Here's Why No One Can Attacks AWACS Aircraft

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 21 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 503

  • @PWO5064
    @PWO5064 4 місяці тому +52

    AWACS do get targeted and taken out ... in war games. I recall one exercise in the early 1990s where F-15s from Holloman were defending a local bombing range from attacking F-111s from Cannon. Early on, the Eagles smoked all the Varks before any could reach their targets with the help of the AWACS. Vark drivers became frustrated and came up with a plan to first take out the AWACS before striking the targets. It worked and the Varks were able to hit all their targets at the range. After that, the exercise rules were changed making the E-3 off limits. Its a challenge to take one out, but not impossible.

    • @JFFF6293
      @JFFF6293 4 місяці тому +1

      yeah war games are as close to near peer as we get. hard to reach this one if you don't have the tech.

    • @frankt9156
      @frankt9156 3 місяці тому +6

      Didn’t Russia lose couple of these in Ukraine war.

    • @JFFF6293
      @JFFF6293 3 місяці тому +3

      @@frankt9156 1 on the ground confirmed and 2 rumored shotdowns unconfirmed. if it did happen it would be the first and it would have been done with the best tech available. near peer is dangerous for awacs, but hard to reach ifyou don't have the tech. ukraine has the tech.

    • @shane99ca
      @shane99ca 26 днів тому

      And for the sake of national security, you're not going to tell us how they did it...right? 😉

    • @HanNguyen-vb3eo
      @HanNguyen-vb3eo 22 дні тому

      Wow, are you writing a novel here?😢😢😢😢😢

  • @artistjoh
    @artistjoh 5 місяців тому +111

    In the Ukraine War, Australian Wedgetail E7's have been flying over Poland but can see across the battlefield. Russian cannot shoot them down because they cannot do it without starting a war with Poland and Australia. Similarly the US has been flying early warning aircraft in International space over the Black Sea. Russia is very limited in what it can do if any attempt at downing the aircraft means launching a much larger war with enemies far more capable than Ukraine.
    Sometimes it is just politics and fear that keeps the aircraft safe.

    • @mahamajones2994
      @mahamajones2994 5 місяців тому +8

      You think differently that’s good!

    • @simony2801
      @simony2801 4 місяці тому

      Well he didn’t hold back and used chemical weapons to murder people in the uk so I wouldn’t ascribe to your “he can’t shot them down’ theory’ too much.

    • @mrwpg
      @mrwpg 4 місяці тому +5

      So you admit NATO IS helping NAZIS, thank you...

    • @artistjoh
      @artistjoh 4 місяці тому +1

      @@mrwpg Your Kremlin masters will not be happy with you. You need to learn subtlety, so that you don't sound so obviously a Russian troll.

    • @robertstimac2428
      @robertstimac2428 4 місяці тому +17

      @@mrwpg why not help a country that was attacked by a bigger Nazi than Hitler? Now you have Finland and Sweden in NATO, thank the little guy for that.....

  • @wxmyjnsn
    @wxmyjnsn 4 місяці тому +21

    My son is an aircrew member on one of these. It is an impressive system even for its age.

    • @TraderRobin
      @TraderRobin 3 місяці тому

      Oh, and, please thank your son for all of us, who are eternally grateful, for his generous service! 🙂🤩

    • @WedgeTailRAAF
      @WedgeTailRAAF 2 місяці тому

      @@TraderRobinUSAF is buying what us Aussies use for 2027, the E7 wedgetail which will definetly be quite an advancement for USAF AWACS systems

    • @TheRyanKirk
      @TheRyanKirk 24 дні тому

      @@TraderRobinyeah I’m pretty sure the ones currently flying have the most state of the art equipment in existence.

    • @TraderRobin
      @TraderRobin 20 днів тому

      @@TheRyanKirk Actually, they don't.

  • @redpillcommando
    @redpillcommando 5 місяців тому +77

    Dear USAF. I worked on both the USAF E3 and the Australian Wedgetail. You are going to love the E7.

    • @jamesmaddison4546
      @jamesmaddison4546 5 місяців тому +2

      Totally agree. Personally I think it's ridiculous it's took us this long to get the wedgetail. I was on the e8 jstars for a few years before I even learned about the Aussies having the wedgetail and when I read up on it I was like you've gotta be kidding me theyve got a better system than us???? 😆

    • @johnblackthorne787
      @johnblackthorne787 4 місяці тому +3

      @@jamesmaddison4546it was designed in the US

    • @jamesmaddison4546
      @jamesmaddison4546 4 місяці тому +1

      @@johnblackthorne787 yeah I know, which is why it confused me that we exported a superior system and didn't bother with it for years

    • @Gunni1972
      @Gunni1972 4 місяці тому

      @@johnblackthorne787 assembled in Europe with materials from Africa and Asia i presume? So i guess everyone did his/her best to make it fly.

