The E-2 Hawkeye has long been recognized as the most
important aircraft in the carrier air wing.
In fact, the Ford program manager stated exactly that.[1] The E-2 provides detection of enemy aircraft
and, more importantly, directly manages the aerial battle. It is the battle management function that
makes the E-2 so important and provides naval aircraft with their most
important tactical advantage in air combat – the ability to avoid radiating. It is also this function, by the way, that
precludes any other radar-equipped aircraft from filling the E-2 role because
no other aircraft can perform the battle management function. Those who think an F-35 can be an E-2 simply
don’t understand what the E-2 does. But,
I digress …
The lack of an E-2 is also why the British carriers are so
limited in their combat usefulness.
Again, I digress …
Until the advent of stealth, the E-2 was able to monitor the
location of every aircraft in the aerial battlefield and direct our planes in
combat without those planes needing to radiate and reveal their own
locations. The ability of a Tomcat or
Hornet to maneuver and launch missiles without revealing themselves was an enormous
advantage.
Now, however, stealthy and semi-stealthy aircraft have taken
over the aerial battlefield. What impact
does this have on the E-2’s function and usefulness? Well, let’s consider what we know about the
E-2 and related issues.
- The E-2 radar is credited with a detection range of around
200 miles.
- Stealth aircraft are credited with golf ball size radar
returns and detection ranges limited to a few miles or so, according to
manufacturer claims.
- Current long range A2A missiles are credited with many
dozens to multiple hundreds of miles range.
- The E-2 is non-survivable in the presence of enemy aircraft
due to its immense radar return, active radar emissions, slow speed, and poor
maneuverability.
Analysis
Now, let’s assemble and analyze the individual facts and see
where that leads us.
We have, seemingly, conflicting claims. The E-2 radar is credited with a 200 mile
detection range. Stealth aircraft are
credited with mosquito to golf ball size radar returns and detection ranges
limited to a few miles or so, according to manufacturer claims. Both claims can’t be simultaneously true. If an E-2 radar can detect stealth aircraft
at 200 miles, what’s the point of stealth?
On the other hand, if an E-2 radar can’t detect stealth aircraft until a
few miles, what’s the point of having an E-2?
What we have to recognize is that the E-2 radar detection
claims of 200 miles are based on detecting large, non-stealthy aircraft like
Russian Tu-95 Bears. On the other hand,
stealth aircraft manufacturer’s claims of being nearly non-detectable are
exaggerated just like all manufacturer claims. What is the actual detection range
of stealthy and non-stealthy aircraft?
Well, anyone who knows isn’t saying so we’re left to guess. My best estimate is that semi-stealthy
aircraft (Fulcrum and Flanker derivatives, Chinese J-16 for example) can be
detected around 30-50 miles and full stealth aircraft (Chinese J-20, J-31, Russian
Su-57 for example) can be detected around 10-20 miles, depending on conditions
and circumstances.
E-2 radar detection and sustained tracking of
stealthy or semi-stealthy aircraft is likely on the order of 10-30 miles which
means an E-2 would have to operate within 10-30 miles of enemy aircraft in
order to be effective in the battle management role and that is well within
range of almost all modern A2A missiles.
Given that modern A2A missiles have ranges of many dozens or
hundreds of miles, the concept of a non-survivable E-2 operating within 10-30
miles of enemy aircraft is a non-starter.
The conclusion is that stealth has rendered the E-2 ineffective as a battle
management asset. The E-2 can still
function, to a somewhat degraded degree, as an elevated radar platform for
carrier defense but that is a limited subset of its traditional role.
So, where does that leave us?
Institutional inertia and a total lack of realistic field
exercises guarantees that we’ll continue down the traditional E-2 path for many
decades to come. Wouldn’t you love to
see the results of a stealth (F-22) ‘attack’ against a carrier/E-2? My bet is that the F-22 would never be
detected. If I’m correct, that’s the end
of the E-2 as an effective platform.
Are there alternatives to the traditional E-2? Yes! Here’s
a couple of possibilities we’ve covered:
Conclusion
Unless the E-2 Hawkeye has stealth detecting capabilities
that have never even been hinted at, the E-2 Hawkeye is no longer survivable or
effective when facing a peer with stealthy or semi-stealthy aircraft armed with
long range A2A missiles. We have
alternatives but we need to stop our unthinking inertia and stop building E-2s
just because they once were effective – the same goes for the endlessly
produced Burkes but, I digress …
We need to conduct realistic air battle management exercises
using B-2 bombers and other aircraft as surrogates for future ‘Hawkeyes’ and start
defining the requirements for the next Navy AEW aircraft.
Consider this … if we develop very long range fighter
aircraft, as I’ve called for, we also need to develop an accompanying,
survivable AEW aircraft to support the fighters and manage the far away aerial
battle. Failure to do so means we enter
the future air combat area on equal footing with the enemy and a fair fight means
you haven’t done your job planning and preparing. You don’t limit yourself to bringing a knife
to a knife fight, you bring a gun! We
need AEW battle management support and the E-2 is no longer it.
____________________________
The latest version of the Hawkeye is the E2D. After performing an internet search, I cannot find a program to eventually replace it. One would think that that a stealthier version should be considered.
