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

[Parthu]

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.

The only 360-degree sensor the F-35 (or any other existing jet) has is the passive EODAS or equivalent like DDM-NG. And that capability is already present. No fighter is planning to get 360 degree radar, the Su-57's rear radar is a myth. Even the smaller side-scan arrays on that jet only exist to enhance the FoV of the front, so that it can continue to maintain track of a target designated by the main radar even after it starts to maneuver away. Those radars are not meant for volume search & most likely cannot acquire targets that the main radar can at the same range, meaning the initial track by the main radar is important to tell them where to focus.

On the F-35, the EODAS is actually capable of doing the same thing, but passively. So its actually the better system. I'd assume the same is true for Rafale's DDM-NG/FSO combo, but it's possible its not as good, so the French may go ahead with conformal side arrays to do that job instead. Remember the F-22 was originally meant to have conformal arrays too, but they dropped it after EODAS proved that this could be done passively on future aircraft which is way better.

But neither of these are true 360 degree radar surveillance capabilities which is what you need against non-cooperative targets.

As of future jets, nobody knows what radar configurations they will have - no one has even talked about 360 degree radar for Tempest/FCAS, correct me if I'm wrong.

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.

The Vixen is a necessity brought on by the Brits' lack of a Catapult on their carrier. Their rotary wing platform is not very capable wrt speed, altitude or endurance (and even otherwise, CROWSNEST is a bit of a failure), and they can't launch a fixed wing. If they had that, the story would have been different. The French for example plan to use Advanced Hawkeye alongside FCAS & Rafale on the PANG meant to be commissioned by 2037. Two fighters which you say have no need of AWACS - the Marine Nationale must be crazy wasting all that space for planes they don't need.

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.

It's cuz the existing AWACS electronics are broadly outdated, their souped-up versions of 1970s electronics. The E-7's electronics will be as snappy as the F-35's if not more - remember they're launching a new R&D program for USAF E-7 so its going to be a newer configuration than F-35, plus the 737 won't be having the same space & weight constraints which could have prevented many of the latest & greatest technologies from finding immediate application on fighters. That includes AI and additional processing power via MDPUs - and bigger APUs to drive them.

A modern-day cellphone is more powerful than a 1970s supercomputer, but its still nothing compared to a modern day supercomputer. No fighter can carry the amount of processing power a 737 has the room for.

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.

They are longer in terms of depth, not laterally.

So in terms of packing in more TRMs, what matters more is the actual manufacturing process used - which keeps getting smaller all the time.

The new USAF E-7 config is almost 20 years newer than the F-35's radar. But in the end, it won't matter because in order to achieve S/L-band levels of performance (especially against VLO targets), you need to combine the outputs of several X-band TRMs and process the signal as one, something which the E-7 does naturally due to its native band.

When your longer-wavelength radars are outdated and/or unresponsive (like E-3), there is merit in asking the fighters to do this. But when your S/L-bands are up to speed, using X-band in that role has no benefit. It cannot do a better job than an actual S/L-band AESA four-five times its size.

They resorted to using X-band for THAAD because X-band TRMs became viable first, and the jump in performance compared to mechanical scanning or PESA was so massive either way that it made sense to resort to X-band. But as you can see, that period is over and the S-band SPY-7 LRDR is now replacing X-band as the primary discrimination radar for GBI/GMD. Could be the case for THAAD in the future too - the TPY-2 is a 90s technology.

 

[randomradio]

The only 360-degree sensor the F-35 (or any other existing jet) has is the passive EODAS or equivalent like DDM-NG. And that capability is already present. No fighter is planning to get 360 degree radar, the Su-57's rear radar is a myth. Even the smaller side-scan arrays on that jet only exist to enhance the FoV of the front, so that it can continue to maintain track of a target designated by the main radar even after it starts to maneuver away. Those radars are not meant for volume search & most likely cannot acquire targets that the main radar can at the same range, meaning the initial track by the main radar is important to tell them where to focus.

On the F-35, the EODAS is actually capable of doing the same thing, but passively. So its actually the better system. I'd assume the same is true for Rafale's DDM-NG/FSO combo, but it's possible its not as good, so the French may go ahead with conformal side arrays to do that job instead. Remember the F-22 was originally meant to have conformal arrays too, but they dropped it after EODAS proved that this could be done passively on future aircraft which is way better.

But neither of these are true 360 degree radar surveillance capabilities which is what you need against non-cooperative targets.

As of future jets, nobody knows what radar configurations they will have - no one has even talked about 360 degree radar for Tempest/FCAS, correct me if I'm wrong.

Conformal arrays using GaN will become the standard fit for modern aircraft. The Russians don't want 360 deg capability on the Su-57, they may have something else for that, but the IAF wanted it on the FGFA.

Rafale is expected to get conformal arrays. Either with F4.2 or with later blocks.

In any case, the Rafale and F-35 will only get enhanced capability, they won't replace AWACS for an entire air force, they will only be able to independently work without AWACS on their own. All other assets will still need AWACS support, more accurately AEW support, primarily for navigation needs. Basically from a CS it's turning into an ATC instead.

The Vixen is a necessity brought on by the Brits' lack of a Catapult on their carrier. Their rotary wing platform is not very capable wrt speed, altitude or endurance (and even otherwise, CROWSNEST is a bit of a failure), and they can't launch a fixed wing. If they had that, the story would have been different. The French for example plan to use Advanced Hawkeye alongside FCAS & Rafale on the PANG meant to be commissioned by 2037. Two fighters which you say have no need of AWACS - the Marine Nationale must be crazy wasting all that space for planes they don't need.

France doesn't seem really interested in FCAS, to the point where Dassault believes they can continue using Rafales until 2050, post which begins the transition period. Assuming FCAS will be ready alongside PANG, the air complement could look different from assumptions today. No point in guessing. The USN will need E-2Ds until 2050-55 at least.

So only the RN is skipping out on crewed AWACS the next decade. IN is in the same boat, quite literally.

It's cuz the existing AWACS electronics are broadly outdated, their souped-up versions of 1970s electronics. The E-7's electronics will be as snappy as the F-35's if not more - remember they're launching a new R&D program for USAF E-7 so its going to be a newer configuration than F-35, plus the 737 won't be having the same space & weight constraints which could have prevented many of the latest & greatest technologies from finding immediate application on fighters. That includes AI and additional processing power via MDPUs - and bigger APUs to drive them.

