousands of elements, IDs, vectors, and multiple simultaneous missions consisting of different airborne, ground-based or seaborne assets in theatre while being the nodal link in the Chain of Command that goes all the way up to the Theatre Commander. That's what AWACS do - and that's not a job for 1 person who also has to fly his own aircraft and focus on his own specific mission, which is only a small part of the bigger picture.

The fighter pilot's ability, aided by advanced AI & software, to manage tactical-level C&C of his own strike package must not be confused with an ability to manage the C&C of the entire battlespace, which can include a frontage of several thousand square kilometers of command & control responsibility.

Fighter pilots can neither have the perspective, or the authority to manage theatre-level operations which is what AWACS conduct.

It's true that the Radar element and the C&C element MAY be separated (only a concept at this point) in the pursuit of a more survivable means of operation that de-risks the personnel, but this will be done only if its deemed workable in a heavy ECM environment which can play havoc with datalinks. The current AWACS setup is a self-contained unit and as such is partially immune to these effects. Either way, this will remain a job for a multitude of personnel immediately answering to a ranking officer. Whether this group of personnel will be situated in the air or on the ground is a different matter.

 

[randomradio]

Fighters can perform C&C for the small drone swarm/loyal wingmen that they control in the pursuit of their specific mission - but this is not the same as performing C&C over the entire battlespace consisting of hundreds if not thousands of elements, IDs, vectors, and multiple simultaneous missions consisting of different airborne, ground-based or seaborne assets in theatre while being the nodal link in the Chain of Command that goes all the way up to the Theatre Commander. That's what AWACS do - and that's not a job for 1 person who also has to fly his own aircraft and focus on his own specific mission, which is only a small part of the bigger picture.

The fighter pilot's ability, aided by advanced AI & software, to manage tactical-level C&C of his own strike package must not be confused with an ability to manage the C&C of the entire battlespace, which can include a frontage of several thousand square kilometers of command & control responsibility.

Fighter pilots can neither have the perspective, or the authority to manage theatre-level operations which is what AWACS conduct.

It's true that the Radar element and the C&C element MAY be separated (only a concept at this point) in the pursuit of a more survivable means of operation that de-risks the personnel, but this will be done only if its deemed workable in a heavy ECM environment which can play havoc with datalinks. The current AWACS setup is a self-contained unit and as such is partially immune to these effects. Either way, this will remain a job for a multitude of personnel immediately answering to a ranking officer. Whether this group of personnel will be situated in the air or on the ground is a different matter.

When we say "the entire battlespace", AWACS can't either. All it can do is work within the limits of its own radar and sensors. And future fighters will outrange AWACS because of their ability to see more of the enemy air space because of their ability to operate closer to the enemy. The F-35 is already doing it without even being operationally ready.

The Su-57 has been designed to operate independent from AWACS because at the ranges it's meant to operate in, it will be beyond the extremes of the AWACS's detection ring. For example, these fighters are expected to have a combat radius of over 1500Km, well beyond the capabilities allowed by physics for existing AWACS. So, for the USN, an E-2D cannot help NGAD perform its mission.

 

[Parthu]

When we say "the entire battlespace", AWACS can't either. All it can do is work within the limits of its own radar and sensors. And future fighters will outrange AWACS because of their ability to see more of the enemy air space because of their ability to operate closer to the enemy. The F-35 is already doing it without even being operationally ready.

Future fighters will be outranged & outclassed by future AWACS.

The E-7 already beats the F-35's radar capabilities & due to availability of larger banks of power to draw from, can burn through heavy ECM/ECCM environments like no fighter radar can.

That said, the E-7 isn't even cutting edge at the moment, radars like the G550 CAEW & SAAB GlobalEye have already implemented GaN TRMs into a radar array that is the size of 4 x APG-81 faces side by side, and they've got 2 of those arrays, plus additional ones covering 300+ degrees.

In the end, what gets you the victory in air combat is your launch platforms (fighters) being able to remain undetected till the point they destroy the enemy's launch platforms. VLO aircraft combined with an AEW that can cue them to the targets without them needing to negate their stealth advantage by going active is still the best way available to reliably defeat hostile air.

Plus, remember that AEWs typically operate in much longer wavelengths than fighter radars. Remember those small L-band slat radars on the Su-57's wings designed to provide early warning? An AWACS' giant-a$$ S/L-band radar can do that a 100 times better. Sure these frequencies aren't the best for fire-control of BVRAAMs but they needn't be - the AEW only needs to cue the fighters' passive sensors like EODAS via datalink.

It's virtually impossible for a fighter to obtain firing solutions on an AEW even with Meteor-style missiles before said AEW obtains a very clear picture of the fighter in question, and already directed multiple aircraft to intercept. Remember LO airframes don't work as well against long-wavelength radars - add AESA & GaN to the mix, and the scale is tipped in the AEW's side by far.

ability to see more of the enemy air space because of their ability to operate closer to the enemy

Then they will transmit their situation picture to the AWACS via datalink (or SATCOM), which in turn enables Command to better execute the C&C of the theatre. The AWACS in turn keeps the fighters informed of threats they themselves may not be able to see either due to keeping their own active transmissions to a minimum, or because of terrain. You cannot expect the Theatre Commander's HQ to scrutinize inputs from a 100 individual fighter pilots, the information has to be collated & a situation picture developed based on all the inputs. That is half the AWACS' job.

You are missing the AWACS' strategic-level C&C function for the fighters' tactical-level C&C functions.

The Su-57 has been designed to operate independent from AWACS because at the ranges it's meant to operate in, it will be beyond the extremes of the AWACS's detection ring. For example, these fighters are expected to have a combat radius of over 1500Km, well beyond the capabilities allowed by physics for existing AWACS. So, for the USN, an E-2D cannot help NGAD perform its mission.

It depends on how far back the AWACS is allowed to stay.

That said, the Russians' air combat C&C is kind of bonkers. The Beriev A-50s are simply nowhere to be seen in Ukraine. At several levels, they suffer from similar problems as IAF does, only worse. They maintain a handful of AEW aircraft but the doctrine still largely depends on ground controllers to call the shots & direct the action instead of moving that party into the air (AWACS) which is something the West did decades ago.

So, the combat radius & raw platform capability of the aircraft aside, the actual Russian doctrine is so dated that effective C&C beyond the line of sight of a GCI station (situated on Russian territory) is extremely poor. Part of the reason I reckon why they've objectively failed to establish air superiority over Ukraine even months into the war...and Ukraine's air force is a joke.

