Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/8/2004 2:19:30 AM EST
It seems to me that it would be the perfect platform for carrying long range missiles.

Instead of retiring all those perfectly good Phoenix missiles, why not arm the AWACS?
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 2:23:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By 223-Buckaroo:
It seems to me that it would be the perfect platform for carrying long range missiles.

Instead of retiring all those perfectly good Phoenix missiles, why not arm the AWACS?



No one is going to let you launch a Pheonix without first identifying the target. Do you want an AWACS getting close enough to a bogey to get a visual ID?

You're assuming in your post that missiles don't have a self-life. They do. Those are not all perfectly good.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 2:24:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By 223-Buckaroo:
It seems to me that it would be the perfect platform for carrying long range missiles.

Instead of retiring all those perfectly good Phoenix missiles, why not arm the AWACS?



No one is going to let you launch a Pheonix without first identifying the target. Do you want an AWACS getting close enough to a bogey to get a visual ID?

You're assuming in your post that missiles don't have a self-life. They do. Those are not all perfectly good.



Going by that logic we should only have guns because anything more than a couple miles out is not going to visibly recognizable unless it's the size of a bomber.....

S.O.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 2:25:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 2:26:17 AM EST by notso]
Diffrent software for targeting, and diffrent hardware. The Awacs is set up to scan large areas, where the AWG-9 on the F14 could direct the radar energy in one direction to get enough data to send the missle close enough to catch the target in its onboard radar.

Plus, no weapon hardpoints built into the wings of the E-3s. For a heavy weapon such as Pheonix, you need a designed hardpoint to carry the weight and hold aginst the slipstream.

Edit for fat fingers
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 2:26:43 AM EST
AWACS tend to be well enough behind hostilities to avoid offensive engagements. They can have fighter escort and I think the NATO AWACS have been modified to carry sidewinders. Besides, sitting in an aircraft with a 4 gazillion terawatt microwave beam would tend to want to keep me far away from the thing.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 2:29:12 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 2:31:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By 223-Buckaroo:
It seems to me that it would be the perfect platform for carrying long range missiles.

Instead of retiring all those perfectly good Phoenix missiles, why not arm the AWACS?



No one is going to let you launch a Pheonix without first identifying the target. Do you want an AWACS getting close enough to a bogey to get a visual ID?

You're assuming in your post that missiles don't have a self-life. They do. Those are not all perfectly good.



Going by that logic we should only have guns because anything more than a couple miles out is not going to visibly recognizable unless it's the size of a bomber.....

S.O.



Yawn. Our guys were holding their own using only missiles, and early missiles at that, in Vietnam. The chances you'll get to use a 100nm missile in actual combat are slim. The only time I know of a US Pheonix fired in anger was in 1999. It was fired at max range and the target turned tail and went out of the effective range of the missile.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 2:32:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By Defender3:
AWACS tend to be well enough behind hostilities to avoid offensive engagements. They can have fighter escort and I think the NATO AWACS have been modified to carry sidewinders. Besides, sitting in an aircraft with a 4 gazillion terawatt microwave beam would tend to want to keep me far away from the thing.

It is actually in the 40 watt range.



Actually, if you do the unit conversion, 40 gazillion terawatts does, in fact, equal 40 watts.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 2:38:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By 223-Buckaroo:
It seems to me that it would be the perfect platform for carrying long range missiles.

Instead of retiring all those perfectly good Phoenix missiles, why not arm the AWACS?



No one is going to let you launch a Pheonix without first identifying the target. Do you want an AWACS getting close enough to a bogey to get a visual ID?

You're assuming in your post that missiles don't have a self-life. They do. Those are not all perfectly good.



Going by that logic we should only have guns because anything more than a couple miles out is not going to visibly recognizable unless it's the size of a bomber.....

S.O.



Yawn. Our guys were holding their own using only missiles, and early missiles at that, in Vietnam. The chances you'll get to use a 100nm missile in actual combat are slim. The only time I know of a US Pheonix fired in anger was in 1999. It was fired at max range and the target turned tail and went out of the effective range of the missile.