A modern-day cellphone is more powerful than a 1970s supercomputer, but its still nothing compared to a modern day supercomputer. No fighter can carry the amount of processing power a 737 has the room for.



They are longer in terms of depth, not laterally.

So in terms of packing in more TRMs, what matters more is the actual manufacturing process used - which keeps getting smaller all the time.

There's nothing outdated on the E-3, even the radar, although PESA, is still cutting edge, never mind all other electronics that are continuously upgraded. It gets first priority for upgrades. A lot of the hardware on it is not found on existing fighter jets, including more modern datalinks. Only the airframe is very old.

Fighters can carry all the processing necessary.

The new USAF E-7 config is almost 20 years newer than the F-35's radar. But in the end, it won't matter because in order to achieve S/L-band levels of performance (especially against VLO targets), you need to combine the outputs of several X-band TRMs and process the signal as one, something which the E-7 does naturally due to its native band.

Er... That kind of operation has nothing to do with bands. It's actually how AESA works. It works the same way across the entire EM spectrum.

When your longer-wavelength radars are outdated and/or unresponsive (like E-3), there is merit in asking the fighters to do this. But when your S/L-bands are up to speed, using X-band in that role has no benefit. It cannot do a better job than an actual S/L-band AESA four-five times its size.

I wasn't talking about the radar when I compared the F-35 to the E-3. I was talking about ELINT, passive detection and identification of signals. The hardware isn't the problem, physics is. The F-35 simply has a far superior vantage point. Even if they have the same hardware, the F-35 will always see first. AWACS is important because it is supposed to see first instead.

They resorted to using X-band for THAAD because X-band TRMs became viable first, and the jump in performance compared to mechanical scanning or PESA was so massive either way that it made sense to resort to X-band.

Er... No. Longer bands become more viable first, because they are larger in size and are easier to design and build. X band and other antennas for shorter wavelengths become progressively more difficult due to their extremely small size, which is why seeker tech is so hard to master. New tech always comes with L band first.

But as you can see, that period is over and the S-band SPY-7 LRDR is now replacing X-band as the primary discrimination radar for GBI/GMD. Could be the case for THAAD in the future too - the TPY-2 is a 90s technology.

You are actually arguing my point. Instead of L band, they have decided to use S band instead. S band is a sweet spot between L and X, which is why multifunction radars like the EL/M-2084 work in this frequency. It can function at longer ranges than X band with less false positives and still provide enough accuracy for target discrimination. And although not as accurate as X band, it can still perform fire control as long as the missile also has enough sensor capability for the end game.

What's important to note is the symmetry. Rectangle is bad, square is good. So the question is does AWACS have a rectangle or a square... Circles, ovals and hexagons, octagons etc are also good. SPY-7 is a square radar. Irbis-E is a circle. But AWACS...

In any case, ground radars follow different rules, because they can be of unlimited size and power, unlike airborne radars. So higher bands are better.

Here's what future AWACS could look like:

This drone called Divine Eagle has 6 X/UHF band radars. Two in the front, one on each side and 2 in the rear. It has 360 radar deg capability. It's a very large aircraft, bigger than the Global Hawk, and could get even larger. We could eventually see it in its final form as a 20-30m long beast. It makes all existing crewed AWACS into jokes. It's expected to fly at altitudes well over 20Km, so it lacks horizon restrictions as well.

Here's another drone:

All these are very large aircraft.

 

[Parthu]

Conformal arrays using GaN will become the standard fit for modern aircraft. The Russians don't want 360 deg capability on the Su-57, they may have something else for that, but the IAF wanted it on the FGFA.

Rafale is expected to get conformal arrays. Either with F4.2 or with later blocks.

In any case, the Rafale and F-35 will only get enhanced capability, they won't replace AWACS for an entire air force, they will only be able to independently work without AWACS on their own. All other assets will still need AWACS support, more accurately AEW support, primarily for navigation needs. Basically from a CS it's turning into an ATC instead.

Like I said, they are attempts at increasing the viable tracking field of view for FCRs to compensate for maneuvering. When the target goes out of the field of view of the main radar, the side radar picks it up and continues illuminating the target for semi-active BVR missiles. But lots of things changed since these plans were floated (like I said, F-22 was supposed to get them first) especially in the West. The seekers on BVR missiles became powerful enough to guide themselves through heavy ECM, nowadays there's AESA seekers for BVR missiles. SARH became less important.

Passive tracking of targets that fall out of Main Radar FoV became viable even at long ranges.

These conformal arrays are simply not powerful enough to carry out any kind of volume search operations, and their capabilities broadly are only a fraction of the fighter's main radar.

Beyond that, the configuration of 6th gen jets is mere guessing. There's no reason to believe they will indeed have conformal arrays. The Americans had every chance to install such arrays on both F-22 and F-35 but considered them unnecessary given advent of EODAS. Raptor will likely receive its own EODAS version as part of its MLU. Ergo, the intent of these arrays was never to turn a fighter into an AWACS.

France doesn't seem really interested in FCAS, to the point where Dassault believes they can continue using Rafales until 2050, post which begins the transition period. Assuming FCAS will be ready alongside PANG, the air complement could look different from assumptions today. No point in guessing. The USN will need E-2Ds until 2050-55 at least.

So only the RN is skipping out on crewed AWACS the next decade. IN is in the same boat, quite literally.

The Americans & the French are the only ones that can actually launch large aircraft (manned or unmanned) from deck, anything that anyone else does is out of compulsion and not out of choice or merit. I'm 25 now and as per your own statement neither of those 2 countries are interested in replacing Hawkeye with a drone before I'm a 60+ Senior Citizen.

Don't you get the feeling you're looking way too far into the future? You're the one that said Rafale F4/F5 won't need AWACS and neither will FCAS. So pray tell, why would the French want E-2D on the PANG considering they're the only jets expected to embark? The F4 deliveries are around the corner and work on F5 is scheduled to start next year.

PANG will be commissioned 2037-38...by then F7 and F8 would probably be the variants in question.