    • @WedgeTailRAAF
      @WedgeTailRAAF 2 місяці тому

      @@johnblackthorne787 it was designed for the Aussies

  • @josephwang267
    @josephwang267 5 місяців тому +102

    "There's a reason no AWACS has ever been lost in combat."
    The United States (and the world) is fortunate that there has been no direct combat with near-peer states since WW2. Russia has lost two of their AWACS in recent months in its war against Ukraine (one on the ground and one in the air). It's likely that China wants/intends to destroy or disable USAF AWACS and tankers (and other combat aircraft) while they are still on the ground using waves of relatively cheap drones. The lack of sufficient aircraft shelters at most USAF bases around the world makes this a real risk, and the USAF (and Navy and Army) need to prepare with haste for this event.

    • @arielalicaway-p7s
      @arielalicaway-p7s 5 місяців тому +3

      ONLY RUSSIAN AWACS LOST MORE

    • @astastaria01
      @astastaria01 5 місяців тому

      @@arielalicaway-p7s It was flying very close to the Action near crimea

    • @carlchong7592
      @carlchong7592 5 місяців тому +11

      The adversaries that Russia have been facing are not exactly top tier peer adversaries too. They got pretty screwed up in the first conflict in Chechnya.
      The US's most recent serious fight was the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein did boast the 5th largest army in the world. Saddam did have some significant air power and ground based radar infrastructure and the home game advantage, but Saddam did get utterly spanked.
      Combat casualty ratio was something like 70:1 which is hugely different than the 5:1 bragged about in Russia vs. Ukraine.
      If American gear isn't all it's cracked up to be because America doesn't get into peer fights, I think it can still be asserted that America coordinates it's usage of military resources far better than anyone else who significantly fights.
      Military performance does not merely come from superiority of equipment. Much of it comes with applying your resources intelligently.
      American gear is quite good enough for it to deploy it exceptionally well.

    • @dariusdareme
      @dariusdareme 5 місяців тому +4

      Agreed. More cheap suicide drones, less B2's, Darkstars and Aicraft Carriers.
      Too much money is spent in one place.

    • @seanchang1202
      @seanchang1202 5 місяців тому

      AND VICE VERSA.

  • @rhetta9826
    @rhetta9826 5 місяців тому +259

    Is it so hard to proofread and spell check your video titles?

    • @daiosdePreusse
      @daiosdePreusse 5 місяців тому +51

      What Do You Means?

    • @oztiksmaI
      @oztiksmaI 5 місяців тому +5

      Evidently.

    • @UncleBuZ
      @UncleBuZ 5 місяців тому +5

      @@daiosdePreusse 😆

    • @StormsRadiosCats
      @StormsRadiosCats 5 місяців тому +16

      Broken English seems to be the new trend

    • @scottfw7169
      @scottfw7169 5 місяців тому +6

      @@StormsRadiosCats That's okay, broken English merely reflects that English is broken.

  • @johnorourke9860
    @johnorourke9860 5 місяців тому +25

    Conceptually your statement is correct. However, the reality is AWACS flies a lot without fighter support due to weather restrictions for fighters. I experienced Soviet Aircraft that broke our safety perimeter. Another event occurred with a foreign fighter got within 20 miles of us; that was an interesting ride!

    • @jimlamb5508
      @jimlamb5508 4 місяці тому +1

      There was no mention of electronic counter measures in any comments, that is by far more interesting. Radar indicates you are there but you are not.

    • @hughhill8001
      @hughhill8001 4 місяці тому

      Have you ever flown on AWACS? Fighter don't fly with the plane. You been watching to many movies.

    • @MNTrader2012
      @MNTrader2012 4 місяці тому

      @@hughhill8001 We have not been at war with adversary that could shoot down AWACS. Hence fighter escort not needed.

    • @hughhill8001
      @hughhill8001 4 місяці тому +1

      @@MNTrader2012 Really? I have 20 years of experience in Air Defense from my time in The USAF. I have anctually flown on an AWACS, Adversarial control against and won. Went 1 v 2 AWACS Weapons School students and busted their ride. What have you done in real life?

    • @raymondclark1785
      @raymondclark1785 23 дні тому

      Bs, during the Cuban Missile Crisis we never had escorts and one night we had an unidentified target on our 6 but I think it saw what we were and assumed fighter support was inbound.
      The search radar at Key West hadn't seen it and hadn't launched😢

  • @ptaalman100
    @ptaalman100 4 місяці тому +3

    I had the honour of being able to walk through an AWAC when it was static at the Quinte Air Show, Trenton AFB (CFB Trenton), Trenton, Ontario, Canada back in the late 1990s. I have the decal they gave me on my tool box. At the time, no inside photos were allowed.