Yawn all ya want but your post made no sense, why have a missle specifically designed for BVR firing and then not be able to fire it until you can visually aquire it?

Our guys were holding their own so well with missles in VN that they had to reinstitute gun fighting ,add guns to F4s and start the Top Gun school to teach the art of dog fighting again.....

S.O.

S.O.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 2:42:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 2:42:45 AM EST by Kharn]
The Phoenix is mainly intended for long-range bomber destruction, hitting a bigass target moving in a some-what straight line. Soviet Bears arent exactly a big threat these days.

Kharn
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 2:43:34 AM EST
And my teacher always told me I was no good at math!
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 2:56:34 AM EST
AWACS exist to lay out the battle field and vector fighter aircraft to threats. Fighters fight. AWACS guys stay away from the shooting and direct traffic.

It is sort of like asking why you don't chop down a tree with a sewing machine. Wrong tool for the job.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 3:01:39 AM EST
The AWACS actually IS armed, sorta. Understand that all the armament on all the aircraft it controls is at it's disposal, and it's pretty hard to sneak up on one (they could pick me up in a UH-1H ten feet off the ground), so self-defense isn't an issue really.

Offensively, it seems to make alot more sense to use multiple fighter aircraft, that can maneuver and make decisions based in on-the-spot knowledge and have done mission planning for any offensive missions. Even if there were usable AIM-54's (Phoenix), you'd be within range of anyone else with the same technology. Since the AIM-54's are 70's technology, it wouldn't be too hard for anyone out there to build something similar. You have to admit that it doesn't make alot of sense to go up against a fighter in a 707. That is what would be the case if you tried using the Sentry as a fighter.

Because of the capability of the radar on the Sentry, you have what's called "standoff". In other words you can stay well out of range of the enemy and perform your mission. Enemy aircraft that begin to approach it will have friendly fighters vectored against them well before they get anywhere close. By arming an AWACS, you eliminate all the advantages that range gives you.

If there is a big threat that needs a 100+mile missle to deal with, a better solution would be to just fly F-14's and control them with the AWACS.

Ross

Link Posted: 10/8/2004 3:02:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
AWACS guys stay away from the shooting and direct traffic.





Sure, that is the way they intend for it to be, but combat is unpredictable. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have some defensive capability to protect the AWACS? A Beyond Visual Range missile like the Phoenix would be good for ensuring that the bad guys stayed away.

Link Posted: 10/8/2004 3:07:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Ross:
The AWACS actually IS armed, sorta. Understand that all the armament on all the aircraft it controls is at it's disposal, and it's pretty hard to sneak up on one (they could pick me up in a UH-1H ten feet off the ground), so self-defense isn't an issue really.

Offensively, it seems to make alot more sense to use multiple fighter aircraft, that can maneuver and make decisions based in on-the-spot knowledge and have done mission planning for any offensive missions. Even if there were usable AIM-54's (Phoenix), you'd be within range of anyone else with the same technology. Since the AIM-54's are 70's technology, it wouldn't be too hard for anyone out there to build something similar. You have to admit that it doesn't make alot of sense to go up against a fighter in a 707. That is what would be the case if you tried using the Sentry as a fighter.

Because of the capability of the radar on the Sentry, you have what's called "standoff". In other words you can stay well out of range of the enemy and perform your mission. Enemy aircraft that begin to approach it will have friendly fighters vectored against them well before they get anywhere close. By arming an AWACS, you eliminate all the advantages that range gives you.

If there is a big threat that needs a 100+mile missle to deal with, a better solution would be to just fly F-14's and control them with the AWACS.

Ross





Ok... that was a good response. You seem to have some insight on this.......
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 3:15:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By Defender3:
AWACS tend to be well enough behind hostilities to avoid offensive engagements. They can have fighter escort and I think the NATO AWACS have been modified to carry sidewinders.



Correct… they nearly always have a fighter escort, and NATO and RAF Sentry's are modified to carry 4 sidewinders.