ReplyDeleteStealth for an AEW aircraft that has to radiate a giant, powerful radar continuously is of limited value. It might be useful while transiting to and from its operating location but once it starts radiating ...
Delete"stealthier version should be considered."
DeleteStealthier, as in passive sensors and a stealth airframe would be an effective combination. A passive B-21 Hawkeye, as linked in the post!
"One would think that that a stealthier version should be considered."
ReplyDeleteI don't know if it's possible to make the E-2 more stealthy, at least in any significant way.
To do its job, the E-2 has to be emitting with its powerful radar. That is going to be like an electronic signal lighthouse.
I think that the EO/IR passive sensors, likely on multiple platforms scattered about the operating area, are likely replacements.
That aircraft would do well to be stealthy.
Lutefisk
CNO described a version of an AEW aircraft with passive sensors. as you mentioned as well, but having stealthy airframe.
DeleteThat's probably why it was floating around in my head.
DeleteLutefisk
If the skies become filled with stealthy aircraft, and E-2s are no longer viable (or all get shot down), then air battles will devolve into relatively chaotic chance encounters where forces blunder into each other at close range. It sounds rather terrifying!!
ReplyDeleteIt certainly sounds like a new aircraft is overdue, and it will have to have strong passive sensors. Itll also need to be at least somewhat stealthy. Maybe flat panel radar ala' SPY is somthing to look at in a new platform- somthing relatively powerful thats only used after contact is made to manage the battle? And itll likely need to shed its propeller-driven roots in order to be more survivable... Sounds like a tall order!!!
Now, maybe heres another (possible??) opportunity for a drone of some sort. Not to replace the E-2, but to be more like the Catalinas of old. Not high-end large ones. Maybe even single-use missile based ones with limited capability. They could be shipboard based but aircraft carried for better range. Somthing without massive capability, but also somthing relatively cheap that could be built and expended in large numbers. These would be used for early warning detection to help the new E-X platform look in the right place. Yes, this idea needs more development, but was just somthing that came to mind. Not sure its feasible, will have to research further but...
"opportunity for a drone of some sort."
DeleteSetting aside the challenges of mounting a sufficiently powerful (meaning large!) radar on a drone, this ignores the battle management aspect of the Hawkeye which is its most important function. A drone might be able to carry a radar and detect something but how do you address the battle management?
I pictured them as just a longer range scout of sorts. Strictly for initial detection. Battle management would still fall to the new iteration of the E-2.
ReplyDeleteThat's fair. Where would they be based? How would you guarantee continuous coverage?
DeleteTo get maximum range/loiter/coverage, i think theyd be air launched, so, carrier based. Theyd have to be cheap enough to be built in large quantity, in order to give somthing resembling continuous coverage. This is similar to a previous discussion where we looked at reusable vs single trip missiles for scout purposes, because even if theyre recoverable and reused, they almost certainly couldnt be refurbished and reused at sea. So, large quantities would be needed either way.
DeleteId envision them used in conjunction with other aircraft that would serve as comm relays if they found somthing.
Of course, anything that radiates will be to some extent, a beacon, pointing to the CVBG, but, finding somthing before its in range of an E-2 or its replacement is necessasary....
And how do you address the battle management aspect of the E-2's mission?
DeleteIn theory would it work to transfer the battle management functionality back to ships?
Delete1) Is the communication technology available to transmit whatever information is captured by sensors back to, say, the carrier? 2) Can you integrate different sensors into a coherent picture through computing power?
If these are available, maybe you position an array of sensors (be they forward positioned ships, "passive E-2" types, F-35s, low visibility drones that stay passive until key moments with their radar, and then go dark and evasive, and/or satellites) and have them all report back to the CIC. The software (maybe) integrates the contacts from all these sources into a single picture of what's going on.
Obviously, this is in many ways a weaker system (will it be capable enough to ID threats and direct a response? Can it be jammed? How many remote sensors can it lose and still be effective?) but it would be more survivable in theory.
The communications aspect is going to be a nightmare if you try to move battle management back to a ship. To do that, you're going to need fairly high capacity data links from your sensor platforms to your management platform. As you get into higher and higher speed connections, in general they get easier to jam. This is because data-dense connections require high signal to noise ratios to work properly. Inject enough noise (jamming) into the connection and you lose the high speed connection. Of course this is an over-simplification, but the principal is valid.
DeleteMaking these connections work in peacetime would be fairly simple. Making them work in a war where the enemy is continuously learning how to effectively mess with you is going to be hugely problematic.
I personally think the continuously connected, everyone knows everything all the time, is ridiculous and will fail disastrously when the shooting starts.
There will still be an E-2, although likely a jet powered, more stealthy iteration of it. Itd stay passive and rely on the drones (and secondarilly its own passive sensors) for initial detection before going active. Itd be more survivable, and the missile/drones expand its initial detection range, enabling it to be able to again manage an air battle. At least this way, it wouldnt be a giant beacon and target initially.
DeleteNot being a missile or aeronautics engineer, Im not sure exactly what an AEW drone would look like. Surfing through the SM family, those seem too fast, too expensive to adapt into an AEW 'drone'. Again, Tomahawks seem like a decent initial option, with a payload capacity thatd likely make them capable of having good detection abilities. But, their bulk and needing to be ship launched, the need for large quantities used to provide comprehensive coverage, as well as the need for a high altitude flight profile (can they even be used for this at an appropriate altitude?) makes them good for surface scouting, but not my AEW drone idea. I like to look at existing platforms for my "what ifs", with established capabilities to vet the concept, but not sure there is one in this case. Ill keep looking...