Put this outdated Russian C&C machine against a modern NATO air force and the RuAF is finished. Felon or no Felon it's not going to matter. The Flanker's combat radius is no slouch either and it isn't helping.

 

[randomradio]

Future fighters will be outranged & outclassed by future AWACS.

The E-7 already beats the F-35's radar capabilities & due to availability of larger banks of power to draw from, can burn through heavy ECM/ECCM environments like no fighter radar can.

That said, the E-7 isn't even cutting edge at the moment, radars like the G550 CAEW & SAAB GlobalEye have already implemented GaN TRMs into a radar array that is the size of 4 x APG-81 faces side by side, and they've got 2 of those arrays, plus additional ones covering 300+ degrees.

In the end, what gets you the victory in air combat is your launch platforms (fighters) being able to remain undetected till the point they destroy the enemy's launch platforms. VLO aircraft combined with an AEW that can cue them to the targets without them needing to negate their stealth advantage by going active is still the best way available to reliably defeat hostile air.

Plus, remember that AEWs typically operate in much longer wavelengths than fighter radars. Remember those small L-band slat radars on the Su-57's wings designed to provide early warning? An AWACS' giant-a$$ S/L-band radar can do that a 100 times better. Sure these frequencies aren't the best for fire-control of BVRAAMs but they needn't be - the AEW only needs to cue the fighters' passive sensors like EODAS via datalink.

It's virtually impossible for a fighter to obtain firing solutions on an AEW even with Meteor-style missiles before said AEW obtains a very clear picture of the fighter in question, and already directed multiple aircraft to intercept. Remember LO airframes don't work as well against long-wavelength radars - add AESA & GaN to the mix, and the scale is tipped in the AEW's side by far.

Whoa, none of those are AWACS's advantages. The E-7 has an RCS well over 100m2, probably closer to 1000m2. It stands no chance against a stealth fighter in a head-to-head competition. It will be detected at the fighter radar's instrumented range.

I mean, it's simply meaningless.

Longer wavelengths because it's meant for volume scan. And with longer wavelengths, you need a bigger radar. A bigger radar means a bigger platform. A bigger platform makes it less agile. And so on. Another major issue is the horizon limitations of such manned jets.

It depends on how far back the AWACS is allowed to stay.

If your AWACS is in Assam, then how will you have AWACS support over Chengdu that's 1000Km away?

That said, the Russians' air combat C&C is kind of bonkers. The Beriev A-50s are simply nowhere to be seen in Ukraine. At several levels, they suffer from similar problems as IAF does, only worse. They maintain a handful of AEW aircraft but the doctrine still largely depends on ground controllers to call the shots & direct the action instead of moving that party into the air (AWACS) which is something the West did decades ago.

So, the combat radius & raw platform capability of the aircraft aside, the actual Russian doctrine is so dated that effective C&C beyond the line of sight of a GCI station (situated on Russian territory) is extremely poor. Part of the reason I reckon why they've objectively failed to establish air superiority over Ukraine even months into the war...and Ukraine's air force is a joke.

Put this outdated Russian C&C machine against a modern NATO air force and the RuAF is finished. Felon or no Felon it's not going to matter. The Flanker's combat radius is no slouch either and it isn't helping.

It has nothing to do with a specific country. Su-57 is merely one example, the first of its kind. All future jets will function independently of AWACS. This includes both the NGADs, FCAS, Tempest, even AMCA.

An AWACS radar has an instrumented range of up to 650Km. So if your fighter has a combat radius of 1000-2000Km, then you can't have AWACS support. So you need the fighter itself to become as capable as AWACS. It's common sense, E-7 can only operate over friendly skies, but high end jets will have to operate 1000Km inside enemy territory. So it's natural such jets need to duplicate AWACS capabilities for their own use.

AWACS came into existence because fighter radars at the time, ie 70s, 80s and 90s, could only detect and track targets up to 150Km. So AWACS with radar ranges exceeding 300Km became force multipliers. But now fighter radars have begun to match AWACS radar ranges, like the Irbis-E can detect and track 3m2 targets from 350-400Km away, which is effectively what AWACS do as well.

For the high end fight against near-peer or peer adversaries, AWACS are becoming pretty much useless. In fact, once more advanced jets come into the picture, alongside AI, the AWACS will actually become a liability.

Right now, with the exception of 360 deg capability, the F-35 has begun to trump AWACS in pretty much every way in terms of sensor capabilities.

 

[Parthu]

Whoa, none of those are AWACS's advantages. The E-7 has an RCS well over 100m2, probably closer to 1000m2. It stands no chance against a stealth fighter in a head-to-head competition. It will be detected at the fighter radar's instrumented range.

I mean, it's simply meaningless.

Longer wavelengths because it's meant for volume scan. And with longer wavelengths, you need a bigger radar. A bigger radar means a bigger platform. A bigger platform makes it less agile. And so on. Another major issue is the horizon limitations of such manned jets.

Detection at instrumented range =/= viable firing solution. Even with a Meteor-esque missile, the range for a good probability of hit/kill is likely to be around 200-250km when launched from a typical altitude for a fighter (between 30k and 50k feet). Powerful S/L-band radars should have no problem detecting even LO targets at those ranges, something which the X-band radars on fighters really cannot do as the enemy aircraft's stealth is optimized against them.

Longer wavelength is also extremely important for defeating LO shaping at much farther ranges than X-band can. That's the reason Su-57 is fitted with them, not because it thought it could do volume search with those PUNY slat radars - its purely for early warning, a form of IFF against LO/VLO if you will.

If your AWACS is in Assam, then how will you have AWACS support over Chengdu that's 1000Km away?

Fighters do not operate at max combat radius necessarily. It depends on the geography & the mission. F-15 had a combat radius of nearly 2,000 km - that didn't stop it from needing AWACS.

It has nothing to do with a specific country. Su-57 is merely one example, the first of its kind. All future jets will function independently of AWACS. This includes both the NGADs, FCAS, Tempest, even AMCA.

We do not know that. Except Su-57 no one else is even talking about adding long-wavelength radars. The F-35 currently beats the Su-57's sensor fusion capabilities (especially passive ones) by a mile, and it doesn't even have L-band.

Without those radars, the effective detection/tracking range against VLO aircraft is between 50 and 100 kms. Which means once the enemy starts deploying stealth fighters you are toast. Jets like those you mentioned will pretty much be forced to engage unknown numbers of hostile air at knife fight ranges - good way to get overwhelmed, especially if fighting deep inside enemy airspace with no support.