The point being, sure ultimately anything that flies is probably going to be unmanned, as would anything that floats or treads on the ground for combat. But that's the distant future. We do not know how war will be conducted at that point. We don't know what technological revolutions will take place - such as quantum radar which renders the size or shape of your aircraft irrelevant. It's useless to look that far ahead - its not the foreseeable future.

In the future that we CAN foresee, the role of AWACS being managed by an aircraft separate from the fighters isn't going anywhere. And that's the basic point of my argument.

There's nothing outdated on the E-3, even the radar, although PESA, is still cutting edge, never mind all other electronics that are continuously upgraded. It gets first priority for upgrades. A lot of the hardware on it is not found on existing fighter jets, including more modern datalinks. Only the airframe is very old.

You don't put out a tender to replace something that's cutting edge. Especially if you supposedly plan on a new system by 2035 as you say, which is only 7 years after they induct the first E-7 (2027).

Fighters can carry all the processing necessary.

It's a game of cat of mouse. The enemy's ability to process also gets better, as does his ability to spoof you. And you need more to counter it. The cycle never stops. It's like how GPUs keep increasing in computational power every year - as do their power needs.

I wasn't talking about the radar when I compared the F-35 to the E-3. I was talking about ELINT, passive detection and identification of signals. The hardware isn't the problem, physics is. The F-35 simply has a far superior vantage point. Even if they have the same hardware, the F-35 will always see first. AWACS is important because it is supposed to see first instead.

Well that's no surprise - the E3 is no match for the F-35's sensor fusion capabilities or the passive tracking abilities with EODAS. But the E-7's configuration will incorporate all those lessons + newer, better hardware combined with way more power on tap. It's like how F-15EX's EPAWSS incorporates tech from F-35's EW suite. At one point, no 4th/4.5 gen jet could do what the F-35 does in the EM spectrum, but that's no longer the case.

Now, the F-15EX actually does some things better.

Software & electronics is one thing that can never be platform-specific.

Er... No. Longer bands become more viable first, because they are larger in size and are easier to design and build. X band and other antennas for shorter wavelengths become progressively more difficult due to their extremely small size, which is why seeker tech is so hard to master. New tech always comes with L band first.

The shorter the wavelengths got, the more important were the advantages delivered by AESA. That's why the US (and several others) incorporated the tech into fighter radars first and only bothered to put it into AEWs much later. The bigger radars on the AEWs, thanks to their longer wavelengths & more juice on tap were already quite sufficient in their roles.

You are actually arguing my point. Instead of L band, they have decided to use S band instead. S band is a sweet spot between L and X, which is why multifunction radars like the EL/M-2084 work in this frequency. It can function at longer ranges than X band with less false positives and still provide enough accuracy for target discrimination. And although not as accurate as X band, it can still perform fire control as long as the missile also has enough sensor capability for the end game.

That goes to show why longer wavelengths are important. But there's a reason why AEWs (including E-7) remain L-band. It's because they are choosing to sacrifice more on the resolution/fidelity front (wisely so) for more performance at longer ranges - which then serve to cue fighters to engage passively. Once the base technology equalizes, the gap between X and L-band starts to come right back to where it was in the 4th gen fighter era.

Even in the distant future, drone AEWs shall also more than likely be resorting to L-band (or longer).

What's important to note is the symmetry. Rectangle is bad, square is good. So the question is does AWACS have a rectangle or a square... Circles, ovals and hexagons, octagons etc are also good. SPY-7 is a square radar. Irbis-E is a circle. But AWACS...

With AESAs, you can form beams in any shape you want as long as the array's size physically allows it, and you can steer it in any direction you want. Please do inform me if otherwise.

Here's what future AWACS could look like:

This drone called Divine Eagle has 6 X/UHF band radars. Two in the front, one on each side and 2 in the rear. It has 360 radar deg capability. It's a very large aircraft, bigger than the Global Hawk, and could get even larger. We could eventually see it in its final form as a 20-30m long beast. It makes all existing crewed AWACS into jokes. It's expected to fly at altitudes well over 20Km, so it lacks horizon restrictions as well.

Here's another drone:
View attachment 24049

All these are very large aircraft.

All the same - they're not fighters.

And you can never make fighters that look or fly like these. As per the latest, even NGAD will be 'multi-role' though with emphasis on air superiority - that means having good aerodynamics & performance even at low altitudes, if not nap of the earth flying. F/A-XX will obviously have that, its in the name Fighter/Attack. You can't get that from these huge drones. And you can't put the type of radars that let you manage the whole theatre on a fighter airframe, firstly it would be too small and secondly, it will ruin its aerodynamics.

Fighters and AEWs can never be the same - their roles on the battlefield are too different and require different types of flying to fulfill. It's my whole point.

 

[randomradio]

Like I said, they are attempts at increasing the viable tracking field of view for FCRs to compensate for maneuvering. When the target goes out of the field of view of the main radar, the side radar picks it up and continues illuminating the target for semi-active BVR missiles. But lots of things changed since these plans were floated (like I said, F-22 was supposed to get them first) especially in the West. The seekers on BVR missiles became powerful enough to guide themselves through heavy ECM, nowadays there's AESA seekers for BVR missiles. SARH became less important.

Passive tracking of targets that fall out of Main Radar FoV became viable even at long ranges.

These conformal arrays are simply not powerful enough to carry out any kind of volume search operations, and their capabilities broadly are only a fraction of the fighter's main radar.

Beyond that, the configuration of 6th gen jets is mere guessing. There's no reason to believe they will indeed have conformal arrays. The Americans had every chance to install such arrays on both F-22 and F-35 but considered them unnecessary given advent of EODAS. Raptor will likely receive its own EODAS version as part of its MLU. Ergo, the intent of these arrays was never to turn a fighter into an AWACS.

The size of the arrays won't matter as much once MMW and terahertz radars come in.

EODAS doesn't give the range necessary. I'd say even existing small side arrays will exceed the range of EODAS.

The Americans & the French are the only ones that can actually launch large aircraft (manned or unmanned) from deck, anything that anyone else does is out of compulsion and not out of choice or merit. I'm 25 now and as per your own statement neither of those 2 countries are interested in replacing Hawkeye with a drone before I'm a 60+ Senior Citizen.

It will probably happen when you're 35-40. When you're 60, high end combat will happen in space.

