Hacker News Reader

The problem is going to be keeping an AWACS close enough to command and control the fighters while not risking getting it shot down. An F-22 or F-35 (or even an F-15) is going to be a lot more survivable than an AWACS.

View on HN

> is going to be a lot more survivable than an AWACS.

AWACS have vastly superior radar and electronics. It's going to see threats long before they are in range. And it's going to direct interceptors to deal with those threats long before they are in range.

I don't believe an AWACS has ever been shot down.

This lists a few times when AWACS detected and directed the destruction of threats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_shootdowns

Many advanced nations now have "AWACS killer" missiles with 400+km ranges. I think this is why the sensor suites on 5th generation aircraft are so good.

An AWACS has never been flown in an area where it is likely to get shot down. That RADAR is a nice juice target for a HARM, and the maneuvers you can do in an AWACS is not nearly what you'd be able to do in any fighter. I don't understand what you are arguing. Are you suggesting an AWACS would be more likely to survive an attack than a fighter?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com