Hey Ryan, good commentary. So my question is: how many AWACS should we give to Taiwan? If we want them to win, then we need to give them the tools they need. Can we produce enough AWACS aircraft in time, before the CCP attacks them?
Taiwan operated EC-2 Hawkeyes back in the 1990s-2000s. I am not sure if they still do.
The ROCAF (Republic of China Air Force = Taiwan's) is pretty skilled. Back in the 1960s they had skirmishes against China over some islands near the Chinese coast. The Taiwanese flew Sabers and the PLAAF (People's Liberation Army Air Force) flew Mig -17s which were faster and more capable but the Sabers won.
The ROCAF was skilled enough that Americans trusted them to try out the sidewinder heat seeking missiles in combat. The ROCAF pilots and aircrews managed to fight and win several victories with these missiles which were essentially beta versions.
A PLAAF Mig-17 caught one of these sidewinders in its tailpipe. The sidewinder did not detonate and the Mig managed to fly back to base. The Soviets were elated to find it and reverse engineered their own heat seeking missiles.
Usually AWACS dont have to be anywhere near the battle front. They can loiter from far away, and with so many eyes onboard, they'll be able to pick out any object that makes a b-line for them. Oh and they would have their own counter measures to prevent possible locks on them. Doesn't mean it wont happen nor that someone wont try lol.
To add to Neil's excellent answer, there are a number of extremely long-range missiles that are intended for shooting at AWACS and tankers. The Russian R-37 is an example:
True that there are long range missiles, but Taiwan could place the AWACS on the east side of the island away from the Chinese coast and those missile would have to fly over the land to get to the planes, and they'd be easy targets for a Patriot system.
When Putin had his air force fire a Kinzhal hypersonic missile, which reaches speeds up to Mach 10, at the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv the Ukrainian Patriot system blocked the incoming missile. The Kinzhal twice as fast as the AA-13 Axehead which clocks in at only Mach 5. If you put Taiwan between where the Chinese are firing their missiles and the AWACS on the other side of the island, there's a very good chance they will knock down the Chinese missiles. And the Chinese jets are vulnerable to Taiwanese anti-aircraft missiles of their own.
India operates three Israeli Phalcon AWACS systems, mounted in a triangular pattern inside the radome of Russian A-50 aircraft. It's better than the Swedish Erieye on all fronts. So no, India has an edge in AWACS, and the Netra system mounted on the ERJ-175 is comparable to the Erieye.
What's more, they are able to integrate those radars into their missile datalinks - because their C&C systems and Software Defined Radios are Indian and Indo-Israeli.
With both sides keeping their losses and successes hidden it's hard to say what happened from the outside. I would also expect the doctrine and methods to remain outside our view as well, because they (like claims of shooting down enemy aircraft at X distance...) will reveal ability.
Having said that: From what we see now, it seems the Pakis used their assets more effectively than the Indians did.
The Pakistanis have a long history of celebrating tactical successes at the expense of strategic defeats. Shooting down a couple of aircraft, while being unable to stop signaling strikes on the country's heartland, and losing more or less irreplaceable American long-range tracking radars at rheir largest airbases is not a "victory". That damage is verified by OSINT analysts using commercial satellite data.
Meanwhile, the Pakistani military was scratching around at the Indian border, and caught using edited Google Maps images for claimed battle damage. They were unable to penetrate beyond the first layer of Indian defenses, and unable to touch any major Indian city.
Bottom line is that Pakistan is at a geographical disadvantage because no major city is beyond 200km from the border, while all of India's major cities are well away from the border, and they have a better integrated air defense network that has been implemented with Israeli help.
I know this isn't the point but while you MAY be able to find isolated incidents of a BVR kill in Vietnam it certainly wasn't the norm, as part of the oh-so-fondly remembered ROE imposed on pilots in Vietnam was having visual confirmation before engaging. Sorry, I'm Steve and I like military things that fly.
Hey Ryan, good commentary. So my question is: how many AWACS should we give to Taiwan? If we want them to win, then we need to give them the tools they need. Can we produce enough AWACS aircraft in time, before the CCP attacks them?