Don't you get the feeling you're looking way too far into the future? You're the one that said Rafale F4/F5 won't need AWACS and neither will FCAS. So pray tell, why would the French want E-2D on the PANG considering they're the only jets expected to embark? The F4 deliveries are around the corner and work on F5 is scheduled to start next year.

Risk aversion. By the time Rafales come in with all its capabilities, the E-2 may not be required. But until it happens, it's necessary.

As I said before, what's the point in having something that won't survive? Also what's the point in operating something that can't support you in your own area of operations? It's explained later in the post.

PANG will be commissioned 2037-38...by then F7 and F8 would probably be the variants in question.

Only F5 will be out by then, maybe 2030-35.

The point being, sure ultimately anything that flies is probably going to be unmanned, as would anything that floats or treads on the ground for combat. But that's the distant future. We do not know how war will be conducted at that point. We don't know what technological revolutions will take place - such as quantum radar which renders the size or shape of your aircraft irrelevant. It's useless to look that far ahead - its not the foreseeable future.

In the future that we CAN foresee, the role of AWACS being managed by an aircraft separate from the fighters isn't going anywhere. And that's the basic point of my argument.

These drones are 5 years away. 8 in the case of RN with Vixen. The Chinese are already flying these drones.

You don't put out a tender to replace something that's cutting edge. Especially if you supposedly plan on a new system by 2035 as you say, which is only 7 years after they induct the first E-7 (2027).

The USAF plans to buy a much smaller number than E-3s, with the definitive replacement coming up only in 2035. So it's a stopgap.

At least the RN is giving up on Crowsnest in just 9 years. So at least this capability is relevant to India.

It's a game of cat of mouse. The enemy's ability to process also gets better, as does his ability to spoof you. And you need more to counter it. The cycle never stops. It's like how GPUs keep increasing in computational power every year - as do their power needs.

Processing needs are able to keep up.

Well that's no surprise - the E3 is no match for the F-35's sensor fusion capabilities or the passive tracking abilities with EODAS.

It has nothing to do with EODAS. MKI MLU will be able to repeat the F-35's performance against Phalcon, although I would question the survivability of the MKI, which is a different topic.

The shorter the wavelengths got, the more important were the advantages delivered by AESA. That's why the US (and several others) incorporated the tech into fighter radars first and only bothered to put it into AEWs much later. The bigger radars on the AEWs, thanks to their longer wavelengths & more juice on tap were already quite sufficient in their roles.

That's simply 'cause there was no real need to replace the E-3 when AESA was militarised within NATO. Outside NATO, the Israelis started supplying AESA based AWACS since the 90s.

Chile. 1994. Phalcon radar.

That goes to show why longer wavelengths are important. But there's a reason why AEWs (including E-7) remain L-band. It's because they are choosing to sacrifice more on the resolution/fidelity front (wisely so) for more performance at longer ranges - which then serve to cue fighters to engage passively. Once the base technology equalizes, the gap between X and L-band starts to come right back to where it was in the 4th gen fighter era.

Even in the distant future, drone AEWs shall also more than likely be resorting to L-band (or longer).

For military radars, S band is not considered long wavelength.

You are referring to things that are no longer relevant. Earlier, antennas were power hungry and required a lot of electrical power, which only large aircraft like jetliners could provide. And signal processing was so poor that they had to use long waves like L band and VHF band for long range volumetric scan managed by large computers the size of file cabinets, so cargo space also mattered, which also was provided by jetliners. In the 90s and 2000s, cargo space was really important.

But, with the advent of AESA, particularly GaN, and of course better processing, we can now put radar behind any surface, even curved, and use processing power that you can carry in your hand.

Plus engines also became advanced enough to power such radars. For example, the LCA Mk1 can only generate 30-40KVA. But the new SH can generate over 250KVA. And future jets like FCAS and Tempest will provide electrical power in the megawatts.

New electronics are also more power efficient.

All of these reasons are why AWACS have shifted away from large jetliners to small business jets. And business jets are being used because it needs to carry a crew for manual labour, literally. Once AI takes over, then AWACS will naturally transition to even smaller aircraft, like fighters and drones. And we are at that phase now.

Similarly as size and power requirments are reduced, we can then start using shorter and shorter wavelengths. Especially with the help of better software and greater processing for clutter management. So MMW and terahertz have become a reality. These radars already exist.

With AESAs, you can form beams in any shape you want as long as the array's size physically allows it, and you can steer it in any direction you want. Please do inform me if otherwise.

Sure. But that will give you much inferior resolution than before.

A 10x1m L band radar is useful. A 1x1m L band radar is useless. It's the 10m length that matters.

All the same - they're not fighters.

And you can never make fighters that look or fly like these. As per the latest, even NGAD will be 'multi-role' though with emphasis on air superiority - that means having good aerodynamics & performance even at low altitudes, if not nap of the earth flying. F/A-XX will obviously have that, its in the name Fighter/Attack. You can't get that from these huge drones. And you can't put the type of radars that let you manage the whole theatre on a fighter airframe, firstly it would be too small and secondly, it will ruin its aerodynamics.

Fighters and AEWs can never be the same - their roles on the battlefield are too different and require different types of flying to fulfill. It's my whole point.

These are the future of AWACS, I'm not saying they will be of use to fighters. Fighters will work independently on their own, within a family of systems.

Like, the Divine Eagle will get shot down if it flies too close to the frontline. It will have to stay back as far away as realistically possible. Otoh, a fighter like NGAD will have to accomplish missions all on its own, without crewed AWACS support, because crewed AWACS can't support it.

I don't really understand why this is hard to get. All the Chinese have to do is show up with a 500-1000Km hypersonic AAM and all crewed AWACS will stay on the ground throughout the war. And this tech already exists. The only realistic way to defeat this threat is to either intercept it, or operate beyond its range. At 500-1000Km away from the battle, AWACS is utterly useless. And if it's too close, there's no guarantee of successful interception or even spoofing, so the AWACS will still have to run away anyway or risk the life of every crew member. Do you see why crewed AWACS is done? But we can lose a couple dozen Divine Eagles, no problem.

Otoh, fighters will have to constantly operate in contested air space and even collect its own intelligence, not just in its own territory, but also deep inside enemy territory, so it will have to not just merely duplicate the capabilities of current AWACS, but also add more to it, including techniques, tactics and capabilities that don't even exist today.