An AWACS radar has an instrumented range of up to 650Km. So if your fighter has a combat radius of 1000-2000Km, then you can't have AWACS support. So you need the fighter itself to become as capable as AWACS. It's common sense, E-7 can only operate over friendly skies, but high end jets will have to operate 1000Km inside enemy territory. So it's natural such jets need to duplicate AWACS capabilities for their own use.

Like I said, combat radius is not something to be taken at face value. It's mostly an indicator of time of station rather than of actual range.

Regardless, going 1,000km into enemy territory with no way of early warning against hostile VLO is crazy. Fighters keeping their radars at max as they try to do AWACS role themselves is basically handing the other side victory on a platter. Those X-bands have no hope in hell of detecting VLO beyond 100 km, while the other side will have all the advantages they need to track you passively thanks to those beacons you just turned on.

To do this within range of friendly support is bad enough (therefore F-35 specifically designed not to do so), but to do that 1,000km inside enemy airspace is literal suicide. You have got this all wrong.

AEW as a role isn't going anywhere - yes the platforms may change to enable better survivability, but the role won't and can't. You need a powerful long-wavelength radar illuminating as much of the enemy as possible at all times, and to do so while not needing to expose your fighters.

AWACS came into existence because fighter radars at the time, ie 70s, 80s and 90s, could only detect and track targets up to 150Km. So AWACS with radar ranges exceeding 300Km became force multipliers. But now fighter radars have begun to match AWACS radar ranges, like the Irbis-E can detect and track 3m2 targets from 350-400Km away, which is effectively what AWACS do as well.

For the high end fight against near-peer or peer adversaries, AWACS are becoming pretty much useless. In fact, once more advanced jets come into the picture, alongside AI, the AWACS will actually become a liability.

Right now, with the exception of 360 deg capability, the F-35 has begun to trump AWACS in pretty much every way in terms of sensor capabilities.

It's coming full circle now due to VLO targets optimized to defeat X-band. With those in play, your fighter's detection range against those targets has again dropped to this side of 100 kms. The Irbis-E for example probably can see an F-22 head on at roughly 30-40 kms if its lucky. It stands no chance.

This is why the importance of long-wavelength radars is being realized again. But like you said, you can't do much with a small, low powered L-band like on Su-57. Only platforms capable of deploying S/L-band radars large enough & powerful enough to detect VLO targets at meaningful ranges are again the AEWs.

Sure, put the said AEW radar on a stealthy drone beyond 2035 if you must, but the role isn't going anywhere.

 

[randomradio]

Detection at instrumented range =/= viable firing solution. Even with a Meteor-esque missile, the range for a good probability of hit/kill is likely to be around 200-250km when launched from a typical altitude for a fighter (between 30k and 50k feet). Powerful S/L-band radars should have no problem detecting even LO targets at those ranges, something which the X-band radars on fighters really cannot do as the enemy aircraft's stealth is optimized against them.

Longer wavelength is also extremely important for defeating LO shaping at much farther ranges than X-band can. That's the reason Su-57 is fitted with them, not because it thought it could do volume search with those PUNY slat radars - its purely for early warning, a form of IFF against LO/VLO if you will.

Longer wavelength isn't enough to detect stealth.

AWACS killer ranges are now 500-1000Km.

Fighters do not operate at max combat radius necessarily. It depends on the geography & the mission. F-15 had a combat radius of nearly 2,000 km - that didn't stop it from needing AWACS.

The F-15 never had the need to use such range, it's only meant for big wars against large adversaries. Anyway, AWACS beating fighter radar ranges came in only a decade ago, barely. More specifically just a few years ago, but still in labs and as prototypes, minus the Irbis-E. On the American side, only the F-15EX and F-35 B4 will have AWACS beating ranges. Of course the F-22 MLU as well.

We do not know that. Except Su-57 no one else is even talking about adding long-wavelength radars. The F-35 currently beats the Su-57's sensor fusion capabilities (especially passive ones) by a mile, and it doesn't even have L-band.

The Su-57's L band radar is primarily IFF. In order to use it as a radar, multiple Su-57s will have to synchronise and behave as one radar.

Like this:

A single radar is not very useful against stealth.

Like I said, combat radius is not something to be taken at face value. It's mostly an indicator of time of station rather than of actual range.

Not at all. Combat radius is a very important metric. In fact it's the driving factor behind the USAF separating NGAD into two distinct designs: short range for Russia and long range for China.

Regardless, going 1,000km into enemy territory with no way of early warning against hostile VLO is crazy. Fighters keeping their radars at max as they try to do AWACS role themselves is basically handing the other side victory on a platter. Those X-bands have no hope in hell of detecting VLO beyond 100 km, while the other side will have all the advantages they need to track you passively thanks to those beacons you just turned on.

X band can detect stealth, it just depends on how the signals are processed, apart from the number of main beams available for search. Stealth isn't invisibility. Also, AWACS follow the same laws of physics as fighter radars.

AEW as a role isn't going anywhere - yes the platforms may change to enable better survivability, but the role won't and can't. You need a powerful long-wavelength radar illuminating as much of the enemy as possible at all times, and to do so while not needing to expose your fighters.

When did I dismiss the role? AEW will just be moved to fighters and drones. Crewed AWACS is over.

We will instead have multiple drones/fighters with multiple synchronised radars in a widely distributed set up. Basically, air surveillance will look like how the ADGE is today with multiple layers of radars.

It's coming full circle now due to VLO targets optimized to defeat X-band. With those in play, your fighter's detection range against those targets has again dropped to this side of 100 kms. The Irbis-E for example probably can see an F-22 head on at roughly 30-40 kms if its lucky. It stands no chance.

This is why the importance of long-wavelength radars is being realized again. But like you said, you can't do much with a small, low powered L-band like on Su-57. Only platforms capable of deploying S/L-band radars large enough & powerful enough to detect VLO targets at meaningful ranges are again the AEWs.

Sure, put the said AEW radar on a stealthy drone beyond 2035 if you must, but the role isn't going anywhere.

Shorter wavelengths are becoming more important. Like MMW to terahertz, ie, 50GHz to 500GHz.

There are fighter radars coming which will pick up a pilot scratching his nose from hundreds of kilometers away. Which is another reason why even pilots are gonna have to be removed from fighters, forget crewed AWACS.

We will be seeing terahertz radars with next gen fighters and drones, alongside MMW radars, not just X band or L band.

