Which is worse for PR? Someone else shooting down your surveillance plane or your military being so discordinated that they shoot down the one plane on the map in the area that is labeled as their own
@@FireFish5000 the enemy shooting down your surveillance plane is much worse. First of all, you might "have to" create international conflict that you will then have to respond to to show your own population you are not to be screwed with and you admit that your defensive measures are incapable of defending the aircraft against enemy attack. By claiming that your own military shot them down, not only do you keep up the illusion that the enemy cannot shoot them down, you even say that YOUR anti Air can overcome those seemingly impenetrable defenses. You admit having made a mistake, but you still make it seem like you usually are the superior combattant. hang a low ranking guy as scapegoat, and your military is in the clear.
@@FireFish5000being shot down by a patriot anti-ballistic-missile-system’s missile isn’t as bad for PR either. That can also be blamed on horrible planning & lazy people. If sigint didn’t tell the Russian Air Force where they thought the patriots were, they would fly closer to the frontlines than was safe to.
@@FireFish5000 also it may not be that bad if russia actully shot it down, considering that ukraine has in the past used missinformation on enemy Communication channels, making the impact of fog of war much worse, or just creating a fake scenario when the pilots or sam operators have seconds to respond.
The reason for AWACs actually proves that the earth is a globe . Once pilots realised the could fly under radar due to the Earths curve , then putting radar at altitude was a no brainer.
@@nochannel1q2321 yes but in situations where air superiority has been achieved or more commonly for scientific endeavors, but it would not be expected to fly into Russia or China as it would be shot down
@@DarkKnight52365 AFAIK from news coverage we're running U2 flights along the border carrying side-looking electronic intelligence and deep, high grade photography. But I absolutely agree they wouldn't be deployed into an area where there was much of any chance of someone even taking a shot at one.
The "we shot down our A50 by accident" hoax makes sense. Russia is already on strained shaky grounds on quality and performance of hardware sold to India, and India still has 2 of these on order at over $1Bn a pop. That's a deal they really don't wanna lose, because it's not like anyone else wants it. Certainly not at or above cost.
But the radar will come from isreal (which also use in current phalcon awacs of iaf) which is one of the most advance radar in world even US pressurized isreal not sell this radar to China when china wanted to buy it ..
Thing is India is full of infinitely more competent engineers than Russia. Especially electrical. India has had a horrible enough time maintaining russian aircraft carriers. Honestly they might aswell just make their own AWACS.
The other thing that saved the AWACS crew... when any plane traps on a carrier, they put the throttles to full power until the arresting gear has fully stopped the aircraft. Just for such a situation.
Yep. On a turbo prop engine it works really well. As the props can be turned to 0 angle of stack and turned back quickly to operating range. The same way I also think they use the propes as brakes
Was listening to a pilot of one of these on the Mover and Gonky show yesterday actually, they land on part throttle unlike jets, the pilot reacted quick enough to firewall the throttles, something about P factor whatever that is. I thought they'd land on full throttle too. Apparently not.
@@BanzaiYaris yeah it's worth pointing out they land at full nonafterburner too, not quite sure why but I'm guessing with afterburner is probably enough speed to break the cables.
How common is this problem of snapping the arresting cables? Also does the plane have to wait until a cable is replaced or I think they typically have like 2-3 already on the deck, so could the plane just land right away using those?
Yeah, we replaced the SR-71 with spy satellites. Or, more acutely, the electric transmission of spy satellite photography, instead of having to drop film canisters every few months.
Yeah, just because a spy plane uses radar, doesn’t make a radar plane a spy plane! I feel like that’s misleading for gullible people who don’t understand what’s what. Ie those people who truly believe the J. Brand..Biden’s story when he told people about the time & escapades when he was a top secret spy & he actually met 007 a couple of times!
We haven't even entirely replaced spy planes with satellites, and that's obviously evident by the US building is successor to the SR-71. Advanced spy planes still hold a roll in US operations even with satellites. @@HALLish-jl5mo
The plane in the thumbnail and 0:05 is the Chilean Boeing EC-707 "Cóndor", which was equipped with an Israeli IAI EL/M-2075 Phalcon radar array. It was retired in 2022, replaced by two Boeing E-3D Sentry.
One of the reasons why there was a lot of talk about stealthy surveillence planes was the very fact the E-3 Sentry is a relatively slow plane with a detectable radar emissions. There was real fear that the Russians in the early 1980's would develop a modified version of the Kh-22 (AS-4 _Kitchen_ ) missile armed with an anti-radiation seeker and a big warhead specifically to target AWACS; that's why Northrop developed the _Tacit Blue_ platform to make the plane less vulnerable to such a missile.
umm, they did. R-37 missile is a massive missile with a 250 mile range. its not very manouverable but its passive, active, home on jam, and home on radar... its designed to be fired from the extreme detection range of an E-2, to "blind" carrier groups.
