Excellent AF Mag article about AWACS

News related to Airborne Early Warning
Post Reply
User avatar
wildbill
Veteran
Posts: 649
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 8:38 pm
AEW Units: 963 AWACS 552 ACW
Call Sign: Wild Bill
Contact:

Excellent AF Mag article about AWACS

Post by wildbill » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:08 pm

Air Force Magazine

Opposing AWACS

SEPTEMBER 2015

BY JOHN T. CORRELL

Who could possibly have been against the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System?
And why?


The E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System would surely make any short list of the most
valuable military aircraft of all time. When it entered service in 1977, AWACS instantly changed
the whole regime of air combat. The pulse Doppler radar in its rotating dome could reach out for
hundreds of miles in all directions to find and track every airplane moving within the airspace.
AWACS could direct the battle so adeptly that it multiplied the effectiveness of the forces it
controlled. The commander of Tactical Air Command pronounced it “the most significant single
tactical improvement since the advent of radar.” The program was also well-managed. The first
production airplane was delivered within four months of target date and within four percent of
target cost.

Since then, AWACS has seen action in every conflict from Grenada and the Gulf War to Iraq and
Afghanistan. It was the first aircraft ever acquired by NATO to be operated as an alliance asset
and flown by international crews. After the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in 2001,
the US relied not only on its own AWACS fleet but also on reinforcement by NATO E-3s to
maintain a patrol against further attacks.

Today, after almost 40 years of service, AWACS is still going strong and is universally well regarded, but it was not always so. In its early days, AWACS was confronted constantly by those who wanted to curtail it or kill it outright.

One of the first critics was Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.), who had gained fame for exposing
waste and fraud in government. Proxmire accused the Pentagon of waste in the AWACS program
in 1971 and later called it “a plane in search of a mission.”

Sen.Thomas F. Eagleton (D-Mo.)—described by The New York Times as “waging a one-man war
against the AWACS program”— said AWACS was an “apparently irresistible gadget which has no
real combat utility,” a “sham” and a “disastrous failure” that “contributes nothing and has a zero
chance of surviving attack.”

The news media and the General Accounting Office chimed in, apparently unimpressed by test
exercises where some 300 aggressor aircraft could not defeat AWACS. In 1976, Rep. Patricia S.
Schroeder (D-Colo.) nominated AWACS as the “Turkey of the Year” and attempted to delete all
funding for it.

Opposition surged when the Ford, Carter, and Reagan administrations proposed foreign military
sales of AWACS to allies. In 1980, critics objected to offering AWACS to Saudi Arabia, arguing
concurrently the E-3A was a flop operationally and that it would be a mortal threat to Israel.
Condemnation of the program in general continued. Pundit Alexander C. Cockburn, writing in The
Wall Street Journal in 1981, said that AWACS was an “airborne disaster” and “an ocean of gravy”
for the contractors. The real secret of AWACS, he said, was that “it does not work.”

AWACS was an unlikely candidate for such invective, and there was no indication of the trouble
to come when the program requirement was laid down in the 1960s.

A New Kind of Radar

The military value of radar was demonstrated in the Battle of Britain in 1940 and was clearly
understood. However, attackers soon learned to avoid detection by flying low. The beam of
traditional ground radar went out in a straight line and could see only what was above the
horizon. Anything behind the curvature of the Earth was hidden.

An airplane flying at an altitude of 100 feet, for example, could penetrate unseen to within about
13 miles of the average ground radar. Even with airborne radar systems, low fliers were lost in
the “ground clutter,” a hodgepodge of signals reflected up from the Earth’s surface.

Air Defense Command began operating the EC-121 Warning Star in 1953. It was a radar-picket
version of the Lockheed Constellation airliner, with radomes mounted above and below the
fuselage. Two variants of the EC-121 later saw extensive service in Vietnam. The radar did well
enough in tracking aircraft at medium and high altitudes, but could not separate air traffic below
from the ground clutter.