 

[Adm_Kenobi]

Plus engines also became advanced enough to power such radars. For example, the LCA Mk1 can only generate 30-40KVA. But the new SH can generate over 250KVA. And future jets like FCAS and Tempest will provide electrical power in the megawatts.

Can you share a source for that <over 250kVA> figure?

 

[Parthu]

The size of the arrays won't matter as much once MMW and terahertz radars come in.

EODAS doesn't give the range necessary. I'd say even existing small side arrays will exceed the range of EODAS.

Both require initial input from the main radar as neither can distinguish targets at the same range the main radar can. But once the bearing & distance is known, EODAS combined with rest of passive suite is a smarter way to track as it shifts the burden onto the enemy - the faster & higher he flies the easier it is to track him. The more he uses his radar the easier it is to track him. The side radars are limited by how much power you're pumping through them, but its pointless because its counterproductive to trigger enemy RWR even before you're able to see him. Something the main radar can see at 100km, the side arrays can probably do so at 60km, so you're basically handicapping yourself - but giving away your location all the same.

Like I said, US had the opportunity to install side arrays, but CHOSE not to.

It will probably happen when you're 35-40. When you're 60, high end combat will happen in space.

You're the one that said Hawkeyes aren't going anywhere till post 2050, not me. By then, the Block-3+ SH, F-35 & F/A-XX are the only jets in USN.

Risk aversion. By the time Rafales come in with all its capabilities, the E-2 may not be required. But until it happens, it's necessary.

As I said before, what's the point in having something that won't survive? Also what's the point in operating something that can't support you in your own area of operations? It's explained later in the post.

Only F5 will be out by then, maybe 2030-35.

Like I said, PANG is post 2037. What capabilities will Rafale not have by that time?

You can't say we can't foresee what PANG air wing will look like by late 2030s, but that we can foresee what Air Forces will look like by the same time.

These drones are 5 years away. 8 in the case of RN with Vixen. The Chinese are already flying these drones.

Vixen's gonna be too small - its performance will likely be the same as CROWSNEST, and a fraction of the Hawkeye's. Brits can't launch large aircraft - unless its going to be a STOVL drone but that's incredibly complex to make in the timeframes they're expecting. The Chinese are a bit too high on the propaganda side. They just failed to give an AESA upgrade to the PAF's ZDK-03s and came up with tall excuses for it, PAF is pissed.

The USAF plans to buy a much smaller number than E-3s, with the definitive replacement coming up only in 2035. So it's a stopgap.

There's more reasons behind it though. Modern 737s can give you much higher availability rates than old 707s, don't need as many airframes to deliver the same flight hours & on station time per year.

At least the RN is giving up on Crowsnest in just 9 years. So at least this capability is relevant to India.

Well CROWSNEST was a disappointment so no surprise. It's like Australia retiring its NH-90s and Tiger helos early.

That's simply 'cause there was no real need to replace the E-3 when AESA was militarised within NATO. Outside NATO, the Israelis started supplying AESA based AWACS since the 90s.

Yeah like I said, the longer wavelengths didn't need AESA to do their job at that time. X-band however did, it was too weak otherwise.

Israeli Phalcons were just coming out, obviously they'll choose to put what's the latest & greatest at the time as it was a new system, E-3 was already in service for 15 years by that point.

For military radars, S band is not considered long wavelength.

You are referring to things that are no longer relevant. Earlier, antennas were power hungry and required a lot of electrical power, which only large aircraft like jetliners could provide. And signal processing was so poor that they had to use long waves like L band and VHF band for long range volumetric scan managed by large computers the size of file cabinets, so cargo space also mattered, which also was provided by jetliners. In the 90s and 2000s, cargo space was really important.

But, with the advent of AESA, particularly GaN, and of course better processing, we can now put radar behind any surface, even curved, and use processing power that you can carry in your hand.

Plus engines also became advanced enough to power such radars. For example, the LCA Mk1 can only generate 30-40KVA. But the new SH can generate over 250KVA. And future jets like FCAS and Tempest will provide electrical power in the megawatts.

New electronics are also more power efficient.

All of these reasons are why AWACS have shifted away from large jetliners to small business jets. And business jets are being used because it needs to carry a crew for manual labour, literally. Once AI takes over, then AWACS will naturally transition to even smaller aircraft, like fighters and drones. And we are at that phase now.

Similarly as size and power requirments are reduced, we can then start using shorter and shorter wavelengths. Especially with the help of better software and greater processing for clutter management. So MMW and terahertz have become a reality. These radars already exist.



Sure. But that will give you much inferior resolution than before.

A 10x1m L band radar is useful. A 1x1m L band radar is useless. It's the 10m length that matters.



These are the future of AWACS, I'm not saying they will be of use to fighters. Fighters will work independently on their own, within a family of systems.

Like, the Divine Eagle will get shot down if it flies too close to the frontline. It will have to stay back as far away as realistically possible. Otoh, a fighter like NGAD will have to accomplish missions all on its own, without crewed AWACS support, because crewed AWACS can't support it.

I don't really understand why this is hard to get. All the Chinese have to do is show up with a 500-1000Km hypersonic AAM and all crewed AWACS will stay on the ground throughout the war. And this tech already exists. The only realistic way to defeat this threat is to either intercept it, or operate beyond its range. At 500-1000Km away from the battle, AWACS is utterly useless. And if it's too close, there's no guarantee of successful interception or even spoofing, so the AWACS will still have to run away anyway or risk the life of every crew member. Do you see why crewed AWACS is done? But we can lose a couple dozen Divine Eagles, no problem.

Otoh, fighters will have to constantly operate in contested air space and even collect its own intelligence, not just in its own territory, but also deep inside enemy territory, so it will have to not just merely duplicate the capabilities of current AWACS, but also add more to it, including techniques, tactics and capabilities that don't even exist today.

But that's just it - I don't mind putting AEWs on drones when that actually becomes viable - but moving that onto fighters is totally antithetical to the concept of a networked battlespace. The fighters can't see what's happening in the valley next to them. They're too close to the action to get a god's eye view which is what Command needs.