Also stall speeds are determined by the wing not the engines. Typically props have less swept or even unswept wings as they are not designed to go as fast, and this is turn means their stall speed is lower. But it's not due to them having props. Props are more efficient at low speeds however. A 10mw prop will produce more power at low airspeed than a 10mw jet engine which is why jets have longer takeoffs.
So it's almost like rear differential gears in pick up truck axles in the sense that 4.10 gears give you more power at low speeds and 3.55 gears give you more power at higher speeds
I think the argument mr. Host was making is that because its a propeller plane, its inherently designed for slower speeds than a jet - so the propeller plane has a greater chance of taking off with low speed. Its still the wrong train of thought as you pointed out, yes, but if you squint hard enough you can sort of see what they meant
@@LottoDub720 That is absolutely not the same. That's not even how gears work. Higher gear ratio means more of the RPM is converted into torque (or vice versa), lower gear ratio means less torque but higher RPM
@@TheByQQwould the right comparison be different sizes of wheels ? A lot of mountain bikes for example use 29 inches wheels these days for an example, slower to gain speed but they travel more and have more inertia
@@Pierrot9315 No, that's genuinely the same, since you have gears on bikes too, and even if you didn't the wheel itself would act kinda like a gearbox, by being moved by a smaller gear. An ICE with and without a turbo would be much better, since the limiting factor with jets is the amount of air flowing into the intake. At low speeds (so low RPM, turbo not working fully) the engine has to suck in the air on it's own, but at higher speeds it gets also pushed into the engine (higher RPM, turbo spooled up) and more air means you can burn more fuel and produce more power. A prop doesn't need as much air to function properly. It's like a naturally aspirated engine. It's not going to be as powerful, but you don't need the turbo to kick in to get the full power. But even that isn't perfect, sadly I can't think of a good way to explain it properly
The U-2 may have been replaced by these, but it's still in service for things like calibrating radars for high altitude contacts and domestic mapping of wildfires. It also buzzed and photographed from above that Chinese balloon that overflew the US and Canada last year.
The E3 is being quickly retired because of cost, age, and availability of parts. It can't be relavent when it can't fly. Their mission was always relavent, but it's adversary wasn't when it was top of it's ability. The Boneyard already has multiple being prepped to be mothballed because current fighters can do much the same with onboard electeonics.
Interesting as a matter of fact one can actually make a version based on B737 Max 7 or A319neo the Boeing 737 Max 7 version would have been treated as another E-7 variant family planes. Max 10 as a P-8 family plane. Looks like it started back in World War II where you had bombers in this type of mission
"Good news! We have a new spy plane based on the MAX 7!" "That's great, where is it?" "Currently burning in the ground after the door flew off and sucked the pilots out" "Oh yeah, forgot they do that"
Really appreciate you mentioning (saying) the distances in miles and showing it in parentheses in kilometers! Like I always say; it's kilometers not ki-LO-meters! You got it right! 👍👍👍
When people talk about "spy planes", they often refer to the aircraft that perform photographic reconnaisance, such as the U-2 and the SR-71, whose task were to photograph large swathes of territory to analysis. The reason these aren't used like before is because of technologies like satellites and more recently drones that are much safer and less expensive in the long run to operate. Also, comparing those kinds of aircraft to the AWACS aircraft is kind of nonsensical because they perform very different roles, with the AWACS mostly used for early warning, communications, and battlefield command and control, which are tasks no U-2 or SR-71 ever handled. Finally, the video really neglected to mention that the reason the USAF E-3's are being retired is because they're meant to be replaced by the more advanced E-7 Wedgetail which are already in service in other nations. Hell, the video already showed the E-7 in footage, yet still failed to mention that fact.
If you believe some. The Sr 72 exists. Also the AF already has stated the B21 will be taking up certain recon missions. Thing is supposed to be an intel and possibly EW beast. I guarantee you if that last sentence is true. That means the B 21 can also defend its self, and be a missile truck. While it won't be able to dog fight? It will be able to fire basically any A2A missile.
Comparing AWACS to SR-71 and U-2 at the beginning is a misnomer and ignores RQ-4 and other surveillance drones which have taken that role, modern AWACS platforms replaced the EC-121 of that era!
The reason the Navy uses props vs turbo fans is not the stall speed of the prop. Although propellers and fan blades both can stall. The airplane shown that recovered from the cable break is because the wings have a low stall speed that allowed it to gain lift before the plane hit the water. The reason for the props is better fuel efficiency at lower airspeeds.
It can mean both depending on the circumstances. In some cases, stealth planes can be invisible to radar; other times, specially when low frequency radar is used, they can be detected, and what you said is 100% true, they can be "seen" but a firing solution becomes extremely complicated. Instances of stealth being invisible to radar include the F-117 nighthawks in Serbia, of which the only one that was shot down was because the air defense radar was used in the lowest possible frequency and because the bomb bay doors were open. With more modern planes we have the F-22 intercepting F-4 phantoms and being completely invisible until it made itself known by visually approaching the planes and actually communicating via radio
Stealth is to AVOID DOGFIGHTS its about beyond visual range attacks , who saw who first. Russia ,putting this aircraft in the range of a Ukrainian weapon system was foolish. Ukraine are being coy ,deliberately . maybe they got intel from NATO or maybe the have a new deadly weapon . Keeps Russia guessing. BUT I guarantee there weren't 65 POWS. I've seen the footage and theres about 3 or 4 bits of bodies , like hands and messed up Torsos.
