6 ms·

I'd imagine one of the (forget the name, the big planes with radar that buzz around the battle space), could handle a swarm of drones from a long distance. Not

I'd imagine one of the (forget the name, the big planes with radar that buzz around the battle space), could handle a swarm of drones from a long distance. Not sure that it'd make sense to have a speedy jet out there doing that.

iamshs 6y ago
Gremlins concept, deployed from C-130?
freeone3000 6y ago
AWACS is the role, E-3 Sentry is the current plane. It's a 707 full of radar, but it's also a giant flying target. If you're going to link a bunch of drones to one platform, the drone controller is going to need a lot more survivability.
SEJeff 6y ago
I believe you're thinking JSTARs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-8_Joint_STARS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-8_Joint_STA... Or maybe the E-3 Sentry aka AWACS, but the JSTARs matches the "big plane" better and has a giant synthetic aperature radar for imaging large swaths of the battlespace. We deployed with JSTARs when I went to Iraq as a Shadow 200 TUAV Pilot myself.
- 0xffff2 6y ago
  >but the JSTARs matches the "big plane" better Sounds like you would know better than me, but aren't both the E-3 and E-8 based on a 707 platform? And don't you need both? If you're doing an air superiority mission you need an AWACS. If you're doing CAS you need JSTARS, right?
  - SEJeff 6y ago
    Yes, you're actually correct here. I interacted often with the JSTARs crew (we were on the same base in Mosul for a few months) and not as often with the AWACS crews. JSTARs was the first thing I thought of when you said big plane with radar though as it is literally a big plane with the sole purpose of SAR. The AWACS is more or less a similar thing, but with additional EW (electronic warfare) kit and sweeps the sky. They're complimentary although the AWACS is more relevant today than the JSTARs is. Most of the hardware in the JSTARs hasn't been updated in decades and it is starting to show its age. We had trouble integrating our realtime video feeds from our UAV with the telemetry feed from the JSTARs because it is just clunky and old.
enkid 6y ago
The problem is going to be keeping an AWACS close enough to command and control the fighters while not risking getting it shot down. An F-22 or F-35 (or even an F-15) is going to be a lot more survivable than an AWACS.
- njharman 6y ago
  > is going to be a lot more survivable than an AWACS. AWACS have vastly superior radar and electronics. It's going to see threats long before they are in range. And it's going to direct interceptors to deal with those threats long before they are in range. I don't believe an AWACS has ever been shot down. This lists a few times when AWACS detected and directed the destruction of threats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_shootdowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_shootdowns
  - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
    Many advanced nations now have "AWACS killer" missiles with 400+km ranges. I think this is why the sensor suites on 5th generation aircraft are so good.
  - enkid 6y ago
    An AWACS has never been flown in an area where it is likely to get shot down. That RADAR is a nice juice target for a HARM, and the maneuvers you can do in an AWACS is not nearly what you'd be able to do in any fighter. I don't understand what you are arguing. Are you suggesting an AWACS would be more likely to survive an attack than a fighter?
nradov 6y ago
The longer the distance, the greater the risk that the control data links will be disrupted by the adversary's EW.
- coretx 6y ago
  Slightly off topic, but how do they disrupt gyroscopes ?

iamshs 6y ago

Gremlins concept, deployed from C-130?

freeone3000 6y ago

AWACS is the role, E-3 Sentry is the current plane. It's a 707 full of radar, but it's also a giant flying target. If you're going to link a bunch of drones to one platform, the drone controller is going to need a lot more survivability.

SEJeff 6y ago

I believe you're thinking JSTARs? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-8_Joint_STARS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-8_Joint_STA... Or maybe the E-3 Sentry aka AWACS, but the JSTARs matches the "big plane" better and has a giant synthetic aperature radar for imaging large swaths of the battlespace. We deployed with JSTARs when I went to Iraq as a Shadow 200 TUAV Pilot myself.

0xffff2 6y ago
>but the JSTARs matches the "big plane" better Sounds like you would know better than me, but aren't both the E-3 and E-8 based on a 707 platform? And don't you need both? If you're doing an air superiority mission you need an AWACS. If you're doing CAS you need JSTARS, right?
- SEJeff 6y ago
  Yes, you're actually correct here. I interacted often with the JSTARs crew (we were on the same base in Mosul for a few months) and not as often with the AWACS crews. JSTARs was the first thing I thought of when you said big plane with radar though as it is literally a big plane with the sole purpose of SAR. The AWACS is more or less a similar thing, but with additional EW (electronic warfare) kit and sweeps the sky. They're complimentary although the AWACS is more relevant today than the JSTARs is. Most of the hardware in the JSTARs hasn't been updated in decades and it is starting to show its age. We had trouble integrating our realtime video feeds from our UAV with the telemetry feed from the JSTARs because it is just clunky and old.

enkid 6y ago

The problem is going to be keeping an AWACS close enough to command and control the fighters while not risking getting it shot down. An F-22 or F-35 (or even an F-15) is going to be a lot more survivable than an AWACS.

njharman 6y ago
> is going to be a lot more survivable than an AWACS. AWACS have vastly superior radar and electronics. It's going to see threats long before they are in range. And it's going to direct interceptors to deal with those threats long before they are in range. I don't believe an AWACS has ever been shot down. This lists a few times when AWACS detected and directed the destruction of threats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_shootdowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_shootdowns
- Johnjonjoan 6y ago
  Many advanced nations now have "AWACS killer" missiles with 400+km ranges. I think this is why the sensor suites on 5th generation aircraft are so good.
- enkid 6y ago
  An AWACS has never been flown in an area where it is likely to get shot down. That RADAR is a nice juice target for a HARM, and the maneuvers you can do in an AWACS is not nearly what you'd be able to do in any fighter. I don't understand what you are arguing. Are you suggesting an AWACS would be more likely to survive an attack than a fighter?

nradov 6y ago

The longer the distance, the greater the risk that the control data links will be disrupted by the adversary's EW.

coretx 6y ago
Slightly off topic, but how do they disrupt gyroscopes ?