AEWs will instead move much higher than they are now. A single Global Hawk can conduct ISR over the entire theatre due to altitude. The power of GaN & AESA combined with better electronics will enable them to replicate Pave PAWS levels of coverage, but from the air with a better radar horizon. But that's for the distant future.

But the answer is not to remove crewed AWACS in the meantime or put them on fighters - that's like saying now that fire and forget ATGMs are here, tanks are useless and are a liability. Whereas the answer is, we need to develop APS to protect them.

 

[suryakiran]

It will probably happen when you're 35-40. When you're 60, high end combat will happen in space.

When I was 15, LCA was supposed to fly when I was 20. Now I am 40+.

 

[randomradio]

Can you share a source for that <over 250kVA> figure?

It's not public yet, so there are no Internet links available.

 

[randomradio]

Both require initial input from the main radar as neither can distinguish targets at the same range the main radar can. But once the bearing & distance is known, EODAS combined with rest of passive suite is a smarter way to track as it shifts the burden onto the enemy - the faster & higher he flies the easier it is to track him. The more he uses his radar the easier it is to track him. The side radars are limited by how much power you're pumping through them, but its pointless because its counterproductive to trigger enemy RWR even before you're able to see him. Something the main radar can see at 100km, the side arrays can probably do so at 60km, so you're basically handicapping yourself - but giving away your location all the same.

Like I said, US had the opportunity to install side arrays, but CHOSE not to.

I don't know how you are so confident about EODAS while dismissing radar, even if it's small, although still bigger than EODAS sensors.

Current EODAS tech can't pick up targets beyond radar range.

You're the one that said Hawkeyes aren't going anywhere till post 2050, not me. By then, the Block-3+ SH, F-35 & F/A-XX are the only jets in USN.

Yeah, 'cause NGAD won't be their only air asset. It will take the USN until 2050-55 to get rid of all old gen assets.

While E-2s will be used alongside older jets, NGAD will do its own thing.

Like I said, PANG is post 2037. What capabilities will Rafale not have by that time?

You can't say we can't foresee what PANG air wing will look like by late 2030s, but that we can foresee what Air Forces will look like by the same time.

That's because we do not yet know French plans. If FCAS goes ahead and meets PANG deadline, then it won't need AWACS. But if Dassault continues with Rafale, then PANG will need E-2. Maritime surveillance will still need human element for quite some time due to the type and nature of ships, the same is not really necessary for air forces because during war civilian traffic will have stopped, at the very least it is disciplined. Sea traffic won't stop due to war, it is only diverted. Plus ships tend to drift in the water and could be seen as a target by military sensors. Things are a bit more complex in the maritime sphere.

While FCAS timeline is 2050+, NGAD timeline is 2030+, so it's much more easily predictable. F/A-XX will also be 2030-35+.

Vixen's gonna be too small - its performance will likely be the same as CROWSNEST, and a fraction of the Hawkeye's. Brits can't launch large aircraft - unless its going to be a STOVL drone but that's incredibly complex to make in the timeframes they're expecting. The Chinese are a bit too high on the propaganda side. They just failed to give an AESA upgrade to the PAF's ZDK-03s and came up with tall excuses for it, PAF is pissed.

With Vixen, it depends on the sensor package, type of radar etc. Can't compare Chinese export crap with what they themselves use.

There's more reasons behind it though. Modern 737s can give you much higher availability rates than old 707s, don't need as many airframes to deliver the same flight hours & on station time per year.

Sure. It's an older airframe by default.

But that's just it - I don't mind putting AEWs on drones when that actually becomes viable - but moving that onto fighters is totally antithetical to the concept of a networked battlespace. The fighters can't see what's happening in the valley next to them. They're too close to the action to get a god's eye view which is what Command needs.

AEWs will instead move much higher than they are now. A single Global Hawk can conduct ISR over the entire theatre due to altitude. The power of GaN & AESA combined with better electronics will enable them to replicate Pave PAWS levels of coverage, but from the air with a better radar horizon. But that's for the distant future.

But the answer is not to remove crewed AWACS in the meantime or put them on fighters - that's like saying now that fire and forget ATGMs are here, tanks are useless and are a liability. Whereas the answer is, we need to develop APS to protect them.

Fighters will still have to operate in contested air space without crewed AWACS. Or even they become useless.

Altitude is fine, but survivability is more important, altitude is merely a part of the equation. Like, even the AMRAAM can climb up to 100-150k feet. Long range SAMs can even climb up into space. So the question is if crewed AWACS are survivable... Simply not.

Transports and tankers can be operated even deep inside enemy territory, and even they are going the stealthy way with new stealth designs coming up. But AWACS can't be stealthy due to its inherent nature of having to work with active emissions. If it goes passive, then it's no longer AWACS.

 

[randomradio]

When I was 15, LCA was supposed to fly when I was 20. Now I am 40+.

We have had successes in some areas and failures in some. You can't discredit the success in a certain area by making an irrelevant link to a failure elsewhere.

Our electronics, computers and comm sectors have made massive strides, enough to start competing with Western countries. Even software. We obviously have not seen the same level of success in airframe design and materials. So I'm not sure how the two are related.

Well over 90% of our computers, servers, software and integration for the military is now indigenous and very well integrated.

Self Reliance: The Key To Future | Indian Aerospace and Defence Bulletin - News for aerospace and defence in India

www.iadb.in

Today, all the IAF’s ground based radars are either indigenously designed or made by BEL (MPR Arudhra, LLTR Ashwini, LLLWR Aslesha, and Rohini). Amongst airborne radars, we have already inducted the AEW&C and the Uttam is under preliminary testing. We are also inducting many indigenous missile systems (Astra, AKASH, NGARM, SAAW etc.) and locally manufactured EW suites for our fighter fleet. Besides these, Indian firms develop critical operation support systems such as the IACCS, AFNET, eMMS and IMMOLS.

IR and imaging sensors, network architecture and security solutions as well as Electronic Warfare systems are other potential areas of interest for the industry to support.

This network upgrade is a big deal. It's 80% indigenous, but the core systems are still Indian, including software.

https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/big-boost-for-indian-armys-communation-network-to-get-upgraded-ascon/2096560/

 

[Hydra]

It's not public yet, so there are no Internet links available.

