E-2D Hawkeye

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

PhillyGuy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

Unread post07 Jan 2017, 03:13

With the recent deployment of the new and NIFC-CA capable E-2D to Japan for stationing on the Ronald Reagan, I was looking up some videos on YouTube about the aircraft and I came across this.

[YouTube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-az7P_e-fGk[/YouTube]

The simulation behind the gentleman speaking seems to depict actual radar tape from the E-2D. Because I stare at maps all day I realized pretty quickly that the geography depicted is real and looks a lot like Nova Scotia, and it was. Kind of interesting that the Navy would test the E-2D off the coast of Canada in the North Atlantic but what's more interesting is that if you duplicate that radius on Google Earth you get roughly a distance of 355 miles from center to rim.

Very impressive and for curiosity I went over on the Pacific side and drew a circle 355 miles in radius originating from right above Okinawa, and what do you know, it almost perfectly reaches right up to the Chinese shoreline and touches South Korea and Taiwan end to end, effectively covering all of the possible approaches for the PLA within the East China Sea battle space.

If you put another E-2D in the middle of the Baishai Channel between Taiwan and the Philippines, it can cover that southern sector of the East China Sea and reaching deep into the top part of the South China Sea right up to the Chinese shoreline/Hainan island.

So just TWO E-2Ds, well out of SAM range from the mainland, could basically cover the entire space from the Korea Strait, to almost the Paracel Islands and Hainan and see any Chinese aircraft or surface ships as soon as they get airborne or underway. I am more convinced than ever that there is no way China can break out into the open Pacific given the current geographical constraints and the order and magnitude of forces arrayed against it in advantageous positions and being more technologically sophisticated.

No one ever won a war by lobbing missiles, you have to take and hold ground/space and you can't do that if all of your platforms are being blasted the moment they leave the safety of your mainland. If the SM-6 has similar range, oh boy, too bad we don't have a way to carry and launch them via airborne platforms a la arsenal plane. You realize that the AMRAAM, even the D version at the higher speculative end for range, is still not long range enough to fully utilize the sensors we have coming online.

Imagine if a Super Hornet could launch its AIM-120s 200 miles out aided by the Hawkeye. It would not have to go anywhere near the target and expose itself or give away any possible clue as to where the carrier is. Of course in lieu of an extreme range A2A missile the Navy could have developed a stealthy UCAV and made it to be loaded up with AMRAAMs so it could orbit near enemy territory, be cued by the E-2D when a target is within range, and just spit out missiles on command. But in all their wisdom the Navy wants a fuel/tanker UCAV. WTF on that one.

I hope Chinese submarines remain mostly diesel and inferior/noisy because that is their best bet/only option. If they develop really quiet and offensively armed/capable nuclear submarines they can sneak past the first island chain and lurk and gather intelligence and launch missile raids on land sites/forces from our blind spots, or threaten/target and try to sink our ships/carriers operating in the Pacific Basin. This would deny us the ability to control the sea and set up those picket lines with our surface ships so they can launch their SM-6 and Tomahwaks, and of course it would not allow the carrier freedom of movement to conduct air operations or unnoticed transit. As of right now that is not the case but that is an area of worry. No wonder the Navy wants to have 60 attack submarines going forward!

If they sink even one of our carriers we are really screwed! You know all of those US/allied air bases near China are getting blasted on zero hour by a wave of ballistic and cruise missiles from the PLA mainland. The air base that will unaffected and able to provide uninterrupted/mobile air power at will on those early days will be the carriers. Forget that distributed operations crap. By the time we figure that out and have it up and running in the middle of a war, they have already landed forces on Taiwan proper and established beachheads. But not if the carriers are out to sea and lurking nearby and employing assets like the E-2D and long range anti air and anti ship missiles to sink and shoot down their invasion fleets.

And I don't buy this notion that the flat tops have to be like a 1000 miles away or whatever the ballistic anti-ship missile hype says, since a carrier running dark and silent and constantly hauling a$$ in a VERY LARGE ocean is hard to find. Especially when you have to rely on space assets for detection because you cannot get surface or airborne reconnaissance platforms near it to located it. But again, all of this changes should the Chinese build quality nuke boats and become skillful in employing them. The submarine threat remains the most dangerous and compromising and cannot be understated.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5342
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post07 Jan 2017, 04:06

SM-6 coverage. Now imagine if they made a canister for it so you could load it in Tomahawk cells on SSGNs (Similar to Harpoon submerged launch canisters but for vertical submerged launch.) Even if they were loaded with half SM-6s and half Tomahawks that's well over 200 SM-6s added to the cause.

