5 ms·
That's a really good point - I'm certainly familiar with AWACS in concept but I didn't connect the dots here. Thing is, in these scenarios they're the only arm
by kkielhofner 3y ago
That's a really good point - I'm certainly familiar with AWACS in concept but I didn't connect the dots here.
Thing is, in these scenarios they're the only armed aircraft around and their targets never have radar or any instrumentation/defense/even detection for it. So they could (and likely do) blast and paint all day and they still can't find bug smashers in dense urban environments like you most often see with TFRs.
I can understand the fighter radar is probably designed assuming assistance from AWACS but it still seems really strange to me.
- dylan604 3y agoThe fighters can actually receive the radar information from AWACs, so the pilots see the radar image. However, just like not having total CAPs coverage over the US, there's not a lot of AWACs coverage either. I'd be shocked if there's any mechanism for them receiving civilian ATC radar. To that end, how much radar coverage is actually there? Isn't civilian traffic pretty much IDs broadcast from the planes?
- nradov 3y agoCivilian air traffic control relies mainly on secondary surveillance radar including aircraft transponders, plus ADS-B. Primary radar coverage is limited to larger airports plus a few border and military areas. An aircraft can hide pretty effectively in most US airspace by just flying low with transponders switched off.
- sudosysgen 3y agoIt isn't - the fighter is not designed on the assumption it can rely on an AWACS, because they're very vulnerable aircraft. For many F-* jets, AWACS datalink was actually added later on.