The Navy introduced the E-2 Hawkeye warning and control aircraft, a twin-turboprop considerably
smaller than the EC-121, in 1961. Early models of the Hawkeye had serious reliability problems.
When it worked, the Hawkeye was successful in surveillance over water, but like the Air Force’s
EC-121, it was unable to detect and track targets amid ground clutter over land.

Around 1960, the Air Force came to believe that technology, especially the miniaturization of
electronics, had reached the point that the ground clutter issue could be solved. The key was a
phenomenon known as the Doppler shift.

If a radar beam bounces off a moving object, the electronic signal returns at a different frequency
from the one at which it was sent out. Radar operating in pulse Doppler mode can track a flying
object based on its speed relative to the radar, not just its position. If the object is approaching the
radar, the wavelength is compressed; if it is going away, the wavelength is stretched out.
Computers, processing the raw radar returns, could filter fast-moving airplanes out from slow-
moving or stationary objects on the ground.

In 1962, Tactical Air Command and ADC issued a joint Specific Operational Requirement for an
airborne warning and control system to detect and track large numbers of targets at long range.
ADC wanted the system for continental air defense against bombers. TAC wanted to see the
enemy fighters and a capability to manage the air battle.

Three aircraft entered the competition to be the airframe for AWACS: the Boeing Co. 707, the
Douglas Aircraft Co. DC-8, and the Lockheed Georgia Co. C-141. Lockheed dropped out in 1966.
A system program office was established at the Electronic Systems Division at Hanscom AFB,
Mass., in 1967.

Exploratory research and development proved the technological feasibility of AWACS, and in July
1970, the Air Force announced the selection of Boeing as the prime contractor. In 1972, after a
lengthy competition, Westinghouse was chosen to provide the radar. AWACS, now designated
the E-3A, entered full-scale development in 1973.

As the Dome Turns

The original plan was for 64 AWACS aircraft, but the procurement was cut to 42 in 1970 and then
to the final total of 34 in 1973. This was partly for cost reduction reasons but also because the
emphasis on defense against enemy bombers had diminished with the advancement of ICBMs.
In 1974, TAC was named as the single manager of AWACS when it went into operational service.
Critics at the time said the AWACS air defense mission was gone, but it is still around 40 years
later. For example, after the September 2001 terror attacks, every AWACS available was called
in to guard the approaches to the United States.

The E-3A’s most obvious feature was the huge rotating dome, 30 feet wide and six feet thick,
jutting up from the fuselage on two struts. Half of this “rotodome” contained an IFF (identification,
friend or foe) system, and the other half a powerful radar antenna.

AWACS was more than a flying radar. It was a complete command and control center with
computers to process the raw data and nine mission consoles for surveillance, weapons
direction, and battle management. Every 10 seconds, the E-3A’s rotating radar furnished a new
position of the aircraft it was tracking, each of them glowing cleanly as a blip on the console
screens.

In the pulse Doppler mode, the radar could reach out for more than 250 miles and sort out lowflying aircraft from the trees and hills. As a side benefit, the radar was not bothered by chaff,
which drifted through the air too slowly to register as a flying object. It could also be used in a
plain non-Doppler pulse mode, which extended the range to about 350 miles but without the
ground clutter filtering.

Most of the criticism of AWACS focused on its supposed vulnerability to jamming and attack by
enemy fighters. In fact, the E-3A could be jammed or shot down—if an enemy was ready to
devote enough resources and take enough losses to do it.

“It is scientifically impossible to come up with a radar that is totally jam-proof,” said Maj. Gen.
Lawrence A. Skantze, E-3A program director from 1973 to 1977. “But the AWACS radar is
beyond any comparable system ever built, and it exploits the latest state of the art to the fullest.”
A radar system’s primary vulnerability to jamming stems from the so-called antenna side lobes—
energy radiated not along the system’s main beam but off to the sides. An enemy could try to jam
the E-3A radar by aiming a strong electronic signal at its beam to cause interference. The E-3A
transmitted a highly directional, very narrow radar main beam. When the radar main beam swept
by a jamming source, targets within the beam were obscured. The jammed signal was displayed
as a line or strobe on the E-3A screen. Targets outside the strobe could be tracked in the usual
way.

Because of the long range of its radar, the aircraft could orbit too far away for most enemy
fighters to locate or to attack even if they could locate it. Since the E-3A could see an enemy
coming, it could summon and direct friendly fighters in its own defense. If necessary, it had
enough speed to evade.

One test determined that an enemy would have to sacrifice between 60 and 100 of its own
airplanes to bring down a single AWACS. “I said the E-3A is survivable,” Skantze pointed out. “I
didn’t say it was immortal.”

The Critics Pile On

AWACS was barely out of the starting gate when the critics opened fire. In April 1971, Proxmire
cited waste in AWACS and other programs in a broad-ranging call to cut defense spending. He
made several speeches about it in Congress, including one in 1975 when he said the E-3A was
“known in some Pentagon circles as the BBO, which is the Boeing Bailout.”

Others also depicted AWACS as a pork barrel project. A New York Times article said it “was
conceived several years ago when the Boeing Company was in serious financial difficulty on its
transport program,” neglecting to mention that two other aircraft companies were in the
competition for several years.

Eagleton attacked the program again and again, charging that AWACS could be “jammed from
200 miles away by cheap and simple electronics, making it useless for its primary mission.” He
depicted it as “a technical marvel in search of a mission,” and “a marvel that we can no longer
afford.” Both Proxmire and Eagleton trumpeted several GAO reports critical of the E-3A for high
cost and limited utility.

A group of officials from the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, led by former Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Paul Warnke, recommended scrapping
AWACS altogether.

Peter J. Ognibene, a former member of the political science faculty at the Air Force Academy,
writing in The New Republic in 1974, chastised the Defense Department for keeping the program
alive after the continental air defense mission had diminished and called AWACS “the plane that
would not die.”

Ognibene said that AWACS would require “an airborne armada to protect it from Soviet fighters
such as the trisonic Foxbat” and that long-distance jammers would leave it “blind and incapable of
directing the strike aircraft under its control.” The defense budget, he said, contained “pouches of
flab. AWACS is one.”

The efforts by Eagleton and like-minded colleagues to kill AWACS failed, but they persuaded the
Senate to require the Secretary of Defense to certify the performance of the airplane based on
additional testing. In one such test, AWACS defeated two EB-57 jamming aircraft that attempted
to mask a simulated attack by an F-4 fighter. In another test, AWACS successfully controlled 134
friendly aircraft against 274 aggressor aircraft.

Accordingly, DOD certified to Congress that AWACS could indeed perform its mission in a hostile
environment. TAC took delivery of the first E-3A in March 1977. In the introductory shakedown
period with TAC, the AWACS aircraft, radar, and computers consistently exceeded the standards
set by the Air Force. The system achieved initial operational capability in May 1978.

Sales Proposed and Protested

The Ford Administration generated new uproar about the E-3A when it proposed in December
1975 to sell 10 of the aircraft to Iran—then regarded as a stalwart US ally in an unstable Middle
East. Among other considerations, the government hoped to recoup some of the research and
development costs.

The Carter Administration also wanted to provide AWACS to Iran, and Congress approved a
reduced sale of seven aircraft in October 1977, with some of the more advanced features
stripped out. None of them were ever delivered. The AWACS offer was canceled, along with a
pending sale of F-16 fighters, when the Shah of Iran was overthrown by the Islamic revolution in
February 1979.