Stealth also means that it can only be spotted from a closer range, so stealth aircraft can fly in-between radars undetected, where other aircraft would be detected. That's because, due to the small radar cross-section, they are out of detection range
Saying either the U-s or SR-71 was replaced by an E-3 is like saying that air craft carriers replaced battleships. They serve different roles with little overlap.
The U2 is still in service and being replaced by armed UAVs. Electronic warfare, radar monitoring, and communication is very different mission to areal surveillance.
@NotWhatYouThink AWaCS stands for Airborne Warning and Command System. So where did you get Airborne Warning and Command Force from? My guess, is all your scripts are read out by an A.I.
theres a big difference between a russian awacs being shot down and a nato awacs. the russians have historically had inferior sensors, training, and even simple aircraft build quality. add in russias unwillingness to share any information, and we dont even know if their awacs have defensive jamming, or air escorts, or are being trained on SAM avoidance. but in nato a full escort, safe operating parameters, countermeasures, jammers, and communication with the awacs is not a question, its considered the bare minimum.
Hawkeyes were the first military aircraft ive ever seen growing up. It's because we live near a base, and planes fly over our house at low attitudes all the time
I need to correct you: AWACS planes are NOT SPY PLANES! Their role is to patrol the air, detect hundreds of miles away flying objects in the air and space (eg ballistic missiles) and coordinate friendly assets in combat. They are a kind of warplane. Spy planes have a different role: they fly fast, high and stealthy deep behind in enemy lines and collect intelligence. They will take photos of enemy missile silos, naval bases, army factories, critical infrastructure, army movements, power plants, supply depots etc. The AWACS are conduct missions for the Airforce and the Navy. The spy planes conduct missions for CIA and other spy agencies across the world.
Fun fact. The E2 hawkeyes are rarely ever in the hangers. Theyre the first out and the last back. Mainly because theyre big and you cant really launch any other aircraft with it still on the deck. Its usually already lined up on a cat just waiting.
2:56 Just a correction regarding the E7 Wedgetail - it was made for and mainly operated by the Australian Air Force, the British airforce do not currently operate any although they have put an order in for some.
I'd say its the transport vehicles. No fuel, no supplies and no food? Well you're pretty much done for. Can't get the troops to the area they need to be in for an offensive or defensive maneuver? Well might as well welcome the enemy with a red carpet. Logistics is the one and only God of War.
@@honkler5974 You can't hit without something to hit with. I much rather would want to have the possibility to hit even if it's not guaranteed I will see my target. Than Only being able to see.
Your enemy doesn't need to shoot down the AWACS ... They can simply track it and wait for it to pass so they can launch an attack with low flying fighter jets or cruise missiles
The statement that the U2 dragon lady has been replaced is inaccurate, this information is from the USAF website: "U-2S is home based at the 9th Reconnaissance Wing, Beale Air Force Base, California, but are rotated to operational detachments worldwide. U-2 pilots are trained at Beale using five two-seat aircraft designated as TU-2S before deploying for operational missions." Facts are importance.
One thing you didnt mention that I'd be curious to know more about is why the E3's seem to be coal-rolling at low altitude? I get to see E3's flying out of Elmendorf AFB, Alaska from my office all the time, and they are some of the dirtiest, most EPA unfriendly vehicles I have ever seen, leaving dark plumes of exhaust in their wake.
Fortunately, the E-3 is now only a stopgap until the E-7 arrives. Congress deemed it more important to acquire the E-7 than to reenginee the E-3, which Frances has done.
"Rolling coal" in this case is caused by water injection which increases engine thrust, particularly at low-altitudes & at take off. It is soot particles from fuel that hasn't been completely burned. It has little effect on the environment [Alaska has good air quality] & looks much worse than it really is. Though I'm glad I don't live near soot emissions. When I was a kid in 60s UK it was common to have smog days so bad you couldn't see your hand at midday in the industrial cities from coal burning. Compared to that a few engines burning inefficiently are nothing given that they serve a wider purpose that protects our lives & freedoms [such as they are].
@@stevenshea990 The B-52 is getting new engines that won't do that as part of the upgrade to the B-52J. They will be quieter and have little or no smoke, but will also be more efficient and have lower maintenance costs since they're based on an engine that is in current production.
@@Kriss_L I didn't add the Navy version. As some dumb ass landed one in China for them to pick apart. When they should have ditched it in the Ocean... But this was under Bill Clinton. He was to eager to help the Chinese. As they helped him get Elected. So he let them get away with forcing it down..