Are you sure about that figure? May be the combined power output. AFAIK Japanese engine currently under development will only produce 180 kw electrical output, and is categories as highest electrical output from a jet engine.
Even the combined output of 280+ is an impressive one, out TEDBF can easily be turned in to an EW attack aircraft if we borrowed the new GE engine.

@Picdelamirand-oil do you have any info on the electrical out from proposed indo french jet engine?

 

[Hydra]

We have had successes in some areas and failures in some. You can't discredit the success in a certain area by making an irrelevant link to a failure elsewhere.

Our electronics, computers and comm sectors have made massive strides, enough to start competing with Western countries. Even software. We obviously have not seen the same level of success in airframe design and materials. So I'm not sure how the two are related.

Well over 90% of our computers, servers, software and integration for the military is now indigenous and very well integrated.

Self Reliance: The Key To Future | Indian Aerospace and Defence Bulletin - News for aerospace and defence in India

www.iadb.in

Today, all the IAF’s ground based radars are either indigenously designed or made by BEL (MPR Arudhra, LLTR Ashwini, LLLWR Aslesha, and Rohini). Amongst airborne radars, we have already inducted the AEW&C and the Uttam is under preliminary testing. We are also inducting many indigenous missile systems (Astra, AKASH, NGARM, SAAW etc.) and locally manufactured EW suites for our fighter fleet. Besides these, Indian firms develop critical operation support systems such as the IACCS, AFNET, eMMS and IMMOLS.

IR and imaging sensors, network architecture and security solutions as well as Electronic Warfare systems are other potential areas of interest for the industry to support.

This network upgrade is a big deal. It's 80% indigenous, but the core systems are still Indian, including software.

https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/big-boost-for-indian-armys-communation-network-to-get-upgraded-ascon/2096560/

Its all mediocre, if you compare it with western weapons. I dont even think that we are even able to develop E-7 type AWACS in near future. Where our new AWACS under development by DRDO will stand against E-7 or Phalcon AWACS?

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

When I was 15, LCA was supposed to fly when I was 20. Now I am 40+.

This is a remarkable performance, normally the Indian time is eight times the normal time and here it is only five times, hardly more than the F-35 time which is four times.

 

[Parthu]

I don't know how you are so confident about EODAS while dismissing radar, even if it's small, although still bigger than EODAS sensors.

Current EODAS tech can't pick up targets beyond radar range.

Because the illuminator need not necessarily be the fighter's own radar. If any other sensor in the area (AWACS, ground-based OTH radars, space-based radars or SBIRS-type sensors) picks up a target, that's enough to cue EODAS as long as the F-35 gets that information via datalink/SATCOM. If there are any emissions from the target, that can also cue other sensors.

The range of EODAS detection is dependent on the target. If the radiated heat is high enough, it can track objects over 1,300+ km away as it did with that ballistic missile/rocket launch - far beyond the instrumented range of the F-35's radar.

Plus, for targets at closer ranges, it can actually pick up things even before the radar manages to identify them, when they are still low enough to remain among the ground clutter - as seen here, its actually the EODAS that's cueing the radar:

With these capabilities combined, F-35 (or future jets of the ilk) can passively do 90% of jobs that the Russians would feel the need to go active for. They are way behind the curve on electro-optics & processing. Haven't seen anything to indicate 101KS is anything but a regular MAWS system.

Yeah, 'cause NGAD won't be their only air asset. It will take the USN until 2050-55 to get rid of all old gen assets.

While E-2s will be used alongside older jets, NGAD will do its own thing.

What old gen assets? The oldest jet would be Block-3+ SH (of course by then it too would be upgraded to Block-4 or whatever).

Most of the other roles like refueling would be done by drones long before that - MQ25 is already flying.

Not to mention, jets doing their own thing is an entirely different thing from AWACS. The F-22 was already designed to operate on its own. That always depends on the mission needs. The jets can do C&c for their drone swarm to execute their missions, but if they can take over the role of an AWACS as you say, you shouldn't need separate AWACS to manage the 'other assets' - the fighters should be able to do that instead, no?

That's because we do not yet know French plans. If FCAS goes ahead and meets PANG deadline, then it won't need AWACS. But if Dassault continues with Rafale, then PANG will need E-2.

Well, all their marketing is showing FCAS, Rafale & E-2D working alongside each other on the PANG. The French are no fans of unnecessarily showing American aircraft on their ships unless that is part of the plan.

Maritime surveillance will still need human element for quite some time due to the type and nature of ships, the same is not really necessary for air forces because during war civilian traffic will have stopped, at the very least it is disciplined. Sea traffic won't stop due to war, it is only diverted. Plus ships tend to drift in the water and could be seen as a target by military sensors. Things are a bit more complex in the maritime sphere.

While FCAS timeline is 2050+, NGAD timeline is 2030+, so it's much more easily predictable. F/A-XX will also be 2030-35+.

You're beginning to see why the C&C of a battlespace includes far, far more than managing a small drone swarm to perform a specific mission.

Actually, overland operations are fairly more complicated as you have to constantly scan every inch of terrain for possible activity, manage the positions & command of ground forces, artillery & SF teams in the theatre, and so much more. Theatre-level C&C is a hard job to perform, however there are no shortcuts, and its not something you can do away with.

Fighters will still have to operate in contested air space without crewed AWACS. Or even they become useless.

Altitude is fine, but survivability is more important, altitude is merely a part of the equation. Like, even the AMRAAM can climb up to 100-150k feet. Long range SAMs can even climb up into space. So the question is if crewed AWACS are survivable... Simply not.

Transports and tankers can be operated even deep inside enemy territory, and even they are going the stealthy way with new stealth designs coming up. But AWACS can't be stealthy due to its inherent nature of having to work with active emissions. If it goes passive, then it's no longer AWACS.

It's inevitable. If you use a fighter as an AWACS, it too can't remain stealthy. The days of aircraft outmaneuvering missiles are long gone. Any plane, manned or unmanned, cannot match the kinematics of a smaller, lighter missile powered by ducted ramjets.

That's why they're moving toward DEWs, anti-missile missiles etc - the aircraft equivalent of APS for tanks. And guess what, that stuff again drags you back to the fundamentals of size, weight & power. Airliners & other large airframes again have the best chances at incorporating airborne DEWs as a viable means of self-defence. Way before the tech matures & miniaturizes enough to be mounted on smaller planes like fighters.

