new | show | ask | jobs Github

defrost 5 hours ago

Expanding on that, for interest:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array

* https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2003/02/11/294058...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-role_Electronically_Scan...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-7_Wedgetail

▲

throw0101d 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-7_Wedgetail

Somewhat interesting in that the Pentagon did not want the E-7 (as a replacement to the E-3):

* https://www.twz.com/air/e-2-hawkeye-replaces-usaf-e-3-sentry...

nominally because it wanted to spend the money on more E-2s, which can operate on smaller and rougher airfields, which would be handy in (e.g.) the Pacific where tiny islands don't necessary 'fancy' runways that the E-7 needs.

But they're actually very handy in tracking tiny targets—like drones—so Australia is sending E-7(s) to the Middle East:

* https://www.twz.com/air/massive-leap-in-ability-to-spot-iran...

Congress rebuffed the Pentagon's attempted to 'completely kill' E-7 acquisitions, and the USAF has now put in an order, and it may be that people now realizing having some number of E-7s may be handy:

* https://breakingdefense.com/2026/03/following-congressional-...

	▲	markhahn 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		little unclear what drove the E-7 thing - my impression is that accelerationists on the political side wanted to push for space-based defense, and drove the attempt to cancel. it is a reasonable point that any airborne radar is an attractive target to long-range missile. and that if your radar is in space, it's a different, less available class of missile to attack it (and also that so far treating space as contested is taboo). the recent loss of THAAD radar should also make people rethink how to make an emitter that survives the first round of missiles.