 

[Parthu]

The F-15 never had the need to use such range, it's only meant for big wars against large adversaries. Anyway, AWACS beating fighter radar ranges came in only a decade ago, barely. More specifically just a few years ago, but still in labs and as prototypes, minus the Irbis-E. On the American side, only the F-15EX and F-35 B4 will have AWACS beating ranges. Of course the F-22 MLU as well.

The US is at the forefront of fighter radar technologies. The F-15EX & F-35 have all the capabilities you're talking about, and yet crewed AWACS are still being procured and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, not just for USAF but most of NATO.

What happens beyond 2035 is just concepts & brainstorming at this point (and even they depict AWACS as part of the mix, pic below). There is no clear cut program calling for end of crewed AWACS.

Not at all. Combat radius is a very important metric. In fact it's the driving factor behind the USAF separating NGAD into two distinct designs: short range for Russia and long range for China.

It's due to geography though, not because of a revolution in fighter technologies.

X band can detect stealth, it just depends on how the signals are processed, apart from the number of main beams available for search. Stealth isn't invisibility. Also, AWACS follow the same laws of physics as fighter radars.

The same laws of physics also give AWACS radars a physically longer wavelength - meaning more for less. Apply the same signal processing algorithms to the already longer wavelengths, and the returns you get are exponentially greater. You start being able to see B-2 Spirit at 300 kms.

When did I dismiss the role? AEW will just be moved to fighters and drones. Crewed AWACS is over.

Not exactly.

Like I said, the radar element may be moved to drones, and the crew element may be moved to the ground, but the fighter's role in all this doesn't really change. It's best strategy for being survivable & combat effective is still to make itself as less conspicuous a target as possible.

A fighter of the future will use its radar about as sparingly & cautiously as a SSN uses active sonar. The real revolution that no one's talking about is happening with passive instruments like EODAS and sensor fusion which actually make the minimal use of active radar possible.

So in short, fighters will neither be doing the AWACS' radar role, nor the battlespace C&C role.

Shorter wavelengths are becoming more important. Like MMW to terahertz, ie, 50GHz to 500GHz.

There are fighter radars coming which will pick up a pilot scratching his nose from hundreds of kilometers away. Which is another reason why even pilots are gonna have to be removed from fighters, forget crewed AWACS.

We will be seeing terahertz radars with next gen fighters and drones, alongside MMW radars, not just X band or L band.

In fact, its the other way round. It won't be X-band developing to the level of longer wavelength radars, it's actually going to be S/L-band radars acquiring the fidelity & performance of X-band while retaining all the advantages of their longer wavelengths.

Look at the developments in ship-based & ground-based radars for which power & size are no bar unlike airborne types. The SPY-6 & SPY-7/LRDR are perhaps the most cutting edge of radar technology in the world today - they carry out fire control & target identification against fighter-sized or even smaller targets. Roles which used to be relegated to shorter-wavelength FCRs in times past.

Our own Navy is an example, our primary ship-based FCR is now the S-band MFSTAR.

X-band AESA FCRs are great, but wait till GaN-based S/L-band AESAs are available, and the former is easily blown out of the water. There's a reason why AWACS carrying these larger, more powerful radars will remain a part of the doctrine even for jets like FCAS which are so far into the future they make the F-35 look like an F-14:

 

[randomradio]

The US is at the forefront of fighter radar technologies. The F-15EX & F-35 have all the capabilities you're talking about, and yet crewed AWACS are still being procured and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, not just for USAF but most of NATO.

What happens beyond 2035 is just concepts & brainstorming at this point (and even they depict AWACS as part of the mix, pic below). There is no clear cut program calling for end of crewed AWACS.

Crewed AWACS purchases for now is only temporary. 'Cause next gen jets are still 10+ years away.

But even these AWACS are unlikely to survive actual combat.

It's due to geography though, not because of a revolution in fighter technologies.

That's how it works. Crewed AWACS is simply not suited for the geography, so something else is needed to compensate.

The same laws of physics also give AWACS radars a physically longer wavelength - meaning more for less. Apply the same signal processing algorithms to the already longer wavelengths, and the returns you get are exponentially greater. You start being able to see B-2 Spirit at 300 kms.

You are confused about the purpose of the size of radars. It's all about the beamwidth. AWACS radars are less accurate than fighter radars, or we could have used it for fire control too. THAAD uses X band only, with its extra large size.

Not exactly.

Like I said, the radar element may be moved to drones, and the crew element may be moved to the ground, but the fighter's role in all this doesn't really change. It's best strategy for being survivable & combat effective is still to make itself as less conspicuous a target as possible.

A fighter of the future will use its radar about as sparingly & cautiously as a SSN uses active sonar. The real revolution that no one's talking about is happening with passive instruments like EODAS and sensor fusion which actually make the minimal use of active radar possible.

So in short, fighters will neither be doing the AWACS' radar role, nor the battlespace C&C role.

The fighter becomes the decision maker, since it's within the main loop. Everybody else is outside the system, including AWACS.

There is no hard and fast rule for fighters to never use radar. Fighters work in groups, so one can have its radar on, while all others are passive. It's how fighter wolf packs work.

In fact, its the other way round. It won't be X-band developing to the level of longer wavelength radars, it's actually going to be S/L-band radars acquiring the fidelity & performance of X-band while retaining all the advantages of their longer wavelengths.

Look at the developments in ship-based & ground-based radars for which power & size are no bar unlike airborne types. The SPY-6 & SPY-7/LRDR are perhaps the most cutting edge of radar technology in the world today - they carry out fire control & target identification against fighter-sized or even smaller targets. Roles which used to be relegated to shorter-wavelength FCRs in times past.

Our own Navy is an example, our primary ship-based FCR is now the S-band MFSTAR.

Bigger ships are combining X band with L/S band. Both Type 055 and Arleigh Burke Flight III have X band paired with S band. And the X band is now on the top of the mast.

X-band AESA FCRs are great, but wait till GaN-based S/L-band AESAs are available, and the former is easily blown out of the water.

GaN on S and L bands already exist. The IAF inducted GaN based S band radar in 2011, the IN did in 2014, EL/M 2084 and MF-STAR. Our BMD also has GaN radars.

There's a reason why AWACS carrying these larger, more powerful radars will remain a part of the doctrine even for jets like FCAS which are so far into the future they make the F-35 look like an F-14:

The AWACS is not part of the main system.