Taiwan operated EC-2 Hawkeyes back in the 1990s-2000s. I am not sure if they still do.
The ROCAF (Republic of China Air Force = Taiwan's) is pretty skilled. Back in the 1960s they had skirmishes against China over some islands near the Chinese coast. The Taiwanese flew Sabers and the PLAAF (People's Liberation Army Air Force) flew Mig -17s which were faster and more capable but the Sabers won.
The ROCAF was skilled enough that Americans trusted them to try out the sidewinder heat seeking missiles in combat. The ROCAF pilots and aircrews managed to fight and win several victories with these missiles which were essentially beta versions.
A PLAAF Mig-17 caught one of these sidewinders in its tailpipe. The sidewinder did not detonate and the Mig managed to fly back to base. The Soviets were elated to find it and reverse engineered their own heat seeking missiles.
AWACS are beautiful. Especially the US Navy AWACS. Seeing those big guys flying in formation with F-14's, A-7's, and S-3's. An incredible display
Given they’re the bomb in next gen air war, why aren’t AWACs vulnerable targets themselves?
Usually AWACS dont have to be anywhere near the battle front. They can loiter from far away, and with so many eyes onboard, they'll be able to pick out any object that makes a b-line for them. Oh and they would have their own counter measures to prevent possible locks on them. Doesn't mean it wont happen nor that someone wont try lol.
To add to Neil's excellent answer, there are a number of extremely long-range missiles that are intended for shooting at AWACS and tankers. The Russian R-37 is an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_(missile).
The European Meteor is also an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile)
True that there are long range missiles, but Taiwan could place the AWACS on the east side of the island away from the Chinese coast and those missile would have to fly over the land to get to the planes, and they'd be easy targets for a Patriot system.
Interesting. Trying to shoot down AAMs with SAMs seems like shooting bullets with other bullets but it is a creative idea for sure!
When Putin had his air force fire a Kinzhal hypersonic missile, which reaches speeds up to Mach 10, at the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv the Ukrainian Patriot system blocked the incoming missile. The Kinzhal twice as fast as the AA-13 Axehead which clocks in at only Mach 5. If you put Taiwan between where the Chinese are firing their missiles and the AWACS on the other side of the island, there's a very good chance they will knock down the Chinese missiles. And the Chinese jets are vulnerable to Taiwanese anti-aircraft missiles of their own.
Thanks!
India operates three Israeli Phalcon AWACS systems, mounted in a triangular pattern inside the radome of Russian A-50 aircraft. It's better than the Swedish Erieye on all fronts. So no, India has an edge in AWACS, and the Netra system mounted on the ERJ-175 is comparable to the Erieye.
What's more, they are able to integrate those radars into their missile datalinks - because their C&C systems and Software Defined Radios are Indian and Indo-Israeli.
With both sides keeping their losses and successes hidden it's hard to say what happened from the outside. I would also expect the doctrine and methods to remain outside our view as well, because they (like claims of shooting down enemy aircraft at X distance...) will reveal ability.
Having said that: From what we see now, it seems the Pakis used their assets more effectively than the Indians did.
The Pakistanis have a long history of celebrating tactical successes at the expense of strategic defeats. Shooting down a couple of aircraft, while being unable to stop signaling strikes on the country's heartland, and losing more or less irreplaceable American long-range tracking radars at rheir largest airbases is not a "victory". That damage is verified by OSINT analysts using commercial satellite data.
Meanwhile, the Pakistani military was scratching around at the Indian border, and caught using edited Google Maps images for claimed battle damage. They were unable to penetrate beyond the first layer of Indian defenses, and unable to touch any major Indian city.
Bottom line is that Pakistan is at a geographical disadvantage because no major city is beyond 200km from the border, while all of India's major cities are well away from the border, and they have a better integrated air defense network that has been implemented with Israeli help.
Ryan
One of your best commentaries
I know this isn't the point but while you MAY be able to find isolated incidents of a BVR kill in Vietnam it certainly wasn't the norm, as part of the oh-so-fondly remembered ROE imposed on pilots in Vietnam was having visual confirmation before engaging. Sorry, I'm Steve and I like military things that fly.