Ask anything Thread


AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
Strawman argument is so often invoked but seldom understood as in your case. Calling it a strawman doesn't make it so because you say so. What I have done is to point out the issue of equivocation between two different platforms that are primarily affected because their base of operation is fixed vs mobile. In simple layman terms, it is an apples and oranges comparison. Carrier platform rightly so is endurance limited because it is operating from limited space. However this drawback is offset by the fact that it is able to operate near from its base of operation since its base is mobile. Ultimately it boils down to on station time. Land based platform has the inverse matrix.
But in a high-end conflict, it is not feasible for carrier aircraft to operate next to their mobile airbase.
That places the carrier at high risk of being sunk.

So it forces carrier aircraft to operate much further away from the carrier, with the subsequent reduction in endurance and time on station.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
You have a habit of stating things I said which I did not. This is another example. When did I ever quote a 500 km operating radius?
Yes you did.

Below, you state a transit time of 45min and 60min respectively for an E-2. At cruising speed, that translates into a 500km operating radius.

It's not my fault you didn't realise what you've actually written

No doubt endurance and ceiling is a function of platform. The E-2 is a carrier based platform and none of the others are and so any direct comparison is misleading. For example, the E-2D has a stated endurance of 4 hours and on station time of 2 and a half. With refuel it is seven and five respectively. In comparison a land based platform will typically have 10. However if you vector a land based platform 2000 kms out to sea, there will be no on station time left if you account for the return trip. It is this reason why China is developing a carrier based version.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
There are a bunch of operating metrics that matter and some of them are classified and so we don't have a way of comparing. I have pointed out on station time vs simply endurance.

Since I am at it, I will expand on the other known metrics. The other factor being quoted is operating ceiling. Whilst we know helicopter operating ceiling limitation makes them less than ideal for AEW, this issue is different to the platforms being discussed. The optimum ceiling for radar range for AEW is at 31,000 feet. Whilst some of the other land platforms can operate up to 40000 feet there is no material benefit from the standpoint of range detection. The E-2D is able to operate at 33000 feet and so is well withing radar optimum ceiling.

Finally, the single objective measure of performance that we can apply as a comparison is detection range. In this respect, the E-2D has a detection range in excess of 555 km (source: Air international May 2019 edition). None of the other platforms such as A-50, Wedgetail, E550A, and Erieye exceed 400 kms.
Yes, it is difficult to directly compare platforms, because so many characteristics are classified or just plain exaggerated.

But it's perfectly valid to say that land-based platforms generally have more range, more radar energy available and cost less.

And that a carrier-based E-2 will be facing land-based AWACs are part of their respective battle networks.

---

For example, a single carrier has four E-2D AWACs which cost $668M+
They can maintain a single continuous orbit at 400km from the carrier, without airborne refueling.

For the same money, it looks like China can buy nine KJ-500 AWACs ($75M each as per Pakistan export price)
Given the stated endurance of the KJ-500, three continuous orbits can be maintained at a distance of 1000km from their airbases.

So what is the better AWACs platform, given a contest between battle networks?
 

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
So what is the better AWACs platform, given a contest between battle networks?
The one that can do the job at hand. When KJ-500 will start taking off/landing on carriers so as to serve the same function as the Hawkeye, we can start talking about straight comparisons like that. The rest of the conversation is completely moot imo, it is a given that platforms designed without the limitations of carrier-borne deployment can be bigger, host more operators, have more fuel, field larger apertures etc etc.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
The one that can do the job at hand. When KJ-500 will start taking off/landing on carriers so as to serve the same function as the Hawkeye, we can start talking about straight comparisons like that. The rest of the conversation is completely moot imo, it is a given that platforms designed without the limitations of carrier-borne deployment can be bigger, host more operators, have more fuel, field larger apertures etc etc.
And what is the job in hand?

Look at the presumed operating locations of the E-2 AWACs in the Western Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.

Geography forces E-2s to operate against land based AWACs in their respective battle networks.

That is the real life job in hand
 

azretonov

New Member
Registered Member
So far, is the E-2 Hawkeye the only AWAC aircraft to be in service?
The E-2 is a carrier based platform and none of the others are and so any direct comparison is misleading.
Question is up there. He/she asked if E-2 Hawkeye is the only AWACS aircraft in service and the answer for that naturally includes mentioning other AWACS platforms.

Note that there are some air forces such as Egypt, operating E-2 Hawkeye variants instead of a larger land-based solution and that justifies any possibility to put these into a comparison.
 

SoupDumplings

Junior Member
Registered Member
Hello, pretty basic question here, but I read that the LHD6 that is currently burning up costs around $1.5 billion. Does anyone here have a source or estimate for the cost of a Type-075? I assume that it is much cheaper due to labour costs and China's shipbuilding infrastructure. providing economy of scale? Thanks!
 

azretonov

New Member
Registered Member
Hello, pretty basic question here, but I read that the LHD6 that is currently burning up costs around $1.5 billion. Does anyone here have a source or estimate for the cost of a Type-075? I assume that it is much cheaper due to labour costs and China's shipbuilding infrastructure. providing economy of scale? Thanks!
1) By 2007, Spanish Navantia reported the Australian acquisition deal of two LHDs at around €1.412 bln.
2) Russian deal of 2011 with French for two Mistral class LHDs was worth some €1.2 bln.
3) Turkey's acquisition deal for Navantia's LHD reportedly worth some €700 mln.