Future Combat Air System: Too Big to Fail

Differing Perceptions and High Complexity Jeopardise Success of Strategic Armament Project

www.swp-berlin.org

FCAS and NGWS are not synonymous, but the latter is an integral part of the former. The overarching FCAS system can be imagined as an arrangement of concentric circles: In the centre is the NGF, the next generation combat aircraft. In the inner circle, together with the remote carriers, is the Next Generation Weapon System, which is connected and controlled via the Air Combat Cloud. In the outer circle, the NGWS is linked with other systems. These include fighter aircraft, such as the Eurofighter or the French Rafale, but also tankers, naval vessels, satellites and assets of the other integrated armed forces. This is what makes up the Future Combat Air System, in which all elements must constantly communicate with each other to form a cohesive system.

It is possible that in the future, individual states will only use the inner circle with the NGWS or only deploy the NGF or individual remote carriers in their armed forces. Despite all these options, it is important that FCAS is always understood as an overarching system.

Basically it means FCAS doesn't need external support, including AWACS.

 

[Parthu]

Crewed AWACS purchases for now is only temporary. 'Cause next gen jets are still 10+ years away.

But even these AWACS are unlikely to survive actual combat.

There are several platforms that are hard to defend, yet are critical to the warfighting effort. That includes refuelers.

But the answer lies in coming up with creative solutions, like the MQ-25 for example, not in abandoning the role altogether.

You are confused about the purpose of the size of radars. It's all about the beamwidth. AWACS radars are less accurate than fighter radars, or we could have used it for fire control too.

With sensor fusion you no longer need it to. You only need general cues, which leads to targets being passively engaged.

It's incredibly tricky to obtain a continuous track on VLO aircraft. Typically its visible for a few seconds when it opens its weapon bays or exposes a particularly non-stealthy side, and then its gone again. Blasting the airspace with shorter-wavelength radars is a game of diminishing returns against VLO aircraft.

The fighter becomes the decision maker, since it's within the main loop. Everybody else is outside the system, including AWACS.

There is no hard and fast rule for fighters to never use radar. Fighters work in groups, so one can have its radar on, while all others are passive. It's how fighter wolf packs work.

The fighter is the decision maker in its own mission, where it has C&C authority over its drone swarm & other jets in the group. This isn't the same as theatre-level C&C which is where AWACS come in, and still have a critical role to play.

I've said this already.

Bigger ships are combining X band with L/S band. Both Type 055 and Arleigh Burke Flight III have X band paired with S band. And the X band is now on the top of the mast.

That's done to obtain better pictures against close-range threats & assist in CIWS interceptions.

The AWACS is not part of the main system.

...in the sense that it isn't part of the system that Dassault-Airbus are developing. But its still part of the bigger air warfare picture just like SATCOM and High-altitude pseudo-satellites are. Look at the image they've put out.

If the FCAS system they were developing was capable of replacing one of the least defensible & expensive to maintain platforms like AWACS, you think they wouldn't mention it? Or better yet, make it the central pillar of marketing?

Basically it means FCAS doesn't need external support, including AWACS.

It means FCAS is capable of conducting C&C within its group and maintaining situational awareness thanks to next gen high bandwidth datalinks.

Even the F-22 was originally designed to function without support of external assets, but all that falls apart when you are dealing with hostile VLO which is a threat the West is just now waking up to.

 

[Amarante]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1543575240462196736

 

[randomradio]

There are several platforms that are hard to defend, yet are critical to the warfighting effort. That includes refuelers.

But the answer lies in coming up with creative solutions, like the MQ-25 for example, not in abandoning the role altogether.

That's my point. We are just gonna put the radar in fighters and drones instead of business jets and jetliners.

The Americans have plans for a stealth tanker.

Lockheed Martin Is Crafting New Stealth and Drone Tanker Concepts For The USAF

The Air Force knows it needs tankers that can survive in high-risk areas and it might end up flying a mix of manned and unmanned types.

www.thedrive.com

Also tankers can operate below horizon, so that's not a real issue.

With sensor fusion you no longer need it to. You only need general cues, which leads to targets being passively engaged.

Sensor fusion is something else entirely. It's a default requirement anyway.

...in the sense that it isn't part of the system that Dassault-Airbus are developing. But its still part of the bigger air warfare picture just like SATCOM and High-altitude pseudo-satellites are. Look at the image they've put out.

If the FCAS system they were developing was capable of replacing one of the least defensible & expensive to maintain platforms like AWACS, you think they wouldn't mention it? Or better yet, make it the central pillar of marketing?

It's too early for anyone to disclose these things yet. For now, crewed AWACS can't survive. Even we are making an AWACS killer through Brahmos NG. The only way for crewed AWACS to survive is to make missiles obsolete, fat chance of that happening.

At least the Royal Navy is replacing their CROWSNEST with a drone. So we could choose the same replacement for Vikramaditya and Vikrant. IIRC this was the point of our discussion. They are planning on replacing crewed AEW with the Vixen drone.

It means FCAS is capable of conducting C&C within its group and maintaining situational awareness thanks to next gen high bandwidth datalinks.

That's what it means to fuction independent of AWACS.

 

[Parthu]

It's too early for anyone to disclose these things yet. For now, crewed AWACS can't survive. Even we are making an AWACS killer through Brahmos NG. The only way for crewed AWACS to survive is to make missiles obsolete, fat chance of that happening.

At least the Royal Navy is replacing their CROWSNEST with a drone. So we could choose the same replacement for Vikramaditya and Vikrant. IIRC this was the point of our discussion. They are planning on replacing crewed AEW with the Vixen drone.

Never disputed that the AEW platforms could shift onto drones. Just that it won't be fighters as the airframe is ill suited for carrying large radars.

Also that in the end, AEW platforms of tomorrow will largely follow the same doctrine as current ones do i.e. fly high & as far away from threats as possible, but close enough to keep track of what's going on.

When AEW drones come, they'll be as different from the fighters as MQ-25 is. Probably flying at SR-71 altitudes with an endurance of more than 48-72 hours - now that's a great C&C and ISR platform. You can't ask that of a fighter, not in this generation or the next.

Sukhoi Zond concept, a Global Hawk-sized drone with a 360-degree radar & a wingspan larger than a Boeing 737:

The Americans have plans for a stealth tanker.

Who knows, that may also become the platform for future AWACS. We don't know which way they'll go yet.

That's what it means to fuction independent of AWACS.

No it doesn't.

Even LCA is being developed to control the CATS swarms & loyal wingmen. This is enabled even by existing datalinks, there's nothing there that only F-35 or future 6th gen platforms are capable of doing.

The marketing talk of 'mini-AWACS' to convey the effectiveness of new datalinks to manage a small drone swarm has distorted the view of how people are seeing the whole battlespace as being managed by 1 person also flying his own aircraft.

