There are flaws in your reasoning.
In a real-life scenario, the purpose of a CBG is to project power onto land, not to remain far out at sea.
That means opposing battle networks come into play, of which the respective AWACs platforms are a key element.
So that is why I say the AWACs are challenging each other.
And if a CBG remains safely in its domain (far out at sea) - it is of little use in the real world.
I agree time on station is very important, which further underlines the advantages of land-based AWACs and land-based tankers.
You can run the numbers yourself with notional operating locations in the Western Pacific, the Middle East or in Europe.
Firstly, there are no real life historical scenarios where there are competing AWACs according to the meaning of “real life”. Name me one and we can have a conversation. Speculation of hypothetical scenarios do not count as real life because they are a product of your own imagination on CONOPs and how certain assets may be deployed.
For example, the lessons from the deployment of AWACs in Desert Shield and Desert Storm demonstrated primarily the use of E-3s for such 24 X 7 coverage. Additionally, it should be noted that the composite battlespace picture was a product of fusion of data from E-3, JSTAR and RC-135 Rivet because in a modern battlespace it is much more than simply the notion of AWACs. This is an actual historical “real life” employment of such assets in a high end scenario. AWACs alone do not have the complete range of capabilities required.
But in a high-end conflict, it is not feasible for carrier aircraft to operate next to their mobile airbase.
That places the carrier at high risk of being sunk.
So it forces carrier aircraft to operate much further away from the carrier, with the subsequent reduction in endurance and time on station.
You don’t know how the USN intends to employ its ISR assets in a high-end conflict because it continues to evolve. You are simply speculating. For example, 5 E-2D’s are typically deployed with a carrier as compared to 4 E-2C’s in the past. The USN is evolving in how it deploys its E-2D in a networked centric CEC environment. Two E-2D’s are normally on station during operations. I would expect the number of E-2Ds deployed will be more than 5 per carrier in a wartime mode and operating in multi carriers configuration.
Additionally, the battlespace picture is a fusion of data beyond just the E-2D because by design the E-2D is just the central node. It is a fusion of data from F-35Cs, F-18s, Growlers, P-8s, Tritons, surface assets, U-2S and possibly space based LEO assets. Central to this is the TTNT network and why all F-18 Block 3’s will be TTNT capable.
Yes you did.
Below, you state a transit time of 45min and 60min respectively for an E-2. At cruising speed, that translates into a 500km operating radius.
It's not my fault you didn't realise what you've actually written
I only stated endurance and on station time. The rest of the stuff is your own concoction of what that might translate to in terms of range based on your own assumptions. In other words, it is your own product, not what I said.
You are unbelievably dishonest in your interactions even when the facts are contrary to your claims. This is a recurring feature with you.
Yes, it is difficult to directly compare platforms, because so many characteristics are classified or just plain exaggerated.
But it's perfectly valid to say that land-based platforms generally have more range, more radar energy available and cost less.
And that a carrier-based E-2 will be facing land-based AWACs are part of their respective battle networks.
---
For example, a single carrier has four E-2D AWACs which cost $668M+
They can maintain a single continuous orbit at 400km from the carrier, without airborne refueling.
For the same money, it looks like China can buy nine KJ-500 AWACs ($75M each as per Pakistan export price)
Given the stated endurance of the KJ-500, three continuous orbits can be maintained at a distance of 1000km from their airbases.
So what is the better AWACs platform, given a contest between battle networks?
Capabilities specifically actual performances are classified. You get what you pay for. We don’t know the specifics across the different platforms and making assumptions that they are comparable is fundamentally flawed as a starting point.
I do not intend to engage in a black hole discussions as often that is the outcome given your personal worldview on such subjects.
Question is up there. He/she asked if E-2 Hawkeye is the only AWACS aircraft in service and the answer for that naturally includes mentioning other AWACS platforms.
Note that there are some air forces such as Egypt, operating E-2 Hawkeye variants instead of a larger land-based solution and that justifies any possibility to put these into a comparison.
The question is not whether there is justification in comparison. You have already made the comparison through your assertion that the E-2 is inferior. I am just waiting for your argument in support of your assertion.