I know this isnt the case, but when the Hawkeye broke its cable, the tracking camera's overlay went from showing a C in the upper right to a blinking F! F! F! F! F!, which my brain translated into "Cool" and "FARK FARK FARK FARK", as Im pretty sure thats what suddenly everyone on (and unfortunately, off, the flight deck suddenly started thinking
AWACS has a completely different mission than the U2 and the SR71. The role those older planes used to fill has been taken over by satellites, not AWACS
the video drew them as similar because they were both intel gathering aircraft. you are right though, there is a massive difference between a plane meant to know the movement of mobile assets, like the awacs, and planes meant to locate factories and airfields, like every recon plane. surveillance drones also succeed the spy planes of old, as those are also meant to take video and pictures of ground.
AWACs didn't replace the U-2. Satelites did on top of the fact that missile reach increased to the U-2's operational altitudes. The U-2 designed to operate in different mission environments than AWACs. AWACs are designed for combat zone reconisance where you have freindly combat aircraft and ground forces active.
I don't think AWACS will be completely replaced anytime soon. The combination of stealthy high tech sensor aircraft like the F35 in combination with one huge AWACS is likely the most deadly combo in the sky for any opponent.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
If your awacs gets shot down and you have to say you did it yourself, then something has gone terribly wrong.
Which is worse for PR? Someone else shooting down your surveillance plane or your military being so discordinated that they shoot down the one plane on the map in the area that is labeled as their own
@@FireFish5000 the enemy shooting down your surveillance plane is much worse. First of all, you might "have to" create international conflict that you will then have to respond to to show your own population you are not to be screwed with and you admit that your defensive measures are incapable of defending the aircraft against enemy attack. By claiming that your own military shot them down, not only do you keep up the illusion that the enemy cannot shoot them down, you even say that YOUR anti Air can overcome those seemingly impenetrable defenses. You admit having made a mistake, but you still make it seem like you usually are the superior combattant. hang a low ranking guy as scapegoat, and your military is in the clear.
@@FireFish5000being shot down by a patriot anti-ballistic-missile-system’s missile isn’t as bad for PR either. That can also be blamed on horrible planning & lazy people.
If sigint didn’t tell the Russian Air Force where they thought the patriots were, they would fly closer to the frontlines than was safe to.
@@FireFish5000 also it may not be that bad if russia actully shot it down, considering that ukraine has in the past used missinformation on enemy Communication channels, making the impact of fog of war much worse, or just creating a fake scenario when the pilots or sam operators have seconds to respond.
It wasn't shot down nor did they say that
The reason for AWACs actually proves that the earth is a globe . Once pilots realised the could fly under radar due to the Earths curve , then putting radar at altitude was a no brainer.
Kind of sad that still needs to be proved to some people
Funny. I think you misplaced "dome" with "globe." I'll wait for your edit.
I've never realized THAT is why you can fly "under" the radar, that makes so much sense, damn. I thought it was just terrain interfering
@@Gravvvyyy You're going to wait forever.
@@bwofficial1776 🧐
U2 and SR71 were replaced by satellites.
AWACS are completely different.
The U2 continues to operate.
@@nochannel1q2321 Yes occasionally. Though talk of it being retired in the coming years.
@@nochannel1q2321 yes but in situations where air superiority has been achieved or more commonly for scientific endeavors, but it would not be expected to fly into Russia or China as it would be shot down
@@DarkKnight52365 AFAIK from news coverage we're running U2 flights along the border carrying side-looking electronic intelligence and deep, high grade photography.
But I absolutely agree they wouldn't be deployed into an area where there was much of any chance of someone even taking a shot at one.
and drones too. Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk does some of the stuff U-2 used to do.
The "we shot down our A50 by accident" hoax makes sense. Russia is already on strained shaky grounds on quality and performance of hardware sold to India, and India still has 2 of these on order at over $1Bn a pop. That's a deal they really don't wanna lose, because it's not like anyone else wants it. Certainly not at or above cost.
But the radar will come from isreal (which also use in current phalcon awacs of iaf) which is one of the most advance radar in world even US pressurized isreal not sell this radar to China when china wanted to buy it ..
I'm not sure how they think that sounds any better, lol.
Thing is India is full of infinitely more competent engineers than Russia. Especially electrical.
India has had a horrible enough time maintaining russian aircraft carriers. Honestly they might aswell just make their own AWACS.
Why do I feel like almost every single country has done something evil
No a50 was shot down. You believe nonsense like usual.
The other thing that saved the AWACS crew... when any plane traps on a carrier, they put the throttles to full power until the arresting gear has fully stopped the aircraft. Just for such a situation.
Yep. On a turbo prop engine it works really well. As the props can be turned to 0 angle of stack and turned back quickly to operating range. The same way I also think they use the propes as brakes
Was listening to a pilot of one of these on the Mover and Gonky show yesterday actually, they land on part throttle unlike jets, the pilot reacted quick enough to firewall the throttles, something about P factor whatever that is. I thought they'd land on full throttle too. Apparently not.