Taking into consideration from above, we can safely assume that the unit cost of a single 075 class ship would be around $1bln. Note that 075 is considerably larger than Navantia's Athlas 26000 class LHDs & the latter is larger than Mistral class.
 

Brumby

Major
There are flaws in your reasoning.

In a real-life scenario, the purpose of a CBG is to project power onto land, not to remain far out at sea.
That means opposing battle networks come into play, of which the respective AWACs platforms are a key element.

So that is why I say the AWACs are challenging each other.

And if a CBG remains safely in its domain (far out at sea) - it is of little use in the real world.

I agree time on station is very important, which further underlines the advantages of land-based AWACs and land-based tankers.

You can run the numbers yourself with notional operating locations in the Western Pacific, the Middle East or in Europe.
Firstly, there are no real life historical scenarios where there are competing AWACs according to the meaning of “real life”. Name me one and we can have a conversation. Speculation of hypothetical scenarios do not count as real life because they are a product of your own imagination on CONOPs and how certain assets may be deployed.

For example, the lessons from the deployment of AWACs in Desert Shield and Desert Storm demonstrated primarily the use of E-3s for such 24 X 7 coverage. Additionally, it should be noted that the composite battlespace picture was a product of fusion of data from E-3, JSTAR and RC-135 Rivet because in a modern battlespace it is much more than simply the notion of AWACs. This is an actual historical “real life” employment of such assets in a high end scenario. AWACs alone do not have the complete range of capabilities required.

But in a high-end conflict, it is not feasible for carrier aircraft to operate next to their mobile airbase.
That places the carrier at high risk of being sunk.

So it forces carrier aircraft to operate much further away from the carrier, with the subsequent reduction in endurance and time on station.
You don’t know how the USN intends to employ its ISR assets in a high-end conflict because it continues to evolve. You are simply speculating. For example, 5 E-2D’s are typically deployed with a carrier as compared to 4 E-2C’s in the past. The USN is evolving in how it deploys its E-2D in a networked centric CEC environment. Two E-2D’s are normally on station during operations. I would expect the number of E-2Ds deployed will be more than 5 per carrier in a wartime mode and operating in multi carriers configuration.

Additionally, the battlespace picture is a fusion of data beyond just the E-2D because by design the E-2D is just the central node. It is a fusion of data from F-35Cs, F-18s, Growlers, P-8s, Tritons, surface assets, U-2S and possibly space based LEO assets. Central to this is the TTNT network and why all F-18 Block 3’s will be TTNT capable.

Yes you did.

Below, you state a transit time of 45min and 60min respectively for an E-2. At cruising speed, that translates into a 500km operating radius.

It's not my fault you didn't realise what you've actually written
I only stated endurance and on station time. The rest of the stuff is your own concoction of what that might translate to in terms of range based on your own assumptions. In other words, it is your own product, not what I said.

You are unbelievably dishonest in your interactions even when the facts are contrary to your claims. This is a recurring feature with you.

Yes, it is difficult to directly compare platforms, because so many characteristics are classified or just plain exaggerated.

But it's perfectly valid to say that land-based platforms generally have more range, more radar energy available and cost less.

And that a carrier-based E-2 will be facing land-based AWACs are part of their respective battle networks.

---

For example, a single carrier has four E-2D AWACs which cost $668M+
They can maintain a single continuous orbit at 400km from the carrier, without airborne refueling.

For the same money, it looks like China can buy nine KJ-500 AWACs ($75M each as per Pakistan export price)
Given the stated endurance of the KJ-500, three continuous orbits can be maintained at a distance of 1000km from their airbases.

So what is the better AWACs platform, given a contest between battle networks?
Capabilities specifically actual performances are classified. You get what you pay for. We don’t know the specifics across the different platforms and making assumptions that they are comparable is fundamentally flawed as a starting point.

I do not intend to engage in a black hole discussions as often that is the outcome given your personal worldview on such subjects.

Question is up there. He/she asked if E-2 Hawkeye is the only AWACS aircraft in service and the answer for that naturally includes mentioning other AWACS platforms.

Note that there are some air forces such as Egypt, operating E-2 Hawkeye variants instead of a larger land-based solution and that justifies any possibility to put these into a comparison.
The question is not whether there is justification in comparison. You have already made the comparison through your assertion that the E-2 is inferior. I am just waiting for your argument in support of your assertion.
 

szbd

Junior Member
hi everybody, asking a favor. Can somebody post some pics on LHD/LHAs (other than US ones) receiving solid cargo from replenishment ships? like Juan Carlos I class and so on. Thx! Or can somebody tell me where is the solid cargo receiving set (and what is the formal name for this thing?) on HMAS Canberra?
 

Top