DeleteHaving said all that, maybe the idea of missile based disposable AEW is pointless. I think it has merits, but... Somthing like a Reaper drone,with its long range and relatively large payload could be used to scout beyond the E-2. Reaper looks like a candidate because weapons payload weight could be exchanged for additional fuel and sensor packages. Of course, itd be ship launched, and the ship/facilities would need to exist to keep a significant number of them in the air. Id suggest making them more autonomous, and fly preprogrammed to eliminate the need for constant communication. A half dozen of these, hundreds of miles out front of an E-2, could give it the warning it needs to shape an air battle and not be an early casualty. I think.
DeleteWhile it is probably non survivable in a high end first day intervention against an opponent with long range stealth interceptors. It could still have a more defensive role especially against long range cruise missile as an early warning plattform feeding more data to the destroyers. In the end a war is fought with the weapons that are available, not those that are often needed.
ReplyDelete" In the end a war is fought with the weapons that are available, not those that are often needed."
DeleteAnd what we're trying to do in this blog is ensure that we have the proper weapons available on day one.
Detection range is based upon a multitude of factors, but the overriding factor is signal-to-noise ratio. A radar's function is little different than a pair of walkie-talkies. A radar will "detect" a target when the gain from the returned radiation / signal captured by the transceiver antenna and filtering circuitry exceeds the noise threshold. Whenever you "receive" a signal from a radio station, your radio's antenna and receiver circuitry is sufficiently sensitive to "tune" into the emitted radiation from the transmitting station to provide a clear signal differentiated from background noise / radiation on the same frequency.
ReplyDeleteWhenever you hear the word "stealth", it means, "This airframe has special shaping and coatings to absorb / attenuate or deflect the radar reflection, reducing the strength of the return signal, from radars emitting in the X and Ku or higher frequency bands." Why X and Ku? You cannot fit lower frequency band radar antennas into the nosecone of most intercept missiles. If you could somehow fit the antenna to the missile's airframe, the next technical problem is that lower frequency bands don't provide sufficient resolution, especially at distance, to launch a missile that can guide all the way to the target. You can't launch a missile at a cubic mile of airspace and stand a good chance of hitting your target. Long range missiles all rely on inertial guidance and target updates before they switch on their own radar. All tactical fighters and missiles use X and Ku band radars because that's the lowest frequency range which allows the antenna to fit inside a small missile nosecone while providing a target position of sufficiently high fidelity to guide the missile to the target. You can go to even higher frequencies to get higher resolution, but to what end?
E-2s use lower frequency UHF-band radar for long range target detection. This is more ideal for target detection only, including against most kinds of stealth aircraft not sized and shaped like the B-2 or B-21, but you will not develop a track of sufficient fidelity to launch a missile at what your UHF band radar can "see". This is why the target position data is sent to interceptors to close with and lock up the target. If you had 3 or more UHF band radars that could communicate with each other in real-time and send the signal to a missile, then you have the necessary data to guide intercept missiles, using relative target movement to triangulate the target's actual position.
You know what a "special coating" or "special shape" that drastically reduces radar returns in the X and Ku bands does to radar operating in the UHF band? Very little, in most cases. VHF band walkie-talkies don't pick up SHF band signals very well. Why not? It's not tuned to that frequency. The same applies to radars. A "signal strength attenuator" that works very well in one frequency band probably doesn't work well in all other frequency bands. This means you can be detected in some frequency band, regardless of how well your aircraft does against attenuating higher resolution radars. If a magic coating attenuated all frequency bands well, there'd be no need for special shaping of the airframe.
kbd512
Minor addition to Anon's comment.
DeleteAccording to this article,
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navys-next-hawkeye-plane-can-detect-stealth-fighters-51023944fcbe#:~:text=Effectively%2C%20that%20means%20the%20E,observable%20aircraft%20%E2%80%94%20that's%20just%20physics.
the e2-d CAN detect fighter sized stealth aircraft. Although perhaps not accurately enough for a target lock. The radar cross section is frequency dependent, and (except for large flying wing type aircraft like the B-2 or B-21) there tend to be "resonances" that show up on longer wavelength radars (such as the one on the e2-d) that significantly increase the reflection from fighter plane type objects, even stealthy ones.
Don't know what the detection range is for stealth fighters, although probably more than a couple of miles.
However, the principle that the radar detector on the fighter will detect the emitted radar signals from the e-2 long before the e-2 detects the reflected radar signal bouncing off the fighter plane (stealth or otherwise) still applies. So a sufficiently long range air to air missile could possibly take it out even when fired from a non-stealthy fighter.
Virtually all fighter size aircraft use X band radar systems (American, European, Russian, Chinese, etc) because they're primarily concerned with accurately guiding missiles by developing high resolution target tracks. The radar warning receivers are primarily used against K bands or higher. Missiles' shorter range radars need even higher resolution to be accurate at high closure rates, fortuitously compatible with their emitter size and weight restrictions. Most new SAR / ISAR satellites use X band as well, as it's sufficient to generate 25cm resolution images of everything below, from sun synchronous orbits (500km to 800km).