 

[Hydra]

This is a remarkable performance, normally the Indian time is eight times the normal time and here it is only five times, hardly more than the F-35 time which is four times.

There are 800+ f35s been built so far.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Are you sure about that figure? May be the combined power output. AFAIK Japanese engine currently under development will only produce 180 kw electrical output, and is categories as highest electrical output from a jet engine.
Even the combined output of 280+ is an impressive one, out TEDBF can easily be turned in to an EW attack aircraft if we borrowed the new GE engine.

@Picdelamirand-oil do you have any info on the electrical out from proposed indo french jet engine?

No but we are certainly aware of the problem, for example the British, for their new engine, have developed a new architecture in order to be able to have a powerful enough electric generation.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

There are 800+ f35s been built so far.

Instead of 3500 as planned in 2008. In addition, all the initial requirements will only be met with block 4, which is planned to be completed in 2029 now, whereas with my F-35=4X time, I had managed, as early as 2014, to predict 2031 (and I still think I'm right )

 

[randomradio]

Are you sure about that figure? May be the combined power output. AFAIK Japanese engine currently under development will only produce 180 kw electrical output, and is categories as highest electrical output from a jet engine.
Even the combined output of 280+ is an impressive one, out TEDBF can easily be turned in to an EW attack aircraft if we borrowed the new GE engine.

@Picdelamirand-oil do you have any info on the electrical out from proposed indo french jet engine?

It's combined. It doubles the current output.

Its all mediocre, if you compare it with western weapons. I dont even think that we are even able to develop E-7 type AWACS in near future. Where our new AWACS under development by DRDO will stand against E-7 or Phalcon AWACS?

There's nothing mediocre about our tech, or the IAF wouldn't buy it.

 

[randomradio]

Because the illuminator need not necessarily be the fighter's own radar. If any other sensor in the area (AWACS, ground-based OTH radars, space-based radars or SBIRS-type sensors) picks up a target, that's enough to cue EODAS as long as the F-35 gets that information via datalink/SATCOM. If there are any emissions from the target, that can also cue other sensors.

The range of EODAS detection is dependent on the target. If the radiated heat is high enough, it can track objects over 1,300+ km away as it did with that ballistic missile/rocket launch - far beyond the instrumented range of the F-35's radar.

Plus, for targets at closer ranges, it can actually pick up things even before the radar manages to identify them, when they are still low enough to remain among the ground clutter - as seen here, its actually the EODAS that's cueing the radar:

With these capabilities combined, F-35 (or future jets of the ilk) can passively do 90% of jobs that the Russians would feel the need to go active for. They are way behind the curve on electro-optics & processing. Haven't seen anything to indicate 101KS is anything but a regular MAWS system.

Yes, like how our eyes can see the sun from 150 million Kms away and the stars from many light years away. This doesn't bring value to the discussion. It literally has nothing to do with anything we are actually talking about.

What old gen assets? The oldest jet would be Block-3+ SH (of course by then it too would be upgraded to Block-4 or whatever).

Most of the other roles like refueling would be done by drones long before that - MQ25 is already flying.

Not to mention, jets doing their own thing is an entirely different thing from AWACS. The F-22 was already designed to operate on its own. That always depends on the mission needs. The jets can do C&c for their drone swarm to execute their missions, but if they can take over the role of an AWACS as you say, you shouldn't need separate AWACS to manage the 'other assets' - the fighters should be able to do that instead, no?

Anything that's not F-35 and beyond is old. Yes, the F-22 was also designed to operate without AWACS, but it has limited role due to its low combat radius, which is now a big drawback. The sensor package of newer jets will obviously be superior to the F-22, even the F-35.

Well, all their marketing is showing FCAS, Rafale & E-2D working alongside each other on the PANG. The French are no fans of unnecessarily showing American aircraft on their ships unless that is part of the plan.

No one is currently 'officially' talking about the actual future of AWACS. All their PR gimmicks are just PR gimmicks.

Right now, NATO's AWACS replacement program is only in the concept stage. Personally, I feel the American companies will win. 2 American companies are individually offering their own designs, Lock Mart and General Atomics. Boeing is working with European companies. L3 Harris with other American companies. And there's Airbus.

At this time, experts are saying future AWACS will be a system of systems, not a one man army like crewed AWACS.

If the French do end up with the E-2D, then it's likely the RN will have superior AWACS capability via the Vixen.

Actually, overland operations are fairly more complicated as you have to constantly scan every inch of terrain for possible activity, manage the positions & command of ground forces, artillery & SF teams in the theatre, and so much more. Theatre-level C&C is a hard job to perform, however there are no shortcuts, and its not something you can do away with.

Which makes crewed AWACS even more useless due to horizon limitations.

It's inevitable. If you use a fighter as an AWACS, it too can't remain stealthy.

One will show itself off to allow others to execute the target. And an emitting fighter obviously has a better chance of surviving that a crewed AWACS.

Mate, all your arguments are just aimed at supporting my own arguments.

The days of aircraft outmaneuvering missiles are long gone. Any plane, manned or unmanned, cannot match the kinematics of a smaller, lighter missile powered by ducted ramjets.

No such thing.

That's why they're moving toward DEWs, anti-missile missiles etc - the aircraft equivalent of APS for tanks. And guess what, that stuff again drags you back to the fundamentals of size, weight & power. Airliners & other large airframes again have the best chances at incorporating airborne DEWs as a viable means of self-defence. Way before the tech matures & miniaturizes enough to be mounted on smaller planes like fighters.

That makes fighters even more survivable. Otoh, DEW will take out a big, bumbling crewed AWACS from extremely long range from the ground. Basically if the AWACS is to find something, it first has to show itself to the enemy. Meaning, it has to enter the enemy's line of sight. And if AWACS does enter the enemy's LoS, then even they can see the AWACS. And if DEW is powerful enough to bring down AAMs, then a ground laser will take the AWACS out from horizon.

Literally nothing is in the favour of crewed AWACS now.

It only has value for peacetime operations and military training, ie, teaching future experts what an air battle would look like from the air.

 

[randomradio]

PS: The last I heard, Airbus, Boeing + Europe and General Atomics are in the race.

And I get the feeling GA will win. They have the most advanced drone tech after all.