Capture2.jpg
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

PhillyGuy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

Unread post07 Jan 2017, 04:27

Yeah that would be a great capability to have. More and more weapons/systems need to be integrated into the new Virginia Payload Tubes because you can see the possibilities that it affords.

Better yet in my eyes would be some sort of rotary launcher so you can have a bomber (B-52/B-1) carry a dozen or so, maybe more, and just set up tanker orbits out in the deep Pacific with a half dozen bombers at a time all loaded up just doing figure 8s waiting for the next enemy wave to show up. With the range an SM-6 launched at speed and altitude would have all the bombers need to do is just make a short and quick dash toward the kill zone, mass launch and bug out. It would not even matter if they are a non stealthy type like the B-52 and B-1. At those ranges and varied axis of attack and in that degraded/saturated electromagnetic environment of the battle space, the enemy will be having a hard time just functioning let alone threatening you.

Plus, just like the submarines, but in a more dynamic way, this allows you have an anti-air capability in the face of your local air bases being cratered right off the bat, and your short ranged and limited payload fighters spread out all over the place or stuck inside their shelters. You could launch bombers and tankers from much farther away and from safer bases/countries that might be spared or protected from an initial missile attack.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2245
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post07 Jan 2017, 05:07

That would be crazy to fire SM-6 from underwater. Next you'll suggest more crazy stuff like heavier than water submarines!
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post07 Jan 2017, 06:11

Over 400 miles at ~ 4:25 in a limited sector.

Although APS-145 of earlier E-2C was also claimed to have a range that high. So probably range isn't the main advantage of the APY-9.
Offline
User avatar

PhillyGuy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

Unread post07 Jan 2017, 06:29

arian wrote:Over 400 miles at ~ 4:25 in a limited sector.

Although APS-145 of earlier E-2C was also claimed to have a range that high. So probably range isn't the main advantage of the APY-9.


Can you explain what you mean? Maybe the new radar has more fidelity and or resistance to jamming at range. I assume also with the integrated fire control you not only have to detect, identify and track all the hostiles and their missiles, but friendlies and their weapons that are being guided. That's a lot of crap to sift through and keep track of/manage even under the best of circumstances and conditions.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2772
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post10 Jan 2017, 13:15

This booklet gives some interesting information:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... ooklet.pdf

In page 10 there is comparison between E-2C and E-2D and range of E-2D seems to be about 50 percent higher. I think the ultimate max range of both systems might be similar, but E-2D can detect much smaller targets at similar ranges and handles clutter and jamming much better than C-model. Of course it has other advantages like higher resolution and better tracking performance etc.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3318
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 18:44

madrat wrote:That would be crazy to fire SM-6 from underwater. Next you'll suggest more crazy stuff like heavier than water submarines!


Madrat funny :D
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5342
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 02:20

madrat wrote:That would be crazy to fire SM-6 from underwater. Next you'll suggest more crazy stuff like heavier than water submarines!


Not one single thing crazy about firing an SM-6 from underwater. Incorporate things like TUNA and it gets even better. Oh would enemy air assets be in for a rude surprise. :twisted:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 03:53

hornetfinn wrote:This booklet gives some interesting information:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... ooklet.pdf

In page 10 there is comparison between E-2C and E-2D and range of E-2D seems to be about 50 percent higher. I think the ultimate max range of both systems might be similar, but E-2D can detect much smaller targets at similar ranges and handles clutter and jamming much better than C-model. Of course it has other advantages like higher resolution and better tracking performance etc.


Depends which radar they are comparing against. APS-145 was already claimed to have a 40% range increase over APS-139 and already claimed to have a range of 550km: http://www.naval-technology.com/project ... keye5.html

Which is about the same range estimated for the APY-9. Of course as you say, max range is probably the least of its advantages.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2772
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 15:16

arian wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:This booklet gives some interesting information:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... ooklet.pdf

In page 10 there is comparison between E-2C and E-2D and range of E-2D seems to be about 50 percent higher. I think the ultimate max range of both systems might be similar, but E-2D can detect much smaller targets at similar ranges and handles clutter and jamming much better than C-model. Of course it has other advantages like higher resolution and better tracking performance etc.