  • @jeffalvich9434
    @jeffalvich9434 3 місяці тому +4

    Myself and my wife worked at Hughes Aircraft Company who designed and built the avionics systems. My wife worked at the radar systems group. I remember when the scientists at the Hughes research laboratories in Malibu California created the ability for the radar band width to move instead of the dome or antenna move/rotate. The new generation which has been out for a while now is well beyond that series.....

  • @Roadie_342
    @Roadie_342 4 місяці тому +17

    i sure hope the air force is NOT drinking this Kool Ade

  • @acemt01
    @acemt01 5 місяців тому +17

    based on history Not current technology or threats

  • @jamesmaddison4546
    @jamesmaddison4546 5 місяців тому +6

    Theyre not defenseless. We know awacs and other airborne systems will be the primary targets in any air engagement with near peer countries. Theyre loaded with ecm's, chaff etc, when i was a systems op on the jstars we even tested tow decoys and other deployable countermeasures

    • @zedwpd
      @zedwpd 15 днів тому

      I'm a Mission Crew Commander Air Battle Manager on AWACS. We have no chaff or towed decoys. Our two best defenses are to never fly into an enemy MEZ (missile engagement zone) and always place fighter CAPS between us and any enemy. We also have a big daddy radar and can see you before you see us and can run away.

  • @fionajarnefeldt1024
    @fionajarnefeldt1024 4 місяці тому +3

    This explains why AWACS Thunderhead and AWACS Bandog never got attacked.

  • @mcarrusa
    @mcarrusa 20 днів тому

    I have been fascinated with the E-3 since I was a kid, in the early 80s. Sad to see it go.

  • @garystrittmater8258
    @garystrittmater8258 20 днів тому +1

    I had a college buddy in AFROTC and he flew this plane. He said it was sooo boring, you just flew exactly as ordered, no deviation. He retired and flew commercial airlines after.

    • @zedwpd
      @zedwpd 15 днів тому +1

      I'm a Mission Crew Commander Air Battle Manager on AWACS and he is correct. I also get the same flight pay he does and I'm in charge of the crew, including the pilot. He should have been an ABM.

  • @boswell9173
    @boswell9173 4 місяці тому +10

    As a Captain on E-3 back in Desert Storm, I was on station in one of the Saudi Sword areas when an Iraqi fighter was getting too close.
    “Jeremiah” in Dhahran failed to provide us with fighter cover.
    So I went off station to obtain a safe distance.
    Was told we were HVA (High Value Asset) but wasn’t that day!

    • @michaelclarke9488
      @michaelclarke9488 22 дні тому

      I was an ART during Desert Storm. Had a nice vacation at Eskan Village. I was in the 964th. I had heard stories of the Iraqis practicing anti AWACS maneuvers. That increased the pucker juuuust a bit.

    • @boswell9173
      @boswell9173 21 день тому +1

      @@michaelclarke9488 I was in 963rd. Ah, Eskan Village, I remember those days. Glad I got out before we were relocated into the desert.

  • @meatpopsicle1567
    @meatpopsicle1567 5 місяців тому +34

    Who wrote the title of your video? Is that Engrish you're using?

    • @tomlee7956
      @tomlee7956 5 місяців тому +4

      There's nothing wrongs with their English, lol...

    • @meatpopsicle1567
      @meatpopsicle1567 5 місяців тому +4

      @@tomlee7956 The Englishs are gooder than a some, but room there for improvement is.

    • @tomlee7956
      @tomlee7956 5 місяців тому +3

      @@meatpopsicle1567 Perhaps is, perhaps is...

    • @impacking
      @impacking 5 місяців тому +2

      ⁠@@meatpopsicle1567understood. Master Yoda.

    • @donnaphen503
      @donnaphen503 5 місяців тому +1

      I was about to say the same thing! Apparently, no one spell checks things anymore. Many errors (like using a plural insteead of a singular). I'm not nit-picking here but ..... LOL

  • @bruceincremona9241
    @bruceincremona9241 5 місяців тому +10

    58 seconds into the video and I'm already being bombarded with advertisements

    • @tbolt5883
      @tbolt5883 5 місяців тому

      I use an extension called "ublock origin" on my Firefox web browser. It blocks all ads. I don't get any on you tube. I do get messages from you tube to turn off my ad blocker but I ignore them. The ad blocker does block some websites until you give it permission and may stop features on websites from working but that a small price for no ads. You can also turn on or off "ublock" extension for each individual website.

    • @samspade2657
      @samspade2657 4 місяці тому +6

      Get an ad blocker. I don't see any.

    • @TesterAnimal1
      @TesterAnimal1 3 місяці тому

      @@samspade2657I don’t see any without an ad blocker.