@@BanzaiYaris yeah it's worth pointing out they land at full nonafterburner too, not quite sure why but I'm guessing with afterburner is probably enough speed to break the cables.
How common is this problem of snapping the arresting cables? Also does the plane have to wait until a cable is replaced or I think they typically have like 2-3 already on the deck, so could the plane just land right away using those?
It’s an uncommon problem and standard US carriers have 4x arresting wires.
The boeing phalcon looks like something straight out of ksp on career mode
Except it works.
Yeah.
What's ksp?
@@CrazyBear65 kerbal space program
The Phalcon radome is definitely hilarious.
The comparison between Spy Planes and Radar Planes at the Beginning is a bit weak.
Yeah, we replaced the SR-71 with spy satellites. Or, more acutely, the electric transmission of spy satellite photography, instead of having to drop film canisters every few months.
Yeah, just because a spy plane uses radar, doesn’t make a radar plane a spy plane!
I feel like that’s misleading for gullible people who don’t understand what’s what. Ie those people who truly believe the J. Brand..Biden’s story when he told people about the time & escapades when he was a top secret spy & he actually met 007 a couple of times!
Pretty normal for this channel. Entertaining enough but enough inaccuracies I wouldn't call it informative
Yeah, I was about to say that the SR-71,A-12, and the U-2 play a different role than an AWACS.
We haven't even entirely replaced spy planes with satellites, and that's obviously evident by the US building is successor to the SR-71. Advanced spy planes still hold a roll in US operations even with satellites. @@HALLish-jl5mo
The plane in the thumbnail and 0:05 is the Chilean Boeing EC-707 "Cóndor", which was equipped with an Israeli IAI EL/M-2075 Phalcon radar array. It was retired in 2022, replaced by two Boeing E-3D Sentry.
silly plane :-)
Israel is treating the Palestinians the same way the nazis treated the Jews.
It looks like a stung dog..
One of the reasons why there was a lot of talk about stealthy surveillence planes was the very fact the E-3 Sentry is a relatively slow plane with a detectable radar emissions. There was real fear that the Russians in the early 1980's would develop a modified version of the Kh-22 (AS-4 _Kitchen_ ) missile armed with an anti-radiation seeker and a big warhead specifically to target AWACS; that's why Northrop developed the _Tacit Blue_ platform to make the plane less vulnerable to such a missile.
umm, they did. R-37 missile is a massive missile with a 250 mile range. its not very manouverable but its passive, active, home on jam, and home on radar... its designed to be fired from the extreme detection range of an E-2, to "blind" carrier groups.
@jenniferstewarts4851 you assume it performs as advertised.
@@andrewyork3869 No, i assume they had an aircraft strong enough to lift the darn thing. ROTFL.
@jenniferstewarts4851 nothing in Russias inventory in the last 50 years has been the threat claimed the R-37 is no different.
Not sure a Stealth AWACS aircraft was ever gunna really work....
The first prototype of Boeing Phalcon had an unpleasant encounter with wasps. The aftermath was never fixed and made it into full production.
Haha exactly my thoughts!
Also stall speeds are determined by the wing not the engines. Typically props have less swept or even unswept wings as they are not designed to go as fast, and this is turn means their stall speed is lower. But it's not due to them having props.
Props are more efficient at low speeds however. A 10mw prop will produce more power at low airspeed than a 10mw jet engine which is why jets have longer takeoffs.
So it's almost like rear differential gears in pick up truck axles in the sense that 4.10 gears give you more power at low speeds and 3.55 gears give you more power at higher speeds
I think the argument mr. Host was making is that because its a propeller plane, its inherently designed for slower speeds than a jet - so the propeller plane has a greater chance of taking off with low speed. Its still the wrong train of thought as you pointed out, yes, but if you squint hard enough you can sort of see what they meant
@@LottoDub720 That is absolutely not the same. That's not even how gears work.
Higher gear ratio means more of the RPM is converted into torque (or vice versa), lower gear ratio means less torque but higher RPM
@@TheByQQwould the right comparison be different sizes of wheels ? A lot of mountain bikes for example use 29 inches wheels these days for an example, slower to gain speed but they travel more and have more inertia
@@Pierrot9315 No, that's genuinely the same, since you have gears on bikes too, and even if you didn't the wheel itself would act kinda like a gearbox, by being moved by a smaller gear.
An ICE with and without a turbo would be much better, since the limiting factor with jets is the amount of air flowing into the intake.
At low speeds (so low RPM, turbo not working fully) the engine has to suck in the air on it's own, but at higher speeds it gets also pushed into the engine (higher RPM, turbo spooled up) and more air means you can burn more fuel and produce more power.
A prop doesn't need as much air to function properly. It's like a naturally aspirated engine. It's not going to be as powerful, but you don't need the turbo to kick in to get the full power.
But even that isn't perfect, sadly I can't think of a good way to explain it properly
Peanut allergies are no joke in the aerospace design world
Imagine a stealth AWACS.