DeleteThe small size of X band or higher T/R modules allows hundreds of them to be crammed into the nose of a fighter or drone or large cruise missile, aiding with increasing the resolution to the degree required. Electronics advancements within the past 10 years allowed for a fully-featured / identical performance APG-79 radar to be shrunk to 1/3rd its original size and weight, compared to those mounted in F-18s. The new unit weighs just over 100lbs, can be air vs liquid cooled, thus carried aboard much smaller drones and cruise missiles.
Using frequencies higher than X band means more radiated power is required to achieve the same range as X band, plus greater issues with clutter, which is why fighters don't use K or higher bands to find targets at long ranges. Lower frequencies aren't used aboard fighters due to size / weight / resolution against rapidly moving targets. X and K bands are a sweet spot for tracking radars and precision missile guidance, which is why everybody uses them. K band or higher is better suited for shorter range terrain mapping and target tracking. Lower frequencies are more suitable for long range volume searching, using larger arrays mounted on AWACS / ships / shore facilities / mobile truck transporters.
As such, fighters probably wouldn't detect UHF band radars, unless they had onboard radar warning receiver antennas tuned to UHF frequencies. One interesting aspect of stealth aircraft shaping is that it can make them more visible than non-stealth aircraft in lower frequency ranges. That said, mere detection doesn't equal the ability to kill using a missile equipped with a K band radar. Stealth is about kill chain disruption, not invisibility to all bands of radar from all viewing aspects, regardless of distance from the source emitter.
kbd512
"According to this article, ... the e2-d CAN detect fighter sized stealth aircraft."
DeleteOf course radar can detect stealth aircraft. The question is whether it can do so at a tactically useful range. Detecting a stealth aircraft at one mile is pointless because you're probably already dead.
As described in the post, modern missiles have ranges of dozens to hundreds of miles. If you can't see a stealth aircraft at distances greater than that then you're already inside the missiles range and you're dead.
For sake of discussion, let's say that we can detect a Chinese J-20 stealth aircraft at 30 miles. The J-20 carries the Very Long Range Air to Air Missile (LRAAM) with a range of hundreds of miles. It doesn't help us to detect the aircraft at 30 miles when it carriers a hundred+ mile missile. We've probably been dead for ten minutes or so!
Also, the main function of the E-2 is battle management. That means continuous tracking. You can detect an object at ranges greater than you can reliably track it. What is the tracking range, as opposed to detection range?
Unless the E-2 can detect AND track a Chinese J-20 at 200 miles (I don't think anyone believes that's even remotely true!), the E-2 is of limited or no use and is likely a kill waiting to happen.
Good Comment on the technicalities of stealth. A review of the attention/absorbtion by frequency plot is required to see exactly where an object is "hard to see". Then an overlay of what frequencies & systems are/can be used to detect the objects. Lastly the quality and use of the detection data by system needs to be noted.
DeleteIt maybe (I have read that lower freqs can detect stealth A/C) that some frequency bands allow detection. Do we have system that use those bands? Also different freq bands may not give quality data to allow targeting, but they provide for detection and vectoring against. So we change tactics to negate the stealth and protect the Fleet.
Pretty simple system engineering and problem solving, but it doesn't gaureentee the Navy can buy $250M a copy new toys. So speculate what will be done.
These long range air intercept missiles don't actually guide themselves to the target, except during the last 10 to 15 miles of flight. For the J-20 to guide the missile without turning on its own radar, thereby broadcasting its position to any other aircraft equipped with their own high powered X band radar, such as the F-35, it would need an off-board radar system. This introduces more engagement complexity, the emitting platform can still be found and destroyed, and the data link remains the most vulnerable part of the system.
DeleteThe AIM-54 would start guiding on its own at about 11 miles or so from the target. The rest of the time, the Tomcat that fired it was providing the guidance. More modern radars, including missile radars, have better target discrimination, but the only way their radars become more powerful is by increasing the power output, gain from the antenna, or the size of the antenna array. Increasing the antenna size isn't much of an option for a high speed missile, nor do they have an inordinate amount of onboard power to play with, which leaves electronics improvements as the most viable path forward.
The J-20 can launch this LRAAM from 300km to 400km away, but if the missile is moving at Mach 5, it takes 204 seconds for the missile to intercept a target from 350km away, if the target is largely stationary (orbiting over some fixed point above the ocean, as the E-2 normally would be). During that period of time, an E-2 moving at 300kts can cover 31km. If the missile isn't receiving regular guidance updates, it may not even be in the same ZIP code as the E-2 when it arrives.
I'd use all that excess power aboard the E-2 to jam its data link, which isn't all that powerful or jam-resistant. For the missile to home on a jammer, it has to be designed to do so, and that means it's optimized to be a passive receiver. If the data link is broken or the jamming ever stops in the case of a home-on-jam guidance package, hitting an airborne target will require guiding the missile all the way to the target.
kbd512
"The J-20 can launch this LRAAM from 300km to 400km away, but if the missile is moving at Mach 5, it takes 204 seconds"
DeleteThat would be a tactically unlikely scenario. A stealth fighter is going to attempt to get much closer to its target (the E-2) before firing exactly to minimize the escape window for the E-2. If I'm right about the J-20 not being detectable until perhaps 30 miles, the escape window is around 30 seconds.
Alternatively, a J-20 can spot/track the E-2 passively (IRST/EO) and provide mid-course guidance to a separate firing platform, at the appropriate moment(s). This is what the US is counting on with its emphasis on any platform guiding any weapon. If it will work for us, it will work for China.
Of course, there's always the brute force approach where multiple aircraft are tasked with destroying a single E-2. In the cold logic of war, this would count as a win for China who would gladly sacrifice a couple aircraft to take down an E-2.
The E-2D has its own IRST and a dedicated operator who doesn't have to fly the aircraft. 4 aircrew looking for threats vs 1, typically doesn't work well for the person with fewer eyes and hands. Situational awareness is better for the E-2's crew. In time of war, our E-2s can be escorted by F-18s or F-35s, which also have IRST.
DeleteIf the J-20 is only 30 miles away, then it doesn't need to use LRAAM or any other missile it has to guide by radar to the target, specifically because US radar / EW / stealth technology is more advanced than Chinese counterpart technologies.
If LRAAM's range advantage was going to be immediately negated by attempting to get close to the E-2 before firing, then why bring it up?
Pretty much anything they can do to us, we can also do to them.
kbd512
CNO,
DeleteWhy would China waste its time going after our AWACS if their fighters are so stealthy that they can get to within 30 miles of our E-2s?
Why not go after the carrier if you have that kind of capability?
Killing the carrier or other ships in the battlegroup does a lot more to win the war than downing AWACS birds that can't see your fighters.
kbd512
"IRST ... Situational awareness is better for the E-2's crew."
DeleteNo. Large objects are easier to spot than small objects. The E-2 is very large compared to a fighter. The fighter will almost certainly spot the E-2 first in a game of dueling IRSTs. As a point of interest, the F-14 with IR and TCS (optical) claimed to be able to spot large aircraft (such as the Russian bombers) from 70-100 miles. Fighters were not detectable until 30-50, depending on size.
"If LRAAM's range advantage was going to be immediately negated by attempting to get close to the E-2 before firing, then why bring it up?"
As I said - and I'll repeat - the missile can be fired from max range or it can be fired closer which offers a better kill probability.
You seem to be under the impression that an E-2 will instantaneously see the launch of a VLRAAM. This is not the case. The missile will be detected at some point but not instantly so the escape window for the E-2 is significantly shorter than you seem to imagine.
"Why would China waste its time going after our AWACS if their fighters are so stealthy that they can get to within 30 miles of our E-2s?"
DeleteBecause not every aircraft or missile in the Chinese inventory is a full stealth aircraft. Eliminating the E-2 allows the semi-stealthy and non-stealthy aircraft to operate far more effectively and improves the chance of success for anti-ship missile attacks. Do you really not grasp this?
Fighters have FRONTAL stealth whereas E2 Hawkeyes have LOOKDOWN radars. Most stealth aircraft are visible from above at ranges much longer than from the front. I bet the answer is classified but the E2 probably can see J20s far enough to be useful.
ReplyDelete"why the British carriers are so limited in their combat usefulness."
ReplyDeleteThey weren't built to be useful they were built to provide work for the shipyard in the constituency of Gordon Brown, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister. I'm sure Americans recognise the pattern all too well.
Related comment: new article today from TheWarZone and B-21...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/b-21-family-of-systems-details-emerge-engine-test-runs-start
USAF in 2010! slide revealed interest in B21 having:
"Penetrating Stand-in Airborne Electronic Attack (P-AEA); Penetrating Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (P-ISR); and Enduring Command, Control, and Communication, as additional subcomponents of the LRS family of systems."
My guess is that these demands have only been reinforced not just by the Chinese threat but what must have been revealed in past Red Flags and how E-3s and USN E-2s have a hard time surviving when F15s are involved with simulated long range Russian or Chinese A2A missiles that can fire from 100s of mile away at a AWACS or F22 can just sneak up close and take a shot E3 or E2 can't evade. With all the sensors onboard and off board, do you need to radiate as much anyways like a E3 or E2? Probably not and B21 has the LO to survive.
I wouldn't be surprised at all that B21 can perform some of the role of a E3 or E2. Not sure what it would take to completely replace them but B21 has a good base to start. Another thought is maybe instead of a giant "look at me" AWACS that everyone can spot and shoot at, maybe USAF figured out it's maybe better to go for a couple of B21s flying around and gathering data and appearing/disappearing in the sky making it more difficult to track and shoot at..... the picture might not look as good as an AWACS "god's view" but B21 is survivable where E3 and E2 aren't.....
"the picture might not look as good as an AWACS "god's view"
DeleteKeep in mind that the main function of the E-2 is battle management. That requires a God's eye view! If you're only occasionally getting glimpses of the aerial scene, you can't direct a battle.
The E-2 Hawkeye in my opinion are absolutely still necessary. Most low observable fighter designs are optimized against the x-band frequency in terms of radar returns. The E-2 Hawkeye on the otherhand uses a UHF band radar which is highly resilient against low observable fighter aircrafts in general.
ReplyDeleteOut of all the US military projects, the E-2 Hawkeye was arguably one of the most forward looking and successful designs of all time and this can be seen from both adversaries and allies alike who are also attempting to replicate fixed-wing carrier-based AEW capabilities as well. You have the PLAN trying to field the KJ-600 which is a near exact clone of the E-2 Hawkeye and you also have the Royal Navy who's looking into project Vixen to materialize their fixed-wing AEW UAV because they feel that their rotary-wing based Merlin Crowsnest AEW platform is inadequate.
If anything, the E-2 Hawkeye will arguably become more important going forwards in the era of low observable fighters since they're going to be one of the few platforms left that have long range stand-off searching capability because low observable fighters with their x-band frequency radars certainly aren't going to detect each other at any meaningful stand-off range. As much as it is undesirable to be on "equal footing" up against an enemy, America is just going to have to cope with this possibility and will have to start playing the numbers game soon instead of being able to rely on asymmetric warfare or the qualitative advantages they once held in the past.
"they're going to be one of the few platforms left that have long range stand-off searching capability"
DeleteThat's an assumption that's unsupported by any data. ANY radar can detect a stealth object; it's a question of at what distance (and the related question, at distance can it sustain a track). That detection distance is unknown. If I'm right, the detection distance is on the order of 30 miles and that makes the E-2 non-survivable and ineffective, as discussed in the post.
You seem to be equating a simple statement that the E-2 can detect a stealth object with it being able to EFFECTIVELY and SURVIVABLY do its job and that isn't the case.
In any scenario, E-2s will be detectable long before they can detect an enemy and they'll have long range missiles coming at them. In the days of short range missiles, the E-2 could stand off safely but that's no longer the case.
"That's an assumption that's unsupported by any data."
DeleteIf you want to argue against the merits of fixed-wing carrier-based AEW platforms, I think you should take up your assessment against greater military powers such as China, France or the UK because it's not only just the US who thinks that they have place in air combat space involving low observable fighters.
Now while the numbers are classified, I'd be willing to wager that it's far longer than your '30 mile' estimate since similar platforms like the E-3 Sentry and the E-7 Wedgetail would also have their survivability come into question almost as much when it comes to a hostile air environment involving low observable fighters if your case was true.
The idea of low observability isn't supposed to be some binary concept that's either "on or off". Think of stealth as more of a multi-dimensional continuous spectrum. An E-2 may face a lot of issues searching for this stealth object if this so called object was a B-2 Spirit or a B-21 Raider with they're highly optimized multi-spectral low observable designs. It's a very different story if this "stealth" object in question is a F-22/35, J-20, etc. since their design is only optimized to generate low radar returns in the x-band frequency range which means that the object in that case isn't truly stealthy in other frequency band ranges like UHF or much less in the infrared/visible spectrum. I imagine that an E-2 Hawkeye isn't going to have much of a problem getting a meaningful stand-off track against low observable fighters especially given it's large aperture size.
Sure an E-2 will be detectable from a long range but it sure beats having your low observable fighters constantly making radio emissions that can be traced back to them to make up for the lack of an AWACS which will absolutely compromise their entire concept of being stealth platforms. While air-to-air missiles are gaining more stand-off capabilities as time goes on, their NEZ (no escape zone) is still remains somewhat short and they can be defeated by finding some cover against them.
"I think you should take up your assessment against greater military powers such as China, France or the UK"
DeleteNo. That would be pointless since those countries have different requirements than the US.
" I'd be willing to wager that it's far longer than your '30 mile' estimate"
You're welcome to your guess.
" I imagine that an E-2 Hawkeye isn't going to have much of a problem getting a meaningful stand-off track against low observable fighters"
Again, you're welcome to your guess.
"No. That would be pointless since those countries have different requirements than the US."
DeleteAre they truly that different when 3 out of the 4 great military powers have CATOBAR carriers, low observable fighters, and soon fixed-wing carrier-based AEW platforms ? Considering how their evolution in capabilities is one of the very few examples of convergent design that we see in reality, I would think that they have a far better understanding of the value behind a carrier-based AEW platform in relation to low observable fighters than either of us could ever know.
"Again, you're welcome to your guess."
Likewise ...
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. I do believe the Hawkeye still has a place in the carrier air wing, just a much-reduced place of importance.
ReplyDeleteTo supplement the Hawkeye, carriers need at least two additional components to give carriers better security. Both revolve around the idea of decentralized detection and prosecution.
The first is a group of much smaller screening ships that can form picket lines.
The second is 2-4 squadrons of pocket fighters that can be responsible for the defense of the carrier. Something like a navalized F-5/F-20 (highly maneuverable and medium A2A radar and loadout). You need lots of them because you have to keep several of them in the air at all times.
An alternative to this could be a turboprop aircraft more focused on detection than prosecution. You wouldn’t need as many because it would sip fuel. They could of course easily be shot down, but they would be cheap and serve their primary purpose.
Even with these measures, the survivability of large carriers grows more in question the Navy should seriously consider their role in future combat.
I like the idea of ships designed to radiate energy. Both above and below the water. That would be their only function.
DeleteThese ships would be minimally manned and possibly abandoned in time of war or with a skeleton crew. Their course could be controlled via satellite or maybe just a preprogrammed patrol pattern.
Not sure what these ships would look like. Maybe the sea hunter with the appropriate low frequency emissions. Or, a converted tanker type of ship with containerized emitters.