  • @TekkLuthor
    @TekkLuthor 19 днів тому

    This entire video sounds like a flex

  • @_Breakdown
    @_Breakdown Місяць тому

    4:33 - - problems - - 5:09
    5:42 - - E3s phased out
    7:04 - - replaced by E7s
    7:42 - - still using E3s

  • @sogerc1
    @sogerc1 3 місяці тому +2

    Somewhere somebody cries in A-50 tears.

  • @KillingMachineMechanic
    @KillingMachineMechanic 5 місяців тому +7

    Without saying too much, I’m an F35 crew chief and my brother in law is aircrew on the AWACS: he admits that my job is more important bc the airframe I maintain makes the airframe he crews basically useless lol

    • @gordonm9541
      @gordonm9541 3 місяці тому

      You already said too much…totally different roles but congrats on your job, it’s a good one.

    • @WedgeTailRAAF
      @WedgeTailRAAF 2 місяці тому +2

      You do realize that the e7 (Im current RAAF Mission aircrew) has a radar range of 600km (lookup mode) while the f35 has a radar range that barely extends past 150km, The AWACS makes fighter's jobs easier, among other things its built to detect fighters so that f35 pilots and the like have early warning hence the name AWACS. On top of this having an e7/other AWACS in the air during a combat engagement allows allied fighters like the f35 to turn off its radar and rely on comms from AWACS aircrew, minimizing its RCS even more then it already is. While the F35 is a force multiplier that enhances land and sea systems, the AWACS aircraft systems just do way more and are arguably more important in terms of airspace control and air superiority as its multirole and detects much more than just enemy fighters, the e7 with an ELINT array with a range of 850km can detect Enemy radar systems, track and intercept enemy/allied communications, identify electronic threats as well as act as an electronic warfare aircraft as well with jamming and radar spoofing capabilities, something the F35 just cant do with one pilot. Im sorry to say mate, but your brother's job is more important. That is if you aren't lying about your profession like a lot of blokes do online.

  • @LPM147
    @LPM147 5 місяців тому +31

    Google Translate fail on that title.

  • @oculosprudentium8486
    @oculosprudentium8486 3 місяці тому

    What is the latest version of this?

  • @williamspain3860
    @williamspain3860 20 днів тому

    Very impressive

  • @Davethreshold
    @Davethreshold 23 дні тому +1

    I once saw a news piece involving these. It might have been a video on YT here. I was AMAZED that about every cubic foot was JAMED with so much foreign-looking electronic gear! The tech inside these will probably be state of the art with the new ones. The new radars that the F-35s are getting are downright SCARY when they talk about them.
    ❤🤍💙

    • @penelopelgoss2520
      @penelopelgoss2520 22 дні тому

      Yes, the mesh net of the F-35s' systems is amazing software program and hardware capabilities!!!

  • @ryanparker7258
    @ryanparker7258 4 місяці тому

    Think it was in the 80’s that the RAF actually got through the defensive screen of an AWACS and nothing stood between the F3 and the AWACS but the AWACS spotted them just in time and managed to fly away to safety but found out later that the F3 had to abort the chase because of low fuel but they all agreed if it wasn’t for that the F3 would of caught them.

  • @fredjoeme1284
    @fredjoeme1284 5 місяців тому +54

    "No One Can Attacks" English much?

    • @blackbird9992
      @blackbird9992 5 місяців тому +3

      😂

    • @Djkommode
      @Djkommode 4 місяці тому +1

      Ai

    • @power4things
      @power4things 4 місяці тому +1

      You beat me to it. All I could think of was "I can has cheeseburger?" At least proof your AI with HI (Human Intelligence)

    • @mrherbal
      @mrherbal 3 місяці тому +1

      @@power4things I enjoy walking on my leg and breathing air with my lung

    • @Farweasel
      @Farweasel 3 місяці тому +1

      I regard it AND the rest of the Title as fair warning of the Video's quality -
      Seems oblivious to the fact that in September 2022 an Russian SU-27 launched a missile at an RAF
      RC-135 Rivet Joint flying in internationa airspace over the Black Sea
      So I didn't bother watching the video - Just laughed & posted this

  • @lafeeshmeister
    @lafeeshmeister 4 місяці тому +11

    The typo in the video title doesn't inspire much confidence.

  • @EarlJohn61
    @EarlJohn61 4 місяці тому +1

    before watching the video...
    My thought was...
    *3 reasons*
    1) weather permitting, the US AWACS aircraft are escorted by fighters that are piloted by pilots that make the Top Gun pilots look like primary school children
    2) They don't have to be close to do their assigned task... very few anti air missiles have that sort of range (whether SAM or Air-Air)
    3) if all else fails they can concentrate their *ENTIRE* electro-magnetic output into a very narrow pulse directed at the threat... creating a localised EMP that'll disable most modern anti air weaponry.
    *_Now on re-reading the title of the video... I'm heading elsewhere._*

  • @ShaunG73
    @ShaunG73 5 місяців тому +4

    Actually, while none have been shot down in a war zone, by the USAF's own admission during a ‘Red Flag’ exercise some years ago, an RAF Tornado was able to breach an AWACS fighter screen and got close enough that the AWACS was considered to be within the missile kill range of the Tornado. And the AWACS was then "taken out of the exercise". I tried to find the link to the original article on here but I can’t find it.

    • @mammutMK2
      @mammutMK2 5 місяців тому

      Like the German and I think a swedish submarine manages to virtually sink an us aircraft carrier sneaking through the whole carrier battle group

    • @Slowjo1221
      @Slowjo1221 4 місяці тому

      The US will never show their full capabilities in these exercises.

  • @bradfeet3418
    @bradfeet3418 20 днів тому

    Can it detect stealth fighter jets?

  • @NothernNate
    @NothernNate 4 місяці тому +2

    I'm curious to see how those Swedish AWACS do in Ukraine. I'm sure they will be a force multiplier for the Ukraine AF. 👊🏼

    • @mpetechuk
      @mpetechuk 23 дні тому +1

      Not delivered yet

  • @penelopelgoss2520
    @penelopelgoss2520 22 дні тому

    MANY of us who are fans of the Boeing 707 KNOW there are several versions of this aircraft still being used by the USAF, USN, as well as NATO countries. And though the Boeing Wedge Tail in in the works, there's little news as to which manufacturer will be assembling and producing the aircraft even though Australia AF is already using the aircraft. 🤔

  • @Will-dn9dq
    @Will-dn9dq 4 місяці тому

    Post 911 pre war invasion i saw 4 helos flying low in sny over trees. Way lower then any weed searching chopper. Then just afterward saw q awacs crazy low in air just above the highest flying chopper an a lil ways behind it. The thing looked like a large suv size. So it was pretty close. Then later weeks on i look up one day to see 2 jets refueling from 2 tankers. Saw between cloud cover so pretty high. Yeah that was fun times.

  • @kfelix2934
    @kfelix2934 22 дні тому

    The E-767 is suppose to replcae the E-3 Sentry and so far it has not. The E-3 is one of the oldest aircraft in the USAF. Only the BLUFF is older.

  • @fuffoon
    @fuffoon 29 днів тому +1

    Remember the unsinkable Titanic?

  • @danielbarnes7559
    @danielbarnes7559 4 місяці тому +2

    An awacs e3 can dial up transmitter power and"zorch" an enemy fighter rendering it useless

  • @travarisfreeman7950
    @travarisfreeman7950 5 місяців тому +5

    Has anybody even tried to?

  • @desperatedave3573
    @desperatedave3573 3 місяці тому

    the Airforce is replacing it with the E7 .. which has flares and other air defense the e3 didnt have.. and a larger crew I heard.. I live in OKC near Midwest cities Tinker air force base THE HOME OF THE AWAC! its where they are stored / repaired!

  • @randylplampin1326
    @randylplampin1326 20 днів тому

    I will wager that someone can attack rather than attacks an AWACS.

  • @jasonfaulkner2014
    @jasonfaulkner2014 3 місяці тому

    The reason AWACS have never been attacked is because they've never been flown against any enemy with an air force.

  • @mikebuck1897
    @mikebuck1897 5 місяців тому +11

    Go Air Force

    • @rayraynod
      @rayraynod 5 місяців тому +1

      Go Navy!

    • @mikebuck1897
      @mikebuck1897 5 місяців тому

      @@rayraynod lol. I was actually in the Army but my dad made it to Chief Master in the AF. Cousin was an officer on a Sub.

    • @mikebuck1897
      @mikebuck1897 5 місяців тому +1

      @@Ariel-x1x the Air National Guard does indeed fall under the branch of the Dept of Air Force. Let’s not be obtuse.

  • @joeleusebio3488
    @joeleusebio3488 4 місяці тому +1

    It would take several hundred cans to attack an AWACS. No one can attacks AWACS. 3:30

    • @sogerc1
      @sogerc1 3 місяці тому

      😆👍

  • @potato2941
    @potato2941 5 місяців тому +1

    Clownstrike: Hold my beer

  • @speedracer2336
    @speedracer2336 25 днів тому

    Flying command post, battle management for ground and air forces, all branches!

  • @anonymous.369
    @anonymous.369 23 дні тому

    After 4 min saying why it is impossible to shoot down an AWACS, at @4:33 it said it can be done. So, if your enemy wears flip-flops, then no. No US AWACS has ever been shut down? If your enemy also has AWACS, has stealth aircrafts that can launch hypersonic AA missiles (ie tier 1 enemies), then all bets are off.

  • @SeanGelarden
    @SeanGelarden 2 місяці тому

    Seems I saw one of those burning in a field somewhere, had a red star on it

  • @imdifferentMr843
    @imdifferentMr843 4 місяці тому

    These drones are going to wreak havoc during the next major conflict. Relying on technology will simply become unaccountable insane to do so

  • @ratlips4363
    @ratlips4363 5 місяців тому +2

    This information come to you from the US Department of Redundancy Department

  • @wellshutchins6885
    @wellshutchins6885 5 місяців тому +8

    new missile technology fired in a swarm will get past any defense. Our carriers are extremely vulnerable too

    • @garryjones1847
      @garryjones1847 5 місяців тому

      @@wellshutchins6885 You are absolutely right! All this misplaced hubris may lead to losing three carriers in a single week against the Chinese! Also their manufacturing capabilities are through the roof. All they have to do is overwhelm us with cheaper lesser stuff all day long until we run out of ammo and then we are just sitting ducks on the other side of the Globe Alone! Many supposed allies will Not get involve and come to the rescue when the shit hit the fans and their alliances will quickly shift! It is Not a secret the USA today is a long illed falling Empire!

    • @ckm-mkc
      @ckm-mkc 5 місяців тому +2

      Theory != practice - ask the Houthies.

    • @patdohrety2940
      @patdohrety2940 5 місяців тому +2

      Except it's never been done before. Sounds cool! Maybe some space wizards, laser beams that shoot out of the eyes, and a magic orb too!

    • @TOdoubledizzle24
      @TOdoubledizzle24 4 місяці тому

      You sound like an expert, in the comments section!

  • @desperatedave3573
    @desperatedave3573 3 місяці тому

    ALso a guy I worked with (his second job)who was a Sergent at Tinker air force base and he flew on AWACS Basically said they were setting ducks to new hyper sonic missiles like china has.. hes always kinda scared when they go up over seas!

  • @brussels13207
    @brussels13207 5 місяців тому +2

    Doesn’t the body of the plane interfere with the radar? Obviously this is a problem they have solved. I just wonder how they did it.

  • @kristensorensen2219
    @kristensorensen2219 Місяць тому

    These are finished replaced by the 737NG basic airframe which is much more fuel efficient and the new design of the surf board electronically steared radar is more capable.

  • @Splattle101
    @Splattle101 5 місяців тому +40

    This is copium. The AWACS is a big, bright emitter. Passive sensors would be sufficient to target a fast, long range missile to the immediate vicinity of the AWACS. A sufficiently advanced missile would arrive, go pitbull, and pick up the AWACS itself. The reason the US hasn't lost one yet is because the US has assiduously avoided near-peer combat since 1945.

    • @jackmann9031
      @jackmann9031 5 місяців тому +10

      ya think? Not gonna happen with an AWACS and it's 300KM+ detection range.
      NATO AWACS also has ECM. Tougher nut than what you think.

    • @JLC_Subutai
      @JLC_Subutai 5 місяців тому +2

      AWACS will detect enemies before they can detect AWACS, so try harder

    • @Splattle101
      @Splattle101 5 місяців тому

      @@JLC_Subutai Stealth. Try harder yourself, skippy.

    • @moneymikeslickwill8749
      @moneymikeslickwill8749 5 місяців тому +1

      Stop the cap 🧢

    • @onerimeuse
      @onerimeuse 5 місяців тому

      "any sensor, any system"

  • @stevesteve8098
    @stevesteve8098 5 місяців тому

    Seriously just how many lights do you need....
    and to think they are all individually wired

  • @SpartasEdge
    @SpartasEdge 4 місяці тому +1

    'Can attack'
    If you're going to get anything right; make it the video description.

  • @John-fr2zx
    @John-fr2zx 27 днів тому

    Unfortunate you didn't mention the first AWACS aircraft that were developed in the 1950's. The Lockheed Super Constellation was used to fulfill this role. This aircraft had an enclosed radar antenna in a radome under the belly of the aircraft and also another long range radar on the top of fuselage. If memory serves, at one time there were more than 70 of these aircraft with about 35 stationed at Otis AFB (The 551st., Airborne Early Warning and Control Wing) and another 30 or so aircraft at Travis AFB near Sacramento, CA. This contingent of aircraft were responsible for patrol of the DEW line (Distant Early Warning) which was established to monitor any Russian aircraft that might try to attack the US by flying over the north pole. Some of these aircraft also flew out of the Krut Royal Air Base in Thailand from the mid 60s to mid 70's. It's ashamed you couldn't have started your video with some mention of the first historically important aircraft.

    • @raymondclark1785
      @raymondclark1785 23 дні тому

      The EC-131's antenna on top was the height finder.
      The E-3 uses a wedge shaped beam that calculates both range and height.

  • @The_Savage_Wombat
    @The_Savage_Wombat 5 місяців тому +1

    Hellos. Cans no ones be attacks AWACS?

  • @paulholmes672
    @paulholmes672 5 місяців тому

    It'll be years before the E-7 is fielded, the USAF bought the, already in service, airplanes, as training prototypes but pretty much want to rip everything out and build it from scratch, so with typical glacial (and lucrative) development schedules, it'll be the mid 2030's before we see the first operational jet.

  • @Colt76180
    @Colt76180 4 місяці тому

    Air traffic control for the battlefield. My bud served on one most of his 20 year career.

  • @zivguymoore974
    @zivguymoore974 3 місяці тому

    How many times have you heard the phrase 'likely" in this video? That's right. 9/11, and 10/7/23 were "Unlikely" as well.

  • @yarpos
    @yarpos 5 місяців тому +17

    only going up against the sandals and AK brigade for decades helps a bit also. It's been a while since the US faced a peer enemy. Not sure this sense of superiority is well based.

    • @Maddog-xc2zv
      @Maddog-xc2zv 5 місяців тому

      just because a russian one was brought down by Ukrainians?!

  • @ajhubbell3754
    @ajhubbell3754 3 місяці тому

    It has two weak points….kind of. Directly underneath it where the radar is casting a radar “shadow” and directly above it…..basically from space. To get to it any other way would be very difficult. But…..below and above is also very problematic.

  • @michaelmcelfresh7295
    @michaelmcelfresh7295 4 місяці тому

    When we sold AWAS to Saudi Arabia there were seven unclassified levels of jamming and anti-jamming. Can't it jam the missile aircraft radar?

  • @BakoSooner
    @BakoSooner 4 місяці тому

    Actually more than '250 mile' radius when connected to satellites.

  • @konstantingrudnev8374
    @konstantingrudnev8374 4 місяці тому +1

    Never say never

  • @ratulbasumatari5212
    @ratulbasumatari5212 4 місяці тому +1

    Not attacks. It's attack.

  • @Starship007
    @Starship007 20 днів тому

    I have heard Starlink can help identify Stealth aircraft

  • @GaryKennedy-g7p
    @GaryKennedy-g7p Місяць тому

    if any Mig-31s are around that can hit Mach 2.8 up near the edge of space ..... and they are carrying those R-37 missiles with range up to 300 kms ..... and fly at Mach 6 ....... I would suggest any AWACS would be cactus. Those Mig-31s are beasts .... The Americans don't call the Mig-31 the flying SAM battery for nothing .....

  • @thetabletopskirmisher
    @thetabletopskirmisher 12 днів тому

    From the latest revelations about the Chinese J20 (if true), then questions ahould be raised about ALL their latest gen weapons. 'Stealth' missiles included

  • @JohnJaneson
    @JohnJaneson 14 днів тому

    "No one can attacks." Good to know I'm not the only one with terrible grammar.

  • @alhamilton7261
    @alhamilton7261 4 місяці тому +1

    Here's Why No One Can Attacks AWACS Aircraft.... makes no sense, Attack, surely, doesnt fill me with confidence

  • @Rorimac67
    @Rorimac67 3 місяці тому +1

    737 most popular 2 engine aircraft. Yeah maybe 10 years ago. *lol*

  • @bradkay4794
    @bradkay4794 23 дні тому

    An awacs never being shot down in combat may I have more to do with not getting into wars against countries with first rate Air forces.

  • @josephdavidson323
    @josephdavidson323 4 місяці тому

    you need a proofreader for your headlines

  • @TallBoy-vf3tt
    @TallBoy-vf3tt 21 день тому

    I beg to differ mine has just been taken out on sea power for the PC 😂😂🙈

  • @thudtrades1850
    @thudtrades1850 4 місяці тому

    No E2s huh... AWACS doc incomplete.

  • @jmatches01
    @jmatches01 5 місяців тому

    What’s a can attack?

  • @vc7393
    @vc7393 25 днів тому

    I thought these were being retired.

  • @wetpaint46
    @wetpaint46 4 місяці тому +1

    Not even watching this…if you don’t have the diligence to at least proofread, why should I spend one second here?

  • @l3tradingfx
    @l3tradingfx 5 місяців тому +1

    a 250 miles radius is INSANEEEEE!!

    • @warrenpuckett4203
      @warrenpuckett4203 5 місяців тому

      Not really.
      Pretty much normal for any warship. From any country. For over 60 years.

  • @9OClockRant
    @9OClockRant 4 місяці тому

    Hmmm…a stealth jet fighter can’t get close enough?

  • @g-wolf9445
    @g-wolf9445 28 днів тому

    Between the lack of spell check and the lack of knowledge about combat tactics I don’t know if my brain hurts from the content of this video or from the comments. If the enemy reaches a certain level of desperation or technological advancement they can find a way to bring down an adversary. Does anyone remember the origins of the Cobra maneuver or the Kamikaze fighters of World War II? Where there’s a will there is a way. It all comes down to a moment of brilliance or stupidity by misjudging your adversary.

  • @ReclusiveMountainMan
    @ReclusiveMountainMan 4 місяці тому

    Might want to go airbus next time considering Boeing's recent problems with quality control...lol

  • @michealsmith101
    @michealsmith101 4 місяці тому

    I thought the J-20 was "low visibility", and not a true "Stealth" aircraft like the F-35 and F-22?

  • @ajaykumarsingh702
    @ajaykumarsingh702 19 днів тому

    Ukraine landed a toy drone on umbrella of Russian AWACS.😂😂😂
    So I find this video title funny.

  • @DelfinoGarza77
    @DelfinoGarza77 5 місяців тому +1

    No!!!! Its a jet with flying saucer technology. So unless you want a death beam in your face then leavit alone.

  • @harriusk4u
    @harriusk4u 4 місяці тому

    If I'm not wrong, one USAF AWACS was captured in China Hainan island in the past. All the technologies and devices on the airplane were highly likely examined by China specialist. The airplane finally were dismantled and returned to the US in scraped metal.

  • @lingth
    @lingth 4 місяці тому

    Strange if so how did the Russian AWACS get attacked?

  • @craigr.h.laurent240
    @craigr.h.laurent240 4 місяці тому +2

    `The ongoing background "noise" was never needed. If the narrator and video were regarded as insufficient, then some distracting background "noise" might be necessary.

  • @ajeeshvetmovies
    @ajeeshvetmovies 4 місяці тому +1

    I think Ukraine destroyed one of Russian AVACS

  • @SeeniKareem
    @SeeniKareem 4 місяці тому +1

    Over confident ain't good for health😂😅

  • @robertballard8833
    @robertballard8833 4 місяці тому +1

    Can ATTACKS?

  • @mrbaker1739
    @mrbaker1739 5 місяців тому +1

    Tell that to the Russians. Ukraine got one

    • @Bendermas1
      @Bendermas1 3 місяці тому +1

      @littlemeg137And let’s not forget Russia’s ongoing basic competency shortage either. 😅

  • @richknudsen5781
    @richknudsen5781 5 місяців тому

    Amazing they use a first gen Boeing jet for these instead of, well, any of the 3rd 4th or 5th gen craft Boeing has built in the last 60 years.

    • @EdwardTBurke-pv3qr
      @EdwardTBurke-pv3qr 5 місяців тому

      Yep. The E-3 AWACS fuselage and engines are the Boeing 707-320B. Did not even upgrade to the CFM 56 as was done with the KC-135's.

    • @slicktires2011
      @slicktires2011 5 місяців тому

      Japan uses a Boeing 757 based AWACS

  • @ncs2000
    @ncs2000 5 місяців тому

    why don't AWACS carry long range air to air missile?

    • @andredrogalski9944
      @andredrogalski9944 5 місяців тому +2

      Because it is not her job.

    • @artistjoh
      @artistjoh 5 місяців тому +1

      Because it's fighter jet accompaniment is far more effective at carrying weapons. They are faster, more maneuverable, and are built to handle the stresses of weapons deployment.
      In addition, the extra weight of the weapons system onboard the early warning aircraft, plus the added reinforcement of wings etc to handle the stress of weapons deployment, means less weight of fuel can be carried, so less range and time in the air, and possibly the onboard radar systems might also have to reduce weight, and the smaller and less powerful radar system will thereby be less effective.
      You can see in fighter jets, that while they carry plenty of very effective weapons, their range is much smaller than an an early warning aircraft. Part of that is due to the more powerful engines in relation to body size for both speed and carrying the weapons load in an airframe that is built extra strong (therefore relatively heavy) to handle the stresses put on it. This includes weight of systems for carrying the weapons, and launching systems, aiming and tracking/radar systems, for the weapons, and withstanding reactive forces from rocket launches and firing cannons, etc.
      Putting weapons onboard an early warning aircraft is therefore is incredibly counter-productive, and would probably make the aircraft more vulnerable and much less useful.

  • @kevinkenney5228
    @kevinkenney5228 4 місяці тому +2

    Sure they can jam missiles and all other electronics, but tell me, how do they stop machine guns mounted in fighter jets????

    • @RonBarracuda
      @RonBarracuda 3 місяці тому

      A serious answer: we run (fly) away. We can see when an enemy aircraft is headed towards us. We turn in the opposite direction and have friendly fighter aircraft go after the enemy.
      - Not very macho, but it works.

  • @mikeryan5088
    @mikeryan5088 5 місяців тому +2

    The J20 is not a Stealth fighter aircraft. Not like the F-22 and F-35. The AWACS can detect them.

  • @PacoOtis
    @PacoOtis 25 днів тому

    Today, this might be true! Tomorrow?