 

[randomradio]

Never disputed that the AEW platforms could shift onto drones. Just that it won't be fighters as the airframe is ill suited for carrying large radars.

Also that in the end, AEW platforms of tomorrow will largely follow the same doctrine as current ones do i.e. fly high & as far away from threats as possible, but close enough to keep track of what's going on.

When AEW drones come, they'll be as different from the fighters as MQ-25 is. Probably flying at SR-71 altitudes with an endurance of more than 48-72 hours - now that's a great C&C and ISR platform. You can't ask that of a fighter, not in this generation or the next.

Sukhoi Zond concept, a Global Hawk-sized drone with a 360-degree radar & a wingspan larger than a Boeing 737:

Who knows, that may also become the platform for future AWACS. We don't know which way they'll go yet.

Pretty much. You can't get all that out of crewed AWACS.

Also, there's not gonna be way too much of a difference between fighters and AEW drones. Fighters will have performance advantages over some types of drones. And in some cases, greater survivability. So an AEW drone with just a radar and lower survivability will be limited in terms of supporting some types of fighter missions. And some AEW drones will accompany the fighters as part of the single system, like FCAS, NGAD etc. It's basically gonna be a whole army of such drones doing different things. Like the Zond is capable of supporting or even replacing crewed AWACS, while functioning within the AWACS's mission set, but with 2-3 days of endurance.

Fighters in their unmanned configurations will also have very high endurance, lasting days. Some types of future fighters could also basically be space shuttle or bomber-sized. For example, the long range version of the NGAD and perhaps even the Mig-41 will likely be 1.5-2 times heavier than current jets like the Flanker.

No it doesn't.

Even LCA is being developed to control the CATS swarms & loyal wingmen. This is enabled even by existing datalinks, there's nothing there that only F-35 or future 6th gen platforms are capable of doing.

The marketing talk of 'mini-AWACS' to convey the effectiveness of new datalinks to manage a small drone swarm has distorted the view of how people are seeing the whole battlespace as being managed by 1 person also flying his own aircraft.

Can't compare today's jets with what will come tomorrow. Current jets have space and engine power limitations, but even with that, like the F-35, they are able to supplant AWACS. LCA class aircraft have much smaller radars, and without 360 deg capability, so that's a problem. It will operate inside the range of crewed AWACS anyway. Otoh, Rafale and F-35 won't face that issue. Bigger jets will be even better. Like a Su-57 with 360 deg radar will be able to outmatch the performance of AWACS like Phalcon and E-7 to a significant degree. Their radars are too small to compete with a 900mm X band radar. Complementing it with supercruising drones equipped with radars will allow for cooperative tactics deep inside enemy territory.

So, in that sense, something like the Vixen will become very important. So TEDBF with 360 deg X band GaN based radar combined with the Vixen's L/S band radar will light up the path for most strike packages at longer ranges better than the E-2D ever would.

 

[Parthu]

Pretty much. You can't get all that out of crewed AWACS.

Also, there's not gonna be way too much of a difference between fighters and AEW drones. Fighters will have performance advantages over some types of drones. And in some cases, greater survivability. So an AEW drone with just a radar and lower survivability will be limited in terms of supporting some types of fighter missions. And some AEW drones will accompany the fighters as part of the single system, like FCAS, NGAD etc. It's basically gonna be a whole army of such drones doing different things. Like the Zond is capable of supporting or even replacing crewed AWACS, while functioning within the AWACS's mission set, but with 2-3 days of endurance.

Fighters in their unmanned configurations will also have very high endurance, lasting days. Some types of future fighters could also basically be space shuttle or bomber-sized. For example, the long range version of the NGAD and perhaps even the Mig-41 will likely be 1.5-2 times heavier than current jets like the Flanker.

None of the revealed 6th gen programs like Tempest or FCAS/NGF are really that different from existing air superiority fighters like F-22 in terms of size, weight or performance. All the improvements are under the skin. We haven't seen the NGAD and F/A-XX yet but no reason to believe they'll be any different. F/A-XX especially as it has to fit into the same aircraft elevators & hangar decks that F-35s and F/A-18s operate from.

Can't compare today's jets with what will come tomorrow. Current jets have space and engine power limitations, but even with that, like the F-35, they are able to supplant AWACS.

As far as Drone swarm C&C capabilities go, there's really nothing that jets like FCAS can do that CATS Mothership LCA can't. Keep in mind its mostly the drones that do the risky flying & scanning, the Mothership merely collates the information received via datalink and decides which target to attack and when to retreat.

Like a Su-57 with 360 deg radar will be able to outmatch the performance of AWACS like Phalcon and E-7 to a significant degree. Their radars are too small to compete with a 900mm X band radar.

Umm, what?

 

[randomradio]

None of the revealed 6th gen programs like Tempest or FCAS/NGF are really that different from existing air superiority fighters like F-22 in terms of size, weight or performance. All the improvements are under the skin. We haven't seen the NGAD and F/A-XX yet but no reason to believe they'll be any different. F/A-XX especially as it has to fit into the same aircraft elevators & hangar decks that F-35s and F/A-18s operate from.

Even the F-35 surpasses current AWACS, never mind future jets. F/A-XX is also in the same size and weight class as FCAS and Tempest.

But NGAD and Mig-41 could be very large aircraft. NGAD for China actually needs the ability to escort the B-21 all the way from Guam at the very minimum, so it's going to have to be large. It may need a combat radius exceeding 3000Km. With 300-350KN engines, it could mean an empty weight of 30-40T, even 50T. Its MTOW could be 60-100T. It could very well be a flying wing design. NGAD for Russia could be more conventional and similar in size to the Su-57, FCAS and Tempest.

But all these jets will have far, far greater sensor capability than crewed AWACS.

As far as Drone swarm C&C capabilities go, there's really nothing that jets like FCAS can do that CATS Mothership LCA can't. Keep in mind its mostly the drones that do the risky flying & scanning, the Mothership merely collates the information received via datalink and decides which target to attack and when to retreat.

In terms of software and communication, it will be similar. But in terms of overall capability, it will be different. Like the Russian Okhotnik can carry 2 or more large bombs to 6000Km. Whereas CATS Warrior is just a very simple loyal wingman with very limited range and capability.

But at the same time, Okhotnik can be integrated with LCA, even if the LCA cannot use the full capabilities of the Okhotnik. You need the Su-57's massive range to properly use the Okhotnik. But if the Su-57 is to escort the Okhotnik to 2000+Km away, then it will need avionics capable of protecting it.

Umm, what?