A picket line of these ships could help protect the task force, but, they could also be scattered in groups with the task force moving within the emitting zones.
There is no reason why all these emitting zones need to be switched on at all times. Groups of these ships could switch off their emitters, change direction and then start emitting hours or days later.
Not sure about the viability of having UAV's as emitters. They would have to be fairly large stealth aircraft to ensure good range and powerful enough emitters.
Sensor craft would be fighters, unmanned aerial vehicles with infrared search and track, surface ships and submarines.
Command and control of engagements would be interesting. Possibly the most appropriate platform signals to the fleet it's availability to engage?
The idea basically is to have a large number of emitters that can be sacrificed in time of war.
Dave
Unrelated to the current topic but instead it's about last night's attack on the Sevastopol.
ReplyDeleteI have theory on the timeline on that that I'd like to discuss when & if you cover it. Thanks
The difficulty with a passive-sensor battle manager is that it can't avoid emitting, for sending directions to aircraft and ships. How easy is it to detect Link 16 traffic?
ReplyDeleteThink I've probably thrown this idea out before. If you want a new long range fighter, make it a long range 2 seater.
ReplyDeleteThe Ka52 is a single seat helicopter but can cooperate with other Ka52's so that the task workload is shared.
Basically one guy flies both aircraft (possibly the most junior pilot). You now have 3 guys able to perform different functions such as air battle management.
If this pair of aircraft need to go into combat or refuel, the air battle management duties are handed over to another pair of fighters.
I remember seeing a documentary on the typhoon fighter. A lot of emphasis was placed on making the aircraft easier to fly (voice commands etc) so the pilot could concentrate on other things. I guess this is an extension of that concept.
I do wonder about the maturity of the technology of automated carrier landings. Could pilots forgo the need to train this?
As an aside, Russian aircraft have forward and rear facing radar. I wonder about the feasibility of having a fighter with the same size radars forward and aft that could act as AEW.
You now have a large fighter/interceptor that could potentially take over the roles of the E2. Possibly with single aircraft doing AEW and a pair of aircraft doing air-battle management?
Another benefit of this radar arrangement is far better situational awareness before and during air combat. Missiles could be cued onto targets off-bore easier.
Single AEW fighters could fly above, or nearby (20miles?) to picket ships. Cooperative engagement with an Aegis destroyer would definitely increase the number of missiles available to a lone stealth fighter.
Finally, if you don't like the idea of a two aircraft formation doing air-battle management, that role could be taken by the Aegis destroyer in cooperation with a nearby AEW fighter.
Basically, if the enemy sensed radar emissions etc from a single ship or aircraft, it could just be a single ship/fighter, a ship and picket combination, or, part of the main fleet.
Dave
"I do wonder about the maturity of the technology of automated carrier landings. Could pilots forgo the need to train this?"
DeleteIf they care about not dying, they can't.
You seem to be conflating two different concepts: long range fighter and AEW. The two are not compatible.
Delete"air-battle management, that role could be taken by the Aegis destroyer in cooperation with a nearby AEW fighter."
DeleteA small, low power fighter is of almost no use in the AEW role. The ship's radars dwarf the contribution of a single fighter. A ship could do battle management but would only be useful for an overhead aerial battle, not a remote battle.
Ships carry different frequency radars than an E-2 whose radar is supposedly more effective against stealth aircraft. Thus, a ship attempting AEW would be a poor substitute for an E-2.
"Basically, if the enemy sensed radar emissions etc from a single ship or aircraft, it could just be a single ship/fighter, a ship and picket combination, or, part of the main fleet."
Every ship/aircraft has its own unique radar frequency signature which allows an enemy to classify the emitting platform type. Thus, the enemy WOULD know what the signal platform was. You need to come up to speed on basic radar characteristics and uses.
I like that you're thinking of alternative concepts but you need to make sure that they have a correct foundation!
I like that you're thinking of alternative concepts but you need to make sure that they have a correct foundation!
DeletePossibly some misunderstanding.
The point I was trying to make is that if the enemy was relying on passive detection alone and if there was only one radar source, they would be unaware of the presence of other, non emitting ships /aircraft in the area.
The point being to create doubt as to the true force disposition in the area.
Dave
"The point being to create doubt as to the true force disposition in the area."
DeleteIt doesn't create as much doubt as you think. Recalling, again, that each type of radar denotes a particular platform, one can reasonably deduce many things. For example, the APS-139/APY-9 radar is ONLY found on the E-2 Hawkeye which tells the observer that there is a carrier nearby. Similarly, the SPY-6 radar is found on the Burke/Tico class and, since they would never operate alone, tells the observer that a carrier or surface group is nearby. And so on.
From Navy.mil, "Additional missions include surface surveillance coordination, air interdiction, offensive and defensive counter air control, close air support coordination, time critical strike coordination, search and rescue airborne coordination and communications relay."
ReplyDeleteSo, without the Hawkeye other useful functions would go unfulfilled. At the time, a Hawkeye can track hundreds in the air and on water. Something that would be difficult to impossible for an aircraft equipped with passive sensors to do.
And, with a B-21 Hawkeye derivative, I would think range and endurance would be two limiting factors for such an aircraft to operate in the middle of the Pacific. But, at $700 million each, the latest cost estimate, I don't see how this option is even remotely possible.
