Talk:Airborne Warning and Control System
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
AWACS versus Airborne Early Warning
[edit]It was my understanding that AWACS was a US Military-specific acronym for their Airborne Early Warning aircraft detection systems. As such, aircraft such as the E-3 Sentry are properly called AWACS, but aircraft such as the Russian Candid are not. Can someone with more information than I confirm/provide a source on this?
If this is the case, then references to non-American should be removed from this article. 209.195.164.34 15:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the very first AWACS was developed by Soviets/RussiansSea diver (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"However, by the nature of radar, AWACS aircraft can be detected by opposing forces at precisely twice its own detection range. This is because the outgoing pulse deterioates in strength the further it travels. Therefore, a signal which is intended to go out and be reflected back must be strong enough to cover twice the distance between the sender and the target."
IMHO this is not true. Power reflected back to the plane goes down as R^4, but power received at the detecting system goes down as R^2. Would the author like to comment, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.189.243.98 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC).
- Also depends on the relative sizes of each side's sensors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gparker (talk • contribs) 06:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC).
It's got it slightly wrong; it needs to be four times as powerful, although it does make the assumption that both side's sensors are equally sensitive - i.e. able to pick up a signal of the same magnitude. The power of an electromagnetic signal varies inversely with the square of the distance from the source. For the AWACS aircraft to pick it up, it has to go to the target and back - i.e. twice the distance, so power at the receiver is hence (2r)^2 (=4r^2) for the AWACS, compared to r^2 at the target. --Scott Wilson 12:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Neither of the above is really relevant, is it? Keep in mind that the radar needs to detect signals after they have been reflected (which reduces the signal strength by quite a lot) while the radar itself can be detected based on the unreflected outgoing radiation. It's like using a flashlight, you can barely see items quite close to you but the flashlight itself can easily been seen much much further, certainly much more than twice the distance.
One problem with this discussion-- the Earth is not flat! AWACS radar range is primarily limited by the Earth's shadow as are most radars. The advantage of AWACS is the ability to detect low level aircraft further out because it flys at relatively high altitude ~30K MSL. It is true that some energy might be diverted low level by atmospheric ducting and by reflections off of airborne targets illuminated by AWACS radar. Detection range is further limited by radar processing and receiver limitations. For example, low radar cross-section (RCS) targets would be able to get much closer to the AWACS radar without detection due to a lower energy level reflection received by the AWACS. And it follows that larger RCS targets are seen much further provided they are above the radar horizon (area not shadowed by the Earth).--Eric Fenstermaker 23:27, 21JUL06 (UTC)
Brazil
[edit]Should Brazil's R-99 AWACS be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.66.254 (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
- Yes - added. MilborneOne 21:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
NATO Flag
[edit]Can anyone help with how to call up the NATO flag?
calls up all the NATO Countries and the FLAG is shown, but not inserted!?
Thanks, Specialmissions 01:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Found it! Click on the upper left had side of the NATO bar to find who to credit, but
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Does the trick! Specialmissions 02:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This aircraft, formerly know as ASTOR, is a battlefield support aircraft similar to the US JSTARS. The article written specifically on Raytheon Sentinel states this. It is not considered an AWACS or AEW aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialmissions (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Users in alphabetical order?
[edit]Perhaps someone with more experience than I, could order the list of countries? Specialmissions 23:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
China ?
[edit]should the PLAAF be added too? they now have their AWACS as well -Ralliart (talk)ravenshield936 —Preceding comment was added at 00:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think so. I don't know enough myself about the topic, but seing some pages such as [1] Rob1bureau (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the good link btw. TheAsianGURU (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Iraq ?
[edit]Iraq also developed AWACS base on Il-76 airframes, called Baghdad-1 and Adnan-1. Some were eportedly flown to Iran during the 1991 Gulf War. There is no much information about them tough. Rob1bureau (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)