For L band, AWACS radars are "smaller" than what's possible for X band. More accurately, the symmetry is not appropriate for the best resolution.

Surveillance radars are in the shape of a rectangle, whereas FCRs are squares or circles. So the beam formation allows the X band FCR to have a superior resolution compared to an L band surveillance radar.

What's important here is angle resolution. FCR sacrifices range due to power issues but AWACS sacrifices some amounts of angle resolution by design. For example, if there are 2 Mig-29s flying side by side with a large enough separation, both FCR and AWACS will pick them up as 2 targets. But if they are flying on top of each other, the AWACS will only see 1 target. Due to the shape of the radar, it cannot see 2 targets. Otoh, FCR will see 2 targets regardless of side by side or top to down, which is why it's used for missile fire control.

So, earlier, while fighters could only see up to 150Km due to low power, low computer processing etc, now fighters can see at the same range as the AWACS. In fact it's even better since a fighter can fly way ahead of the AWACS and can see even more than AWACS can. So the main disadvantge fighters faced is now gone. Similarly, being positioned forward also allows the fighter to pick up ELINT signals much faster, process it and display it before the signal even reaches the AWACS. With the automation of such functions via sensor fusion, and the proximity to the enemy, fighters can make better and faster decisions, which is what that article talked about when comparing the F-35 to the E-3.

Fighters are less impacted by horizon as well. They can fly higher and closer to the enemy and can thus see more of the enemy air space, as much as 400-600Km. Whereas an AWACS flying 100-200Km behind the fighter, pushed back due to the advancements in BVR tech, will see only 200-250Km of the enemy air space. So, older fighters still need AWACS support, whereas new fighters can see more of the air space than AWACS. Better BVR missiles will further push the AWACS back.

If AWACS is to match fighters, it needs a radar that's 20 or 30m long and 3-4m wide, which is not possible on current class of jetliners. Plus it needs to fly higher than the 12-15Km limit placed on human passengers, like at least 30Km, if not more. So crewed AWACS is useless at this point.

Otoh, it's easy to increase the size of the fighter radar. You just need to make a slightly bigger airframe, like LCA can carry only a 600-650mm radar, but Flanker carries 950mm and Mig-31 carries 1400mm. 800-950mm radars already match today's AWACS. Whereas a 1.5m radar on bigger future jets with adequate electrical power will provide insanely high range compared to a crewed AWACS of practically any size. The additional power onboard such jetliners will be of limited use since it can't defy the laws of physics anyway. Meaning, fighters can operate from a better vantage point compared to AWACS.

Then, of course, the further away from your territory you fly, the less important the AWACS becomes. Small fighters like LCA need to stay within the coverage of crewed AWACS, but larger fighters like Rafale and Su-57 need the ability to operate independently from AWACS because that's the role they are made for.

Lastly, since there are more fighters than AWACS, superior cooperative surveillance and targeting is possible and fighter losses can be covered much more quickly. Otoh, an AWACS loss can be extremely crippling.

 

[Parthu]

Even the F-35 surpasses current AWACS, never mind future jets.

And yet, all countries operating F-35 seems to want E-7 instead of using said F-35 as AWACS to fly their own missions + support older aircraft? The E-7 induction for USAF is currently scheduled for around the same time as Block-4 becomes operational i.e. 2027.

In terms of software and communication, it will be similar. But in terms of overall capability, it will be different. Like the Russian Okhotnik can carry 2 or more large bombs to 6000Km. Whereas CATS Warrior is just a very simple loyal wingman with very limited range and capability.

But at the same time, Okhotnik can be integrated with LCA, even if the LCA cannot use the full capabilities of the Okhotnik. You need the Su-57's massive range to properly use the Okhotnik. But if the Su-57 is to escort the Okhotnik to 2000+Km away, then it will need avionics capable of protecting it.

The point is, you are conflating the addition of a couple new LRUs designed to increase manned aircraft survivability in a strike package as some platform advantage that makes AWACS obsolete.

For L band, AWACS radars are "smaller" than what's possible for X band. More accurately, the symmetry is not appropriate for the best resolution.

Surveillance radars are in the shape of a rectangle, whereas FCRs are squares or circles. So the beam formation allows the X band FCR to have a superior resolution compared to an L band surveillance radar.

What's important here is angle resolution. FCR sacrifices range due to power issues but AWACS sacrifices some amounts of angle resolution by design. For example, if there are 2 Mig-29s flying side by side with a large enough separation, both FCR and AWACS will pick them up as 2 targets. But if they are flying on top of each other, the AWACS will only see 1 target. Due to the shape of the radar, it cannot see 2 targets. Otoh, FCR will see 2 targets regardless of side by side or top to down, which is why it's used for missile fire control.

So, earlier, while fighters could only see up to 150Km due to low power, low computer processing etc, now fighters can see at the same range as the AWACS. In fact it's even better since a fighter can fly way ahead of the AWACS and can see even more than AWACS can. So the main disadvantge fighters faced is now gone. Similarly, being positioned forward also allows the fighter to pick up ELINT signals much faster, process it and display it before the signal even reaches the AWACS. With the automation of such functions via sensor fusion, and the proximity to the enemy, fighters can make better and faster decisions, which is what that article talked about when comparing the F-35 to the E-3.

Fighters are less impacted by horizon as well. They can fly higher and closer to the enemy and can thus see more of the enemy air space, as much as 400-600Km. Whereas an AWACS flying 100-200Km behind the fighter, pushed back due to the advancements in BVR tech, will see only 200-250Km of the enemy air space. So, older fighters still need AWACS support, whereas new fighters can see more of the air space than AWACS. Better BVR missiles will further push the AWACS back.

If AWACS is to match fighters, it needs a radar that's 20 or 30m long and 3-4m wide, which is not possible on current class of jetliners. Plus it needs to fly higher than the 12-15Km limit placed on human passengers, like at least 30Km, if not more. So crewed AWACS is useless at this point.

Otoh, it's easy to increase the size of the fighter radar. You just need to make a slightly bigger airframe, like LCA can carry only a 600-650mm radar, but Flanker carries 950mm and Mig-31 carries 1400mm. 800-950mm radars already match today's AWACS. Whereas a 1.5m radar on bigger future jets with adequate electrical power will provide insanely high range compared to a crewed AWACS of practically any size. The additional power onboard such jetliners will be of limited use since it can't defy the laws of physics anyway. Meaning, fighters can operate from a better vantage point compared to AWACS.

Then, of course, the further away from your territory you fly, the less important the AWACS becomes. Small fighters like LCA need to stay within the coverage of crewed AWACS, but larger fighters like Rafale and Su-57 need the ability to operate independently from AWACS because that's the role they are made for.

