Are you really reading my original argument?
I said the two engined AWACS would have to return to base if one of their engine were to fail since it would not have enough electricity to power all the radar systems making it worthless on the battle field.They would not have to ditch the plane but the result would be similar not being able to fulfill their mission.
Have you read mine?
My position is that a two engine AEW&C has less redundancy for flight. That is to say, if an engine shuts down, the twin engine aircraft will have to return to base.
I do not know if a single engine shut down will cut off half the power to the aircraft, and the design of the aircraft may be able to mitigate such an engine shut down. However I believe the importance of having multiple engines is more relevant for keeping an aircraft airborne than its redundancy for providing power to the aircraft during a mission, because I think that even if an engine shut down occurs on a four engine plane during a mission it will most likely be scrubbed rather than be forced to continue.
I.e.: if an engine shut down occurs during a mission, whether it is a four engine AEW&C or a two engine AEW&C, both will likely return to base rather than continue their mission. The difference is that the four engine AEW&C can afford to lose another engine before getting home.
I was not suggesting that a single engine shut down on either a four engine or twin engine AEW&C would result in the crew having to ditch the plane -- that only applies for twin engine versus single engine planes like fighters.
I would also ask, if you believe that mission viability of an AEW&C depends on electrical power for the aircraft, why do you think it's viable for a four engine AEW&C to continue with only three engines (say, 75% of normal capability) while it is suddenly not viable for a twin engine AEW&C to continue with only one engine (say 50% of normal capability)? Is that difference of 25% enough to make a four engine AEW&C that much more attractive despite all its other shortcomings compared to a twin engine AEW&C (maintenance, drag, fuel), keeping in mind that twin engine special mission platforms are widespread and thus likely considered to be very reliable?
By contrast, my position is that a one engine shut down of either a four engine or two engine AEW&C would likely result in the mission being scrubbed, not because of the reduced power generation, but because of the greater risk of losing the plane if more engines fail. And I see this as the main benefit of having multiple engines -- it provides greater ability for the aircraft to get back home if things go wrong.
As for the E-2C/D although they are stable platform due to it's small size it does not fit the mission to maintain 24/7 coverage to cover the entire Japanese border in which E-2 would need to return to base after 6~8 hours requiring more planes for patrol rotation.The larger airframe such as the E-2 provides space for a second shift with rest space making it possible for much longer patrol time per flight.
I mentioned the E-2 to say that it is possible to mount a powerful radar aboard a small platform, not to say that it is the optimal AEW&C platform by any means.
Obviously it is preferable to have AEW&C based off larger platforms to have more endurance, consoles, crew endurance/rest, etc, and this is something I have mentioned before in reply 1390:
In fact I would argue that having a larger platform for one's AEW&C is better than having a smaller one as that means more consoles, more power, more processing, more fuel and endurance, and more space for crew rest during missions.
