Engineer who took part in E-3 Sentry Development explains why the AWACS Tail is Coated with Dielectric Paint and why Long-Range Missiles are the Only Real Threat to the Aircraft

Engineer who took part in E-3 Sentry Development explains why the AWACS Tail is Coated with Dielectric Paint and why Long-Range Missiles are the Only Real Threat to the Aircraft

By Dario Leone
Mar 5 2022
Share this article

Why don’t hostile fighters go after the E-3 Sentry AWACS before being engaged (and in many cases being shot down) by NATO fighter aircraft?

Advertise

The E-3 Sentry is an airborne warning and control system, or AWACS, aircraft with an integrated command and control battle management, or C2BM, surveillance, target detection, and tracking platform. The aircraft provides an accurate, real-time picture of the battlespace to the Joint Air Operations Center. AWACS provides situational awareness of friendly, neutral and hostile activity, command and control of an area of responsibility, battle management of theater forces, all-altitude and all-weather surveillance of the battle space, and early warning of enemy actions during joint, allied, and coalition operations.

Engineering, test and evaluation began on the first E-3 Sentry in October 1975. In March 1977 the 552nd Airborne Warning and Control Wing (now 552nd Air Control Wing, Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.), received the first E-3s.

As proven in operations Desert Storm, Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and Odyssey Dawn/Unified Protector the E-3 Sentry is the world’s premier C2BM aircraft. They provide radar surveillance and control in addition to providing senior leadership with time-critical information on the actions of enemy forces. The E-3 has also deployed to support humanitarian relief operations in the US following Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, coordinating rescue efforts between military and civilian authorities.

The data collection capability of the E-3 radar and computer subsystems allowed an entire air war to be recorded for the first time in the history of aerial warfare.

Why don’t hostile fighters go after the AWACS before being engaged (and in many cases being shot down) by NATO fighter aircraft?

‘You got some interesting answers,’ says Jim Grupé, who was one of the systems engineers responsible for the design and development of AWACS, on Quora.

‘I was one of the systems engineers responsible for the design and development of AWACS. It happens that one of the studies I did was on the vulnerability of AWACS to enemy attack. This was in the 1970’s when the E-3 plane was first produced, so my information is rather dated. I’m sure improvements have been made.

NATO E-3 print
This print is available in multiple sizes from AircraftProfilePrints.com – CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS. E-3A Sentry, Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS), LX-N-90443. NATO E-3A Component, Geilenkirchen Air Base, Germany

‘First off, AWACS had two basic missions types. In one case, the plane loitered at some distance and surveyed the horizon. I can’t give you numbers, but the radar is very accurate for a very long distance. (So accurate, we could tell by the radar signature what the target was, what armaments it was carrying, and how many were left.) In the event an enemy fighter came our way, we would simply call up our own fighters to take them out. I did the calculations for “probability of kill” in various scenarios, and the net of it is that AWACS was not likely to suffer any dents.

‘The second case was more of a problem. This is where AWACS was over the battlefield providing ground support. (Besides aircraft, we could pick out vehicles on the ground even under dense cover). The problem in this situation was that the enemy aircraft might be right below us, or at least quite close. For this situation, we would need our own forces to fly alongside. Unlike AWACS, however, their time in the air is much more limited, so we’d need constant cycling of our defensive forces. Probability of kill was still high, but not so high that every crew position didn’t have an escape hatch.

‘The real problem was long range missiles. AWACS was radiating loudly on so many frequencies that a spit ball thrown into the air would likely be drawn to it by the static charge. Only a missile with a guidance system made in China might miss. Survivability was under 3 minutes unless the countermeasures were successful, which many times they are…. but many times, are not.’

Grupé continues;

‘So, we depended on careful deployment to NOT get us into those situations.

‘At this point, I think the best answer is that no fighter would go after AWACS because that would likely fail. But, if the enemy hoped to engage in any dogfighting, they had better start with a few long-range air defense missiles.’

According to Grupé the AWACS also ‘contributed to the invention of stealth technology. You see, when AWACS turns and runs, it’s own tail got in the way of the radar and created a 30+ degree blind spot. After various solutions were considered, like inverting the tail, or making it out of some composite material, these were abandoned when someone discovered that they could make the tail all but disappear with a careful coating of a dielectric paint. WHOA! That *literally* saved AWACS’ ass, but very quickly became a VERY big secret…. not to be mentioned again anywhere. It led to the F-117. But 40+ years later, it’s now out of the bag so it doesn’t matter anymore.’

E-3 DRAGON modification

Photo credit: Master Sgt. Dave Nolan / U.S. Air Force


Share this article

Dario Leone

Dario Leone

Dario Leone is an aviation, defense and military writer. He is the Founder and Editor of “The Aviation Geek Club” one of the world’s most read military aviation blogs. His writing has appeared in The National Interest and other news media. He has reported from Europe and flown Super Puma and Cougar helicopters with the Swiss Air Force.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Comments

  1. Parker says:

    E-3 systems engineer…OK. How about we hear from some aircrew who studied, briefed, and executed a successful (simulated) attack on an E-3?…

  2. Parker says:

    I think it was F-4s from Ramstein who used cover as part of a gorilla strike package to execute the attack. Ramstein Rhinos suckered the Egojets on Cap. Allegedly, weapons simulated included Sparrows, Sidewinders, and, even video footage of a guns run. Showed the rotodome turning. This was in the ‘80s.

    • Dario Leone Author says:

      If you have any additional info about this story, feel free to forward them to us and we will be happy to write an article an quoting you 😉

Share this article


Share this article
Share this article

Always up to date! News and offers delivered directly to you!

Get the best aviation news, stories and features from The Aviation Geek Club in our newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox.



    Share this article
    Back to top
    This website uses technical and profiling cookies. Clicking on "Accept" authorises all profiling cookies. Clicking on "Refuse" or the X will refuse all profiling cookies. By clicking on "Customise" you can select which profiling cookies to activate.
    Warning: some page functionalities could not work due to your privacy choices