Lastly, since there are more fighters than AWACS, superior cooperative surveillance and targeting is possible and fighter losses can be covered much more quickly. Otoh, an AWACS loss can be extremely crippling.

Have you seen the size of modern AEW radars? Vertically they're the size of 2 fighter radars stacked on top of one another! On the E-7, keep in mind its the flat panels on the sides which are the actual radar, the flat long rectangle on top is only a secondary radar.

And compare the size of that array with the B737's own nose:

Remember F-22's APG-77 was tested on a B757 FTB nose but the assembly had to be tapered down because it was too small for the airliner's nose. F-35's is even smaller. These are massive noses on these airliners.

And other AWACS like the G550 CAEW carry front & back arrays in bulbous cones which themselves are bigger than fighter radars. Fighter radars are puny, the TRM counts (assuming same generation base tech) are puny. The amount of surplus power to burnthrough is puny.

If you keep comparing F-35 to E-3 instead of E-7 which is what it will really be working with in the decades to come, you'll continue to get distorted imagery of the perceived technological gap.

if there are 2 Mig-29s flying side by side with a large enough separation, both FCR and AWACS will pick them up as 2 targets. But if they are flying on top of each other, the AWACS will only see 1 target. Due to the shape of the radar, it cannot see 2 targets. Otoh, FCR will see 2 targets regardless of side by side or top to down,

These are age-old problems. Once you have AESA AEWs that incorporate advanced Digital Beamforming & Beam Steering, none of the problems you mentioned are really a problem anymore. You are applying the apparent issues with MSA & PESA AWACS to modern AESAs.

Also, the E-7 that USAF will be getting isn't going to be the same one that RAF & RAAF got - it too might end up incorporating nose & tail cone arrays which themselves are bigger than an F-22/F-15 nose cone, let alone the main array on top which is about 2 x fighter radars tall and 4-5 x fighter radars across.

 

[randomradio]

And yet, all countries operating F-35 seems to want E-7 instead of using said F-35 as AWACS to fly their own missions + support older aircraft? The E-7 induction for USAF is currently scheduled for around the same time as Block-4 becomes operational i.e. 2027.

That's 'cause the F-35 still doesn't have 360 deg capability. It's unlikely to get it anytime soon either. Secondly, most air forces are still operating 4th gen jets that need AWACS support. The transition is still happening. Of course, better jets than the F-35 are necessary as well. Plus drones, those are yet to exist. So the E-7 is a stopgap until new tech comes in. Even after the new tech comes in, it needs to be introduced in numbers, so something like the NGAD will need to be inducted in enough numbers to take over the role of existing jets. All that will need at least 10 years after the tech is introduced, maybe sometime in 2030. So the E-7 will be needed until 2040 or so, naturally makes sense to get some now to deal with the obsolescence issues plaguing the E-3.

In the IAF's case as well, even if the Rafale F4/F5 etc are capable of operating without AWACS support, the rest of the fleet of MKIs and LCAs will still need AWACS. And the Rafales will take at least until 2035-40 to come in numbers, followed by AMCA until as long as 2045. So crewed AWACS is needed for the transition period.

Otoh, IN's air wings are specialists. It's just 1-2 squadrons strong which makes the replacement and transition period very short. So more modern capabilities can be introduced much more quickly, which is what the Royal Navy is doing with the Vixen. To the RN, the Vixen+F-35 combo is more than enough to replace crewed AWACS.

Furthermore, what makes AWACS necessary for now is there's still the human element involved in sensor fusion. Once that's done via AI, which could happen relatively quickly, the air crew will not just become unnecessary, but a liability. So what the F-35 does automatically, the AWACS crew do manually, which is why a lot of personnel are needed, alongside a commander who has to manage the team, which also means crewed AWACS are unable to keep up with what the F-35 does instantly without pilot intervention. So the AWACS has already become a liability to the F-35 in this era, let alone what could happen 10 years later.

The IAF believes automated sensor fusion across the entire battlespace can be achieved by 2030. Which means more advanced countries are probably already in the process of doing it, especially countries like France with significantly smaller number of assets to fuse.

Have you seen the size of modern AEW radars? Vertically they're the size of 2 fighter radars stacked on top of one another! On the E-7, keep in mind its the flat panels on the sides which are the actual radar, the flat long rectangle on top is only a secondary radar.

And compare the size of that array with the B737's own nose:

Remember F-22's APG-77 was tested on a B757 FTB nose but the assembly had to be tapered down because it was too small for the airliner's nose. F-35's is even smaller. These are massive noses on these airliners.

And other AWACS like the G550 CAEW carry front & back arrays in bulbous cones which themselves are bigger than fighter radars. Fighter radars are puny, the TRM counts (assuming same generation base tech) are puny. The amount of surplus power to burnthrough is puny.

If you keep comparing F-35 to E-3 instead of E-7 which is what it will really be working with in the decades to come, you'll continue to get distorted imagery of the perceived technological gap.

Those radars are actually small. There's nothing big about them. Those are L band radars, with TRMs that are 10-15cm long, X band uses 3cm TRMs, hence the difference in size. The antenna coverage is pretty much the same. In fact, larger fighters have over 2x the TRM density of AWACS radars. Meaning, fighter radars are more capable. It's actually incredible for airborne FCRs today to be able to match airborne surveillance radars.

The THAAD exclusively uses only X band for both surveillance and fire control. Ships as well use S band for surveillance and fire control. Which is why these radars are called multifunction. This includes MF-STAR, it's in the name itself. So fighter jet radars have now begun to achieve that level.

These are age-old problems. Once you have AESA AEWs that incorporate advanced Digital Beamforming & Beam Steering, none of the problems you mentioned are really a problem anymore. You are applying the apparent issues with MSA & PESA AWACS to modern AESAs.

Also, the E-7 that USAF will be getting isn't going to be the same one that RAF & RAAF got - it too might end up incorporating nose & tail cone arrays which themselves are bigger than an F-22/F-15 nose cone, let alone the main array on top which is about 2 x fighter radars tall and 4-5 x fighter radars across.

It doesn't matter what arrays end up on crewed AWACS, the aircraft is still too big to survive, cannot support fighters inside enemy territory and is restricted by horizon limitations. Its only use is air defence and supporting smaller jets like LCA and the F-16 very close to the frontline, and even that use is slowly disappearing due to advancements in BVR tech. In a war with a near-peer or peer adversary, it will only become an expensive ornament.