"So, without the Hawkeye other useful functions would go unfulfilled. "
DeleteThat's ridiculous! First, those side missions are just the Navy listing anything they can think of to justify the E-2 budget. Second, ANY aircraft can perform those side missions. For example, EVERY fixed wing and helo conducts surface surveillance as a matter of course. CAS coordination is not an E-2 task. It's done by a forward observer aircraft. We've used OV-10s and the like, in the past. Time critical strike coordination is a planning issue and is not performed on the fly aboard an E-2. S&R coordination can be done by any aircraft, as was demonstrated repeatedly during the Vietnam war. Comms relay can be done by any aircraft.
So, how does your wonder aircraft with passive sensors track all those surface targets like a Hawkeye can?
DeleteIRST, EO, TCS, SigInt, RWR, Mk1
DeleteActive sensors are inherently risky yet they're still used because some things you just can't do without them, battle management being an excellent example.
ReplyDeleteI like the concept of doing it with a purely passive sensor suite, but I think there's just not enough power there.
"purely passive sensor suite, but I think there's just not enough power there."
DeleteThis is why we need to be conducting realistic exercises to see what we can and cannot do.
I'd like to see an exercise using F-22/35's, as a surrogate for a stealthy, passive sensor aircraft, and find out what they could do in the way of detection and, eventually, battle management. They would be a surrogate for a B-21 passive Hawkeye.
With no E-2 replacement on the drawing board (and there certainly should be), I think we need to look at drones (such as a Reaper, modified to carry passive and active sensors, that would fly preprogrammed paths, negating the need to communicate until finding an enemy) as a way to extend the overall detection range to give the E-2 a better chance of not only surviving, but having the ability to manage an air battle.
ReplyDeleteSomehow Id overlooked the MQ-9B. While a large aircraft, that would need significant navy infrastructure built for it- the 6000+mile range and two ton+ payload capacity makes it a potentially very attractive platform for AEW duties. Admittedly, theyre not going to be survivable among enemy fighters, but used as an outer ring detection and warning platform, I see possibilities.
DeleteI think that the avaition centric LHAs would make excellent bases for this, and would be a better use of the ships than the Lightning Carrier, which has no real value. An LHA surveillance group could tag along hundreds of miles behind a CVBG( further from danger, and not being a handcap for the fast moving CVBG), and with the -9Bs range, could provide forward AEW for it... What am I missing that makes this not a good idea?
If all we want to do is detection, that might work. However, bear in mind that a drone, compared to an E-2, will have a very small power supply and radar. Therefore, a drone might not be adequate to detect stealth aircraft. Of course, we can always do passive drones but then we would need many more of them to ensure coverage and that imposes a severe cost limit in order to afford sufficient quantities for coverage and attrition.
DeleteIf we need to do battle management, there's no getting around the need for continuous tracking and then we're right back to the various problems outlined in the post. Drones won't help with that.
"MQ-9B"
DeleteThis could, possibly, be used as a detection platform (how would you incorporate a large, powerful radar on it?) but not as a battle management asset which is the E-2's main value.
Sure- I was contemplating the drones strictly to extend first detection range to help ensure the E-2s survivability and ability to manage.
DeleteThere's a way to make a non-stealthy AEW platform much harder to shoot down: put it in orbit. This also gives it a view of stealthy aircraft from a direction they probably aren't optimised for. Yes, that matters a lot with radar stealth.
ReplyDeleteSadly, this is not affordable: you need a large number of them, since you always need to have one available wherever you are. They also have to orbit fairly low; if they don't, the radar power required becomes ridiculous.
The Chinese are doing this already. Presume the early launches are test beds to more sophistication later. In the post linked below, strip out the supposedly civilian BS, apply a filter about what is currently possible vs what is being disclosed, and assume the military has a huge hand in all of this. They are claiming 20M resolution, but whatever...
Deletehttps://spacenews.com/china-launches-first-geosynchronous-orbit-radar-satellite/
"put it in orbit."
DeleteI'm unaware of any satellite surveillance system that provides real time situational awareness to the individual ships and aircraft in the operational area.
I don't claim there is one. A little thought led me to the conclusion that while it might be possible to create one, it would be ludicrously expensive.
Delete@JD. If I recall correctly, USAF did look into a satellite system to replace the E3 but rapidly realized it was too "out of reach" and now buying the E7 WedgeTail.
DeleteI read somewhere that itd take hundreds of satellites to give real time full coverage of just the SCS...
Delete@JJ. Yeah, sounds great in theory but once you start looking into it, I did find 1 or articles talking about a space based AWACS, its super hard and beyond expensive. Its a real different animal from spy photo or SIGINT sats. I guess it could maybe one day complement a air AWACS but not replace it.
DeleteDo you all recall the Malaysian airliner a few years back that vanished without a trace (still hasn't been found, as far as I know!) in one of the most heavily trafficked and monitored areas of the world? If an airliner, squawking identification, could vanish without a trace, we're still a long ways from AWACS in space (sounds like a Muppet movie, "AWACS in Space!"). Similarly, do you recall the USS Mason which claimed to have been fired on multiple times but, after investigation, couldn't even determine if an attack had even occurred? Again, long ways from AWACS in space.
Delete