F-35: “Am I a joke to you?!”
imagine production of f35
@@o3ohno123 The F-35 already produced its 1,000th airframe, and has delivered more than 600 to various nations.
@@o3ohno123imagine production of SU 57. It's very difficult
The U-2 may have been replaced by these, but it's still in service for things like calibrating radars for high altitude contacts and domestic mapping of wildfires. It also buzzed and photographed from above that Chinese balloon that overflew the US and Canada last year.
Surveillance and spying are two different things. Just like cover and concealment.
The E3 is being quickly retired because of cost, age, and availability of parts. It can't be relavent when it can't fly. Their mission was always relavent, but it's adversary wasn't when it was top of it's ability. The Boneyard already has multiple being prepped to be mothballed because current fighters can do much the same with onboard electeonics.
Not much point making an aircraft stealthy if it’s carrying a gigantic radar emitter😳
Interesting as a matter of fact one can actually make a version based on B737 Max 7 or A319neo the Boeing 737 Max 7 version would have been treated as another E-7 variant family planes. Max 10 as a P-8 family plane. Looks like it started back in World War II where you had bombers in this type of mission
"Good news! We have a new spy plane based on the MAX 7!"
"That's great, where is it?"
"Currently burning in the ground after the door flew off and sucked the pilots out"
"Oh yeah, forgot they do that"
@MommyKhaos if they did that that would have been an E-7B just like how the B747-8 became VC-25B
Really appreciate you mentioning (saying) the distances in miles and showing it in parentheses in kilometers! Like I always say; it's kilometers not ki-LO-meters! You got it right! 👍👍👍
Russian A-50U would highly disagree ;)
When people talk about "spy planes", they often refer to the aircraft that perform photographic reconnaisance, such as the U-2 and the SR-71, whose task were to photograph large swathes of territory to analysis. The reason these aren't used like before is because of technologies like satellites and more recently drones that are much safer and less expensive in the long run to operate. Also, comparing those kinds of aircraft to the AWACS aircraft is kind of nonsensical because they perform very different roles, with the AWACS mostly used for early warning, communications, and battlefield command and control, which are tasks no U-2 or SR-71 ever handled. Finally, the video really neglected to mention that the reason the USAF E-3's are being retired is because they're meant to be replaced by the more advanced E-7 Wedgetail which are already in service in other nations. Hell, the video already showed the E-7 in footage, yet still failed to mention that fact.
If you believe some. The Sr 72 exists.
Also the AF already has stated the B21 will be taking up certain recon missions. Thing is supposed to be an intel and possibly EW beast.
I guarantee you if that last sentence is true. That means the B 21 can also defend its self, and be a missile truck. While it won't be able to dog fight? It will be able to fire basically any A2A missile.
"Just one of these new planes" ?? Dude get your facts straight. E3's are old AF and already being replaced by the new E-7 Wedgetail.
And they don't replace U-2 nor SR-72. Absolutely not the same tasks.
The wedge tail is good but…I have a feeling it’s about to become great and even greater
To be fair, the E-2 Hawkeye uses Turboprop engines so it still uses jet fuel
Love the coffee machine inside these plane. All crew drink them like 30 times each time it flies.
Comparing AWACS to SR-71 and U-2 at the beginning is a misnomer and ignores RQ-4 and other surveillance drones which have taken that role, modern AWACS platforms replaced the EC-121 of that era!
Squidward looking plane.
My dad was one of the first crews to work on the E3, I’ve always had a soft spot for it.
putting in a prediction, they want to abandon those planes due to maintenance and operating costs
The Phalcon is the aircraft version of "I'm allergic to bee stings"... 😂😁😜
The reason the Navy uses props vs turbo fans is not the stall speed of the prop. Although propellers and fan blades both can stall. The airplane shown that recovered from the cable break is because the wings have a low stall speed that allowed it to gain lift before the plane hit the water. The reason for the props is better fuel efficiency at lower airspeeds.
stealth means can be spotted but hard to be locked on with missiles, jets are quick ,big planes are slow.
IRCCM Missile: "Meh, bring me 1.5km to him, throw me, and i will do my job properly."
It can mean both depending on the circumstances. In some cases, stealth planes can be invisible to radar; other times, specially when low frequency radar is used, they can be detected, and what you said is 100% true, they can be "seen" but a firing solution becomes extremely complicated. Instances of stealth being invisible to radar include the F-117 nighthawks in Serbia, of which the only one that was shot down was because the air defense radar was used in the lowest possible frequency and because the bomb bay doors were open. With more modern planes we have the F-22 intercepting F-4 phantoms and being completely invisible until it made itself known by visually approaching the planes and actually communicating via radio
Stealth is to AVOID DOGFIGHTS its about beyond visual range attacks , who saw who first. Russia ,putting this aircraft in the range of a Ukrainian weapon system was foolish. Ukraine are being coy ,deliberately . maybe they got intel from NATO or maybe the have a new deadly weapon . Keeps Russia guessing. BUT I guarantee there weren't 65 POWS. I've seen the footage and theres about 3 or 4 bits of bodies , like hands and messed up Torsos.
Stealth also means that it can only be spotted from a closer range, so stealth aircraft can fly in-between radars undetected, where other aircraft would be detected. That's because, due to the small radar cross-section, they are out of detection range
B-1B Lancer is big, and fast.
Saying either the U-s or SR-71 was replaced by an E-3 is like saying that air craft carriers replaced battleships. They serve different roles with little overlap.
The Russian ones don't seem to be too difficult to take down.
If RUclips auto-plays when you don't want it to and you pause it after 1s you get NWYT yelling 'Spy Plane!'
The U2 is still in service and being replaced by armed UAVs. Electronic warfare, radar monitoring, and communication is very different mission to areal surveillance.
@NotWhatYouThink
AWaCS stands for Airborne Warning and Command System.
So where did you get Airborne Warning and Command Force from?
My guess, is all your scripts are read out by an A.I.
your channel should be named "sometimes its not what you think"
I love your videos
Thank you man, always a pleasure
Wow that FedEx bit near the end got *real* 😯😏👉 Neat Technology- Laser
Looks like that aircraft is having some sort of allergic reaction.
I thought the plane in the thumbnail was fake 😂.
Well played Mr. NWYT... well played.
The thumbnail kun is given
so much freedom🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲💥💥
That boeing phalcon looks like it got stung by a bee
RQ-180 is a surveillance aircraft and it's extremely stealthy.
was looking for this - seems like the stealthy part is working out well
1:03 Did you really say that AWACS can't be shot down? There was one literally shot down last week.
Pretty sure he talked about it like 3 minuts later
@@niclink1030 And that makes it better? "It can't be shot down, here's one that was shot down earlier!"
theres a big difference between a russian awacs being shot down and a nato awacs.
the russians have historically had inferior sensors, training, and even simple aircraft build quality. add in russias unwillingness to share any information, and we dont even know if their awacs have defensive jamming, or air escorts, or are being trained on SAM avoidance.
but in nato a full escort, safe operating parameters, countermeasures, jammers, and communication with the awacs is not a question, its considered the bare minimum.
I really hope the Navajo get a SIGINT or AWACS helicopter named after them. It would be so cool to honor the code talkers.
there is two kinds of stealth. blending in and becoming invisible, or yelling so loudly they can't hear your foot steps and locate you.
Great video!
Another great video! 👍
😂😂😂😂😂 I'm a former pilot this is junk
Chile recently purchased second hand E-3s from England. Very interesting video, greetings from Chile!
Two planes of this type was lost by russian air forces within last month. So, it depends
Hawkeyes were the first military aircraft ive ever seen growing up. It's because we live near a base, and planes fly over our house at low attitudes all the time
I need to correct you: AWACS planes are NOT SPY PLANES! Their role is to patrol the air, detect hundreds of miles away flying objects in the air and space (eg ballistic missiles) and coordinate friendly assets in combat. They are a kind of warplane.
Spy planes have a different role: they fly fast, high and stealthy deep behind in enemy lines and collect intelligence. They will take photos of enemy missile silos, naval bases, army factories, critical infrastructure, army movements, power plants, supply depots etc.
The AWACS are conduct missions for the Airforce and the Navy. The spy planes conduct missions for CIA and other spy agencies across the world.
Boeing 707 AWACS, "We absorbed the enemy fire, but we seem to have lost pressure....Oh, looks like the door blew off."
The plane in the thumbnail looks like it got bit by a hornet.
The E3 is not "also called the AWACS", it's an example of an AWACS plane. That would be like saying the B-52 is also called the bomber.
so nice to have metric also displayed!
You should make a video about the f-4 or the f-15
Fun fact. The E2 hawkeyes are rarely ever in the hangers. Theyre the first out and the last back. Mainly because theyre big and you cant really launch any other aircraft with it still on the deck. Its usually already lined up on a cat just waiting.
2:56 Just a correction regarding the E7 Wedgetail - it was made for and mainly operated by the Australian Air Force, the British airforce do not currently operate any although they have put an order in for some.
The U2 has not been replaced. Lol
"Light up like a christmas tree" im pretty sure I've heard it somewhere... reminds me of a certain pig...
The Boeing Falcon looks like it needs a Benadryl tablet.
ho god, that wasn't a clickbait thumbnail
Wait, what if the AWACs got chased by a MCLOS (Manual Command to Line of Sight) missile? Are they fucked up or there is another way to counter it?
Good video!
AWACs is the most important role in war
heavily debateable
@@sbr7018you won’t hit what you can’t see
no
I'd say its the transport vehicles. No fuel, no supplies and no food? Well you're pretty much done for. Can't get the troops to the area they need to be in for an offensive or defensive maneuver? Well might as well welcome the enemy with a red carpet.
Logistics is the one and only God of War.
@@honkler5974 You can't hit without something to hit with. I much rather would want to have the possibility to hit even if it's not guaranteed I will see my target. Than Only being able to see.
6:01 THEY DID THE ACTION MOVIE THING
"Flying where only eagles dare"
Your enemy doesn't need to shoot down the AWACS ... They can simply track it and wait for it to pass so they can launch an attack with low flying fighter jets or cruise missiles
The statement that the U2 dragon lady has been replaced is inaccurate, this information is from the USAF website: "U-2S is home based at the 9th Reconnaissance Wing, Beale Air Force Base, California, but are rotated to operational detachments worldwide. U-2 pilots are trained at Beale using five two-seat aircraft designated as TU-2S before deploying for operational missions." Facts are importance.
One thing you didnt mention that I'd be curious to know more about is why the E3's seem to be coal-rolling at low altitude?
I get to see E3's flying out of Elmendorf AFB, Alaska from my office all the time, and they are some of the dirtiest, most EPA unfriendly vehicles I have ever seen, leaving dark plumes of exhaust in their wake.
Some air pollution dosen't rlly matter when there are enemy aircraft invading ur country
the E3 uses a turbofan engine designed in the 50s with famously smokey exhaust. It's shared by the b-52 and some 707s, which have similar smoke plumes
Fortunately, the E-3 is now only a stopgap until the E-7 arrives. Congress deemed it more important to acquire the E-7 than to reenginee the E-3, which Frances has done.
"Rolling coal" in this case is caused by water injection which increases engine thrust, particularly at low-altitudes & at take off. It is soot particles from fuel that hasn't been completely burned. It has little effect on the environment [Alaska has good air quality] & looks much worse than it really is. Though I'm glad I don't live near soot emissions. When I was a kid in 60s UK it was common to have smog days so bad you couldn't see your hand at midday in the industrial cities from coal burning. Compared to that a few engines burning inefficiently are nothing given that they serve a wider purpose that protects our lives & freedoms [such as they are].
@@stevenshea990 The B-52 is getting new engines that won't do that as part of the upgrade to the B-52J. They will be quieter and have little or no smoke, but will also be more efficient and have lower maintenance costs since they're based on an engine that is in current production.
Drones have changed the game recently.
Anyone watch these and get to the end and think “that was what I was thinking”
Every time!
2:29 looks like spaceballs.
The B21 will most likely act as a replacement for these systems.
spyplane?
yeah looks a bit nosy
It's the Rivet Joint RC 135 that does the heavy Surveillance..
And EP-3.
@@Kriss_L I didn't add the Navy version. As some dumb ass landed one in China for them to pick apart. When they should have ditched it in the Ocean...
But this was under Bill Clinton. He was to eager to help the Chinese. As they helped him get Elected. So he let them get away with forcing it down..
The first AWACS aircraft for the US Navy was the E-1 Tracer.
as someone who did maintenance for the rc135v/w i understand but still annoyed we dont get any mentions
Did you just say "FedEx's book of MISSILE DEFENSE??"
Arsenal bird when?
2:59 so we’re not going to talk about the flying carpet that was captured in this footage!
Its clearly a weather balloon!
was it trying to blend it at 2:09
I know this isnt the case, but when the Hawkeye broke its cable, the tracking camera's overlay went from showing a C in the upper right to a blinking F! F! F! F! F!, which my brain translated into "Cool" and "FARK FARK FARK FARK", as Im pretty sure thats what suddenly everyone on (and unfortunately, off, the flight deck suddenly started thinking
That plane can smell where the aircraft is
You mean the Russian “We have AWACS at home”.
AWACS has a completely different mission than the U2 and the SR71. The role those older planes used to fill has been taken over by satellites, not AWACS
the video drew them as similar because they were both intel gathering aircraft. you are right though, there is a massive difference between a plane meant to know the movement of mobile assets, like the awacs, and planes meant to locate factories and airfields, like every recon plane.
surveillance drones also succeed the spy planes of old, as those are also meant to take video and pictures of ground.
the nose on the plane in the thumbnail looks like squidwards nose
Plot twist, they are stealthy. You just don't see those ones.
Thank you for interesting information
B21 meant to cover this too
No loose bolts here... 😂😂😂
AWACs didn't replace the U-2. Satelites did on top of the fact that missile reach increased to the U-2's operational altitudes. The U-2 designed to operate in different mission environments than AWACs. AWACs are designed for combat zone reconisance where you have freindly combat aircraft and ground forces active.
"One awacs can cover all of poland"
ME, a former E3 Radar maintainer: Yeah... just poland! totally just poland!
Never under estimate your opponent! Russia constantly coming up with new weapons..
I don't think AWACS will be completely replaced anytime soon. The combination of stealthy high tech sensor aircraft like the F35 in combination with one huge AWACS is likely the most deadly combo in the sky for any opponent.
2:58 : WOW ! A PREGNANT military aircraft ! Amazing ! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The Chilean Air Force's Phalcon was retired in 2022 due to the airframe's age and increased cost of maintenance. It was replaced by two E-3D Sentries.