The New York Times reported in April 1975 that NATO was considering a “mammoth order” for
AWACS. If it happened, it would be the first time the alliance acquired an aircraft that it would
operate as an international asset. Protests ranged from the usual shots about performance and
vulnerability to complaints that the offer price of $68.7 million per airplane was too low. Eagleton
tried to block the deal, accusing the Pentagon of “a patent subterfuge to obtain backdoor funding”
by selling AWACS at an artificially low price that amounted to “a theft on the US taxpayers.”
David Marash, writing in New York Magazine in May 1977, introduced a novel objection. He said
that Grumman, located on Long Island, had been forbidden by the Pentagon to bid against
AWACS for the NATO contract. Marash argued that NATO should have considered Grumman’s
E-2C Hawkeye, “one of the most advanced electronic systems in existence,” established “through
years of successful use in the Navy as an early warning plane with effective battlefield command
and control capabilities.”

The E-2C, which did not enter fleet service until 1973, corrected some of the problems of the
previous Hawkeye models, but it still could not see through the ground clutter over littoral regions
and land. Marash said the “slow-moving” AWACS would be easy to “knock down,” oblivious to the
fact that the E-3A, with four jet engines, flew at 530 mph compared to 375 mph for the twinturboprop Hawkeye.

NATO, with strong support from defense ministers of member nations, agreed in December 1978
to buy 18 AWACS aircraft. But a new round of opposition erupted in 1980 when the Carter
Administration proposed selling AWACS to Saudi Arabia. Carter’s main concern was protecting
Saudi oil production, six million barrels a day to the world market. Iran had already made an air
attack on a Kuwaiti oil installation in the course of the Iran-Iraq war and Carter worried that Iran
might try to close the Strait of Hormuz and oil shipments from the Persian Gulf.

The Reagan Administration picked up the plan and proposed offering Saudi Arabia five AWACS
aircraft. Critics protested that this would create a danger of technology compromise and pose an
unacceptable risk to Israel. Cockburn, sneering in his Wall Street Journal article, declared in any
case Saudi Arabia would only be getting “five costly pieces of junk.”

The Senate approved the Saudi sale in October 1981 with the proviso that some features of
greatest concern to Israel be eliminated from the aircraft.

AWACS Goes On and On

The NATO AWACS reached initial operational capability in 1983. By then, the United States was
regularly dispatching its E-3As in instances of crisis or trouble in various parts of the world.
Opposition receded as the E-3A demonstrated its capability and worth, but there was one final
spurt. The British had been interested in AWACS since the middle 1970s but held off because of
protectionist pressure to buy a home-grown command and control aircraft, the Mark 3 Nimrod,
instead. Nimrod was a modification of the de Havilland Comet airliner and primarily designed for
maritime patrol. After lengthy debate, the Conservative Margaret Thatcher government chose
AWACS in 1986, pointing out that Nimrod did not work nearly as well. The Labor Party
complained it was “a bad decision because a country can only defend itself on the strength of its
own industrial and technological base” and the procurement “handed Boeing a worldwide
monopoly in early warning systems.”

AWACS was one of the first aircraft to deploy to Operation Desert Shield in 1990 when US forces
in the Persian Gulf were still thin in the region. It kept constant watch on the activities of the Iraqi
Air Force during the buildup and subsequently flew more than 7,000 combat hours in Operation
Desert Storm in 1991.

The E-3 AWACS based on the original Boeing 707 airframe is currently in service with France,
NATO, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Japan operates four AWACS
hosted on the Boeing 767-200ER.

Of the 34 AWACS produced for the US Air Force, 31 still remain in the inventory. They have been
upgraded several times with enhanced computers and electronics and improvements to the
airframe. The E-3B upgrade in 1994 added five more mission consoles in the aircraft’s command
center. The 552nd Air Control Wing at Tinker AFB, Okla., is presently receiving the latest
upgrades to the E-3G model, with more improvements to the fleet projected through 2020.
Back when AWACS was new, Skantze predicted that it might continue in service for 20 or even
30 years. The ultimate rebuttal to the critics is that AWACS is in its 38th year of operation with the
end nowhere in sight.

John T. Correll was editor in chief of Air Force Magazine for 18 years and is now a contributor.
His most recent article, “The Year of the Kamikaze,” appeared in the August issue.

Post Reply