ANdy
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 3:16:21 AM EST
"By arming an AWACS, you eliminate all the advantages that range gives you."

I don't see how you eliminate any advantage by having a last-ditch defensive weapon

By hanging missles off the aircraft, you don't suddenly require it to engage enemy planes.

Vectoring our fighters to defend yourself would still be the best plan

I would agree that it is not the best platform for engaging migs.....

But if I were on board....and I ran out of friendly interceptors....

I would like to be able to do more than just run like hell!

My brother in law flew suveilance planes for the Army

He said he always wished he could have been armed with more than a sidearm.

He said he was probably toast either way.....but he would have felt better if he could shoot!
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 3:19:01 AM EST
Not to mention the radar on the AWACS is not capable of tracking targets with the fidelity needed for a firing solution...
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 3:20:17 AM EST
Kinda like asking why a General doesnt carry an M16. Cause they can call in a can of whoop ass
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 4:08:47 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 4:16:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 4:22:00 AM EST by Winston_Wolf]
... In part, it does not fit into the FCS (Future Combat Systems) plan for C3 battlefield management.


www.peogcs.army.mil/future.cfm

... More here: www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs.htm
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:07:11 AM EST
Why doesnt NFL teams use offensive tackles as wide recievers? Not that they can't do it but they would really suck at it. Besides everything already mentioned radar/hardpoints/maneverability the phoneix is not a very good missle against fighters. It only really excells at long rang non maneuvering targets (bears). The Awacs would be defending against other fighters in which the phoenix is worthless as tits on a boar hog.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:17:40 AM EST
You folks know what the biggest threat to AWACS are? They are bird strikes. A few years back an AWACS flew thru a flock of geese, and the engines sucked the birds into the engines it caused a "flame out" on all four engines, and the plane crashed with the lost of all aboard, I think it was in Alaska. I had a oppurtunity to walk thru a real AWACs plane that was parked on the ground at a civilian air show at the Van Nuys Airport 20 miles north of Los Angelese, in 100°F heat, it was stifling hot in that plane with zero A/C. It looked like a civilian control tower with a bunch of radar screens screens.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:21:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 6:22:04 AM EST by vito113]
There is a VERY good reason NATO and the RAF armed their Sentry's with Sidewinders… they found during wargaming exercises it was possible to break through the fighter screen if you were willing to lose a lot of planes doing so.

The tactic was to charge 'Balls to the Wall' at mid and high altitude and launch a load of Radar Guided missiles at the fighter screen forcing them to go 'defensive'. In the resultant 'gap' you then flew in two planes fast and in line astern and close together on the deck towards the AWACS… the 'blip' would be picked up and targeted… once the lead was engaged, the tail end charlie would pop up and launch heat seekers at the AWACS. It proved quite successsful so they fitted the planes with Sidewinders to nail the 'leakers'.

ANdy
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:25:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2004 6:28:38 AM EST by KA3B]
That's the way it's done, except that the Navy uses the E-2C Hawkeye.




Originally Posted By Ross:

If there is a big threat that needs a 100+mile missle to deal with, a better solution would be to just fly F-14's and control them with the AWACS.

Ross


Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:37:23 AM EST
Bird strikes are no bigger of a threat to AWACS than they are to any other 4 engined commercial aircraft in the world.

"YUKLA", the call sign for all 962nd AACS flights, is from an Alaskan dialect meaning "EAGLE".

YUKLA27 was the call sign of the U.S. Air Force E-3 (AWACS) aircraft that crashed September 22, 1995, at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska. Twenty-Four aircrew perished in that crash. The crash occurred on takeoff and was the result of a collision with geese, the geese being ingested into two of the engines.




Originally Posted By warlord:
You folks know what the biggest threat to AWACS are? They are bird strikes. A few years back an AWACS flew thru a flock of geese, and the engines sucked the birds into the engines it caused a "flame out" on all four engines, and the plane crashed with the lost of all aboard, I think it was in Alaska.

Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:43:27 AM EST
I asked the crew of a B1 bomber that question about they're plane and was told they weren't fighters. They said if pursued by enemy aircraft, they'd just hit the deck and outrun them.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:59:25 AM EST
Weight.

Additional weight of weapons = less mission-related gear and/or reduced range.

Tailor the platform to the mission. If you want the platform to be a "shooter," rip out the gear and make it a shooter. Otherwise, leave it alone and let it do the mission it was designed to do.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:04:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By Hellboy:
I asked the crew of a B1 bomber that question about they're plane and was told they weren't fighters. They said if pursued by enemy aircraft, they'd just hit the deck and outrun them.



someones been reading dale brown.....


but just think how much ammo they could carry...
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 12:29:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By 223-Buckaroo:
It seems to me that it would be the perfect platform for carrying long range missiles.

Instead of retiring all those perfectly good Phoenix missiles, why not arm the AWACS?



I used to work on the AWACS program back in the early '80's. We looked into the issue of adding self-defense or even offensice weapons to the "Earwax" way back then and it was discarded.

If the NATO and English added Sidewinders to their aircraft, they did it after we delivered them, it wasn't part of the original design.



And no, it isn't 40 watts, but the number used to be classified when I was the program, may still be, dunno.

Merlin
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 1:36:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By Merlin:

Originally Posted By 223-Buckaroo:
It seems to me that it would be the perfect platform for carrying long range missiles.

Instead of retiring all those perfectly good Phoenix missiles, why not arm the AWACS?



I used to work on the AWACS program back in the early '80's. We looked into the issue of adding self-defense or even offensice weapons to the "Earwax" way back then and it was discarded.

If the NATO and English added Sidewinders to their aircraft, they did it after we delivered them, it wasn't part of the original design.



And no, it isn't 40 watts, but the number used to be classified when I was the program, may still be, dunno.

Merlin



Yes… it was a post delivery modification…

Radar Power? seems to be no big secret anymore……"airborne AWACS search radar use much higher average and peak powers. The AWACS uses klystrons rated at over 50 megawatt peak power and over 50 kilowatt average power"

Which sounds about right as the EC-121 Constellation of the 60's pushed out 3 magawatts peak.

Andy
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 3:55:19 PM EST
They're usually armed with a few squadrons of F-15s.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 5:26:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By SorryOciffer:

Yawn all ya want but your post made no sense, why have a missle specifically designed for BVR firing and then not be able to fire it until you can visually aquire it?

Our guys were holding their own so well with missles in VN that they had to reinstitute gun fighting ,add guns to F4s and start the Top Gun school to teach the art of dog fighting again.....

S.O.

S.O.



There is a difference between the capabilities of a weapons system and the ROE under which you employ it.

I also said our pilots were holding their own in VN. They were against a more manueverable foe. However, the kill ratio wasn't good enough. So they decided to create Fighter Weapons School to teach better TTP to fight a more manueverable foe with a less manueverable fighter.

The guns were added because early missiles were not that reliable.

However, despite being hampered with missiles that weren't that good, not being taught proper dogfighting techniques, and not being armed with guns our pilots still were able to hold their own. After Top Gun was implemented and guns were added they chalked up an impressive kill ratio.

Like I said Yawn.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:30:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
There is a VERY good reason NATO and the RAF armed their Sentry's with Sidewinders… they found during wargaming exercises it was possible to break through the fighter screen if you were willing to lose a lot of planes doing so.

The tactic was to charge 'Balls to the Wall' at mid and high altitude and launch a load of Radar Guided missiles at the fighter screen forcing them to go 'defensive'. In the resultant 'gap' you then flew in two planes fast and in line astern and close together on the deck towards the AWACS… the 'blip' would be picked up and targeted… once the lead was engaged, the tail end charlie would pop up and launch heat seekers at the AWACS. It proved quite successsful so they fitted the planes with Sidewinders to nail the 'leakers'.

ANdy



Show me a picture of an E-3 with any sort of missile. Speaking of Dale Brown.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:31:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise:

Originally Posted By Hellboy:
I asked the crew of a B1 bomber that question about they're plane and was told they weren't fighters. They said if pursued by enemy aircraft, they'd just hit the deck and outrun them.



someones been reading dale brown.....


but just think how much ammo they could carry...



No Dale Brown. That's what we do. Not so much outrun, but out-gas.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:33:18 PM EST
I've always wondered why the milkman never delivered bread.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:41:56 PM EST
I'm not aware of any E-3s being armed with missiles. The RAF's Nimrod can (and has) been armed with Sidewinders on twin rails on the outer underwing hardpoints.

The only things I have seen on the RAF's Sentrys that could possible be confused for missiles are the thin pods attached on each wingtip, but these pods contain EW/ELINT sensors.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 3:34:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By TLWrench:
I'm not aware of any E-3s being armed with missiles. The RAF's Nimrod can (and has) been armed with Sidewinders on twin rails on the outer underwing hardpoints.

The only things I have seen on the RAF's Sentrys that could possible be confused for missiles are the thin pods attached on each wingtip, but these pods contain EW/ELINT sensors.



'For but not with'. The French and RAF planes were updated and as part of the package were fitted with the wiring and pickup pionts to allow carriage of a pylon should the need arise.

ANdy
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 4:15:43 AM EST
Is the range of AWACS radar capability classified? How big of a battlefield can they command?

How about just alink to tell us everything we wanted to know about an AWAC's. Development, advances, combined forces uses..etc.

Thanks

Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:57:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By CavVet:
Is the range of AWACS radar capability classified? How big of a battlefield can they command?

How about just alink to tell us everything we wanted to know about an AWAC's. Development, advances, combined forces uses..etc.




... Here ya go!

... About as far as you can go without getting into classified territory

www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/e-3-upgrades.htm
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 6:00:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By kindstranger:

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By Defender3:
AWACS tend to be well enough behind hostilities to avoid offensive engagements. They can have fighter escort and I think the NATO AWACS have been modified to carry sidewinders. Besides, sitting in an aircraft with a 4 gazillion terawatt microwave beam would tend to want to keep me far away from the thing.

It is actually in the 40 watt range.



Actually, if you do the unit conversion, 40 gazillion terawatts does, in fact, equal 40 watts.



But is that based on using Metric or Standard numbers for the conversion?
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 11:19:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... Here ya go!

... About as far as you can go without getting into classified territory

www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/e-3-upgrades.htm



Thanks W_W....

duh...I totally forgot Global Security.....old age is a bitch....
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 6:34:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By CavVet:
Is the range of AWACS radar capability classified? How big of a battlefield can they command?

How about just alink to tell us everything we wanted to know about an AWAC's. Development, advances, combined forces uses..etc.

Thanks




As I recall, there were only two things classified "Secret" in the Radar Systems spec back in the early '80's: radar range was the other one. I was surprised by the number.

And no I don't recall what the number was and I wouldn't tell you anyway.

BTW, I still have all my classified document receipts after all this time...

Merlin
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 6:44:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
That's the way it's done, except that the Navy uses the E-2C Hawkeye.




Originally Posted By Ross:

If there is a big threat that needs a 100+mile missle to deal with, a better solution would be to just fly F-14's and control them with the AWACS.

Ross






Hell yeah T-56 turbo props... pulled many a wrenches of those! Great pic...
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 7:49:38 AM EST
I must say, I also cannot find any pictures of an E-3 with AIM-9 or R.552s but the combination of precedence on the afore-mentioned Nimrod and the addition of wingtip pods on the French and British E-3s indicates that addition of a sidewinder launch rail would be neither impossible for technical reasons or implausible for doctrinal reasons.

NTM
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 7:54:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By Kharn:
The Phoenix is mainly intended for long-range bomber destruction, hitting a bigass target moving in a some-what straight line. Soviet Bears arent exactly a big threat these days.

Kharn



Like a hijacked jumbo jet?
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 8:00:13 AM EST
T-56-A-427 engines rock!


Originally Posted By blueshockey:
Hell yeah T-56 turbo props... pulled many a wrenches of those! Great pic...

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 9:53:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By TLWrench:
I'm not aware of any E-3s being armed with missiles. The RAF's Nimrod can (and has) been armed with Sidewinders on twin rails on the outer underwing hardpoints.

The only things I have seen on the RAF's Sentrys that could possible be confused for missiles are the thin pods attached on each wingtip, but these pods contain EW/ELINT sensors.



'For but not with'. The French and RAF planes were updated and as part of the package were fitted with the wiring and pickup pionts to allow carriage of a pylon should the need arise.

ANdy



How exactly are these Nimrods and E-3's supposed to engage a fighter with an IR AAM?

This sounds like an exercise in making football bats.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 10:06:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2004 10:10:13 AM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By bmick325:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By TLWrench:
I'm not aware of any E-3s being armed with missiles. The RAF's Nimrod can (and has) been armed with Sidewinders on twin rails on the outer underwing hardpoints.

The only things I have seen on the RAF's Sentrys that could possible be confused for missiles are the thin pods attached on each wingtip, but these pods contain EW/ELINT sensors.



'For but not with'. The French and RAF planes were updated and as part of the package were fitted with the wiring and pickup pionts to allow carriage of a pylon should the need arise.

ANdy



How exactly are these Nimrods and E-3's supposed to engage a fighter with an IR AAM?

This sounds like an exercise in making football bats.



Exactly the same way as any other 'plane engages an enemy aircraft, arm the missile, get a tone and launch. Fitting 4 AIM-9's are 100% more useful than just expecting the Pilot to wave his dick at the enemy plane… They are intended as a 'last ditch' defence, nothing more.

The original reason the Nimrods aquired missiles is that during the Falklands War an RAF Nimrod happened across an Argentine 707 shadowing the fleet logistics train. All they could do was make 'aggressive' fients at the 707 to drive it off. When it got home to Acension, the RAF ground crews fitted a pair of Sidewinder rails overnight so when it went off down south on it's next patrol it could take out any shadowing aircraft… fortunately for the Argentine 707 aircrew they were never sent out shadowing again

ANdy
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 10:15:00 AM EST
Still searching for the E-3 pics, but here's a nimrod with hardpoints clearly visible. Apparently they can carry AGM-84's as well.

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 10:29:53 AM EST
OK, Got the link now… RAF E-3's are fitted with provision for Self Defence AIr-to-Air Missiles…

SENTRY AEW1

Deliveries of the Sentry AEW1, commenced in March 1991 and delivery of all seven airframes was complete in early 1992. These seven aircraft are of the same type as the 18 delivered to the multinational NATO early warning force between 1982/1985. 

Powered by four CFM 56-2A-3 engines, the Sentry is designed to cruise at 29,000 feet whilst detecting air and surface contacts with its AN/APY-2 surveillance radar. Information is then transmitted back to interceptor aircraft and, ground air-and-ship-based units using a wide variety of digital datalinks. All are equipped with the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) and a 665,360 word memory secure communication system.

Between 1998-2000, RAF Sentry aircraft were upgraded under the Radar System Improvement Programme (RSIP) costing some £120 million. New Global Positioning System navigation equipment was also installed. Most recently, Sentry AEW1 aircraft were deployed in support of Operation Telic during the 2003 Iraq War, and for Operation Oracle in support of ISAF in Afghanistan from 2002.


SENTRY AEW1  Specifications

Crew 5 x Flight Crew 12/13 Mission Crew

Wingspan  44.42m

Height 12.73m

Length  46.61m

All Up Operational Weight 147,400kg

Patrol Endurance 6 hrs (can be enhanced by AAR)

Ferry Range 3,200 km

Max Speed 853 k/ph (530 mph)

Engines 4 x CFM-56-2A-3

Armament Provision for self-defence air-to-air missiles

www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0026.html

ANdy

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top