E-7A Wedgetail

[Clark Griswold]

3 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

It’s not about smaller plane, biz jets can fly higher and faster which makes their sensors more useful.

Also, Boeing is terrible at producing aircraft now.

Copy and understand, I believe @ClearedHot mentioned in this or another thread the Israeli AWACS based on the G550, same platform for the new Compass Call, I could see that as a selling point for logistical support and their jet has some very high end capes

2 minutes ago, brabus said:

Those are all excellent reasons to NOT stick with the E-7 shitshow. E-7 would have been nice about 15 years ago, but obviously we’re well past that and it’s very sensible to drop that hot pile of garbage (from a programatic POV) in favor of better tech.

True, I’m just thinking the politics factor can trump the military capabilities factor here if not addressed 

Just as emotions often over power logic, it has to be considered 

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/air-force-cancels-e-7-wedgetail-citing-survivability-and-cost-concerns/

From the article:

During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing this morning, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, raised concerns that the E-2D might not be able to match the E-7’s capabilities, and cited prior statements from Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. Michael Guetlein that a space-based capability wouldn’t be available until the early 2030s.

“We just haven’t heard, in my view, sufficient justification for the cancellation of such a critical program,” Murkowski told Air Force leaders.

Jobs, money, prestige, etc… politicians want their constituents to have their fair share plus whatever else they can get.  I want my Congressman to do the same, I think trying to meet her plus other politicians half way on this while developing the orbital systems is the best way.

 

[brabus]

The E2D is great for current day; weird, a senator doesn’t know shit. 

[Clark Griswold]

The E2D is great for current day; weird, a senator doesn’t know shit. 

Nor sure her motives, could be the economic footprint of supporting a smaller platform or could be legit performance concerns

Didn’t catch all of her comments but if I were a staffer or mil liaison working for her, I’d make the argument for an E-7 not just for the combat C2 mission but for long range patrol and monitoring, peacetime to contingency planning. Air and surface surveillance.

The Arctic, maritime regions and maintaining a watch on long range patrols and joint ops occasionally being conducted by the Russians & Chinese are all examples of how not just in WW Taiwan how a long range multi sensor capable platform fits into the team.

Just dreaming and if money grew on trees…
Develop a MAX 7 based platform, the MAX is not a NEO but worth it for domestic considerations.
Referencing the defunct E-10 project, develop a GMTI capability plus long range EO/IR.
Develop this with the Israelis, leveraging their capes into a domestic modern platform (if not using the G550 based platforms)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

It’s not about smaller plane, biz jets can fly higher and faster which makes their sensors more useful.
 
Also, Boeing is terrible at producing aircraft now.

Life is about trade offs.

The easy counter to this is what kind of ground footprint required when we are talking about expeditionary basing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

[brabus]

I think the big hump for many to get over is the significant paradigm shift - peer warfare has rapidly changed and airborne C2, as we know it, is essentially obsolete (at least until we destroy a lot of adversary capabilities). So, we’ve had to look at other means to gain battle space awareness, ITW, data passage, etc. So again, yawn to the E7 getting shitcanned; G550s (or similar) to support the non-peer stuff.