😂

You think differently that’s good!

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.

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

@@user-yn7ll3qz1p 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.

@@user-yn7ll3qz1p 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.....

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

ONLY RUSSIAN AWACS LOST MORE

@@user-ht8dd8kc3x It was flying very close to the Action near crimea

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.

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

AND VICE VERSA.

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???? 😆

@@jamesmaddison4546it was designed in the US

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

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

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.

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

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

@@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?

💯

What Do You Means?

Evidently.

@@elmorteNF 😆

Broken English seems to be the new trend

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

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.

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

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

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

@@meatpopsicle1567 Perhaps is, perhaps is...

⁠@@meatpopsicle1567understood. Master Yoda.

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

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

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

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

Go Navy!

@@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.

ANG is not the air force.

@@facsimile-io3dd the Air National Guard does indeed fall under the branch of the Dept of Air Force. Let’s not be obtuse.

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

You were here, that's why you commented!

Their won't

@@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!

Theory != practice - ask the Houthies.

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!

You sound like an expert, in the comments section!

Drone swarms are going to be wicked 😳

Not a single point of failure when the USAF has 30 of them. NATO has another 17.

@@littlemeg137 I’ve seen major talent football teams get jumped on in the first quarter with no response. Take em by surprise, they stand no chance.

@@imdifferentMr843 Football teams aren't geographically distributed.

@@littlemeg137 you have no idea how connected most sports are to battle of war. You’re a child, have a lot of growing up to do.

Cause they're sending out thousands of watts of radar energy. It's a beacon no point for stealth

@@RyanFranny-xb4uq omg, I totally brain farted that one 😆 🤣....

You mean the Beriev A-50s? One was destroyed on the ground. Doesn't look like there's a credible publicly available account of what happened to the other two, but here's a possibility. Russia has been short of pilots since the beginning of the war; they might have been flying with a reduced or non-existent fighter escort, which would have been particularly risky for the one flying over the sea of Azov. Another possibility is, well . . . the A-50s were designed in the Brezhnev years, when the Soviet Union was more focused on a return to Stalinesque internal security than engineering. Maybe they're just not very good?

The AWACS is one single massive electronic warfare machine. I presume they are packed with the stuff.

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.

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

@@JLC_Subutai Stealth. Try harder yourself, skippy.

Stop the cap 🧢

"any sensor, any system"

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.

Japan uses a Boeing 757 based AWACS

3, including the one blown-up on the ground. Russia has a shortage of pilots, they may well have been skimping on fighter escorts.

A distant enemy would only receive a RWR warning of being scanned by long range radar. It's own onboard systems would have to be quite close in order to determine it's position and range however to launch offensive weapons at it.

Yes, radar emissions can be detected. This is how antiradiation missiles work. Without a lot of information it's difficult to get much data from those transmissions. This is because the radars also have electronic warfare capabilities. The E7's AESA will likely support low probability of intercept which blends transmissions into the background noise.

@@kwonekstrom2138to add to your excellent post, the aesa radars are also capable of much narrower bands, simultaneous band emission, and rapid channel hopping which further confound attempts to isolate and neutralize the emission source. Also, long range fires require a missile to be at the intercept point, not where the source was at launch. It’s practically impossible to calculate this based on the moving aircraft’s emissions at very long ranges because assumptions have to be made by the firing computer about how much Doppler shift is actually occurring and WHY it’s occurring. With aesa, the amplification can rapidly be varied on the given frequency; which will be understood to be Doppler shift caused by direction of travel changes by the fire control computer. This, in theory, will cause the computer to assume the plane is going in a completely different direction. The fidelity of the emission is simply too low to hit fast moving objects reliably (ie from a strategic doctrine perspective)

Wrong. Lol. USAF Awacs Ret | Seat 8 |

The Hainan incident involved a Navy EP3 Aries, not an AWACS. The EP3 Aries is a signals intelligence variant of the Lockheed P3 Orion sub hunter, a four engine turboprop designed in the late 1950s.

Poor A-50's.... 🤣🤣🤣

Because it is not her job.

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.

That's what an escort of F15s is for.