Depends which radar they are comparing against. APS-145 was already claimed to have a 40% range increase over APS-139 and already claimed to have a range of 550km: http://www.naval-technology.com/project ... keye5.html

Which is about the same range estimated for the APY-9. Of course as you say, max range is probably the least of its advantages.


In that page they are comparing APY-9 to APS-145, so I'd say the range comparison is also between the two. Max range of all these three systems might well be the same as that's set by how long the receive time between pulses are. However the maximum effective range against certain targets differ a lot. For example APS-139 might detect a fully loaded Tu-95 at the same range as APS-145 detects Tu-16 and APY-9 detects MiG-29.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 736
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post13 Oct 2017, 04:15

sferrin wrote:SM-6 coverage. Now imagine if they made a canister for it so you could load it in Tomahawk cells on SSGNs (Similar to Harpoon submerged launch canisters but for vertical submerged launch.) Even if they were loaded with half SM-6s and half Tomahawks that's well over 200 SM-6s added to the cause.

Capture2.jpg

You still need something on the surface or on air to find and guide missiles to target for the submarine.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post13 Oct 2017, 12:01

Interesting subject. In your scenario your talking about a surprise PRC invasion of Taiwan. The size of such an undertaking would make it very difficult to pull off. Moving a half million troops, and massing shipping for them wouldn't go unnoticed. RAF Bomber, and Coastal Command were bombing the hell out of German invasion shipping, during the Battle of Britain. In an age of satellites Chinese strategic surprise would be all but impossible.

I think SM-6 Missiles would be less important then LRASMs would be in turning back a Chinese invasion. B-52H, B-1B, and P-8 aircraft based in Guam, and Japan could deliver mass salvos of LRASMs from beyond the range of even S-400 systems on the Chinese coast. Our carrier groups main job would be to protect those E-2Ds, and other AWACS aircraft operating both north and south of Taiwan. They really can't operate east of Taiwan because the mountains of Taiwan would cast a radar shadow over the Taiwan Straights to the west.

F-A-18E/F, and surface ships would be adding their own LRASMs to the attack. Our SSNs would be protecting our carriers, and hunting Chinese Submarines. Unless the Chinese can keep our naval, and bomber forces 500 miles away from Taiwan it would be unsound to risk their fleet in an invasion attempt. Remember they would have to do that for at least 10 days. Their ships have to cross, land the first wave of troops, then start doing round trips for follow on waves, while supply ships unload cargo for the troops.

Just think about the scale of the Overlord Operation in WWII, and try to imagine it in modern terms. A better example might be the U.S. invasion of Okinawa. The U.S. 5th Fleet had to stay in range of massed Kamikaze attack for almost 3 months to support the invasion. In modern terms substitute ASCMs for Kamikazes. Okinawa was the most harrowing, and costly battle in the navy's history. Taiwan could end up being an Okinawa for china, with massed, and smaller scale hit and run missile attacks on their fleet, that could last for weeks. On top of that their staging ports are in range of attack, so they don't even have a safe area to load their ships.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5342
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post13 Oct 2017, 17:55

garrya wrote:
sferrin wrote:SM-6 coverage. Now imagine if they made a canister for it so you could load it in Tomahawk cells on SSGNs (Similar to Harpoon submerged launch canisters but for vertical submerged launch.) Even if they were loaded with half SM-6s and half Tomahawks that's well over 200 SM-6s added to the cause.

Capture2.jpg

You still need something on the surface or on air to find and guide missiles to target for the submarine.


You need something on the surface to FIND targets (like E-2Ds, E-3s, F-35s, satellites, etc. ) All SM-6 needs is a coordinate to fly to, then it activates it active terminal seeker. Maybe it gets a mid course update or two (that could come from a satellite) but that's it.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post15 Oct 2017, 10:53

You need something on the surface to FIND targets (like E-2Ds, E-3s, F-35s, satellites, etc. ) All SM-6 needs is a coordinate to fly to, then it activates it active terminal seeker. Maybe it gets a mid course update or two (that could come from a satellite) but that's it.

[/quote]

I understand the Russians have some submarines with IR SAMs, to shoot at ASW helicopters. The problem is a submarine has to come up to periscope depth, at slow speed to fire it. That kind of makes them sitting ducks for the aircraft searching for them. Firing a missile will also give away their position to any other hostile aircraft, or ships in the area. It's sort of a last ditch desperation weapon. Better to go deep, and hide then tell the enemy "Yes I'm here. Lets shoot it out."

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests