Big, expensive, almost useless
We have already addressed this topic several times, and it is understandable and justified: “eyes in the sky,” an aircraft capable of “seeing” thousands of kilometers into enemy territory, tracking hundreds of targets and transmitting instructions to engage those targets – that is what an AWACS aircraft is in our language, or AWACS in Western parlance.
Priced at $500, with up to thirty specialists on board, slow and vulnerable, AWACS is a very "fat" target for anyone who can shoot down such an aircraft, be it a fighter pilot or an air defense missile system crew.
Yes, such an aircraft is very useful for everyone, precisely because of its long-range radars, high above the ground, and the ability to transmit information to anyone interested. That's why these aircraft attract so much attention from the enemy.
And in fact, there is no replacement for them yet. All these strategic Drones They are not capable of replacing fully-fledged AWACS aircraft, as they cannot lift and power such equipment, and, furthermore, the presence of a specially trained crew allows them to respond to changing tactical and strategic situations. UAVs are only capable of flying, capturing, and transmitting a rather limited amount of information via satellite.
Some may disagree, the AWACS aircraft crew does not have full control of the situation, but: it carries out the initial analysis of incoming information, and therefore is able to change the operation of the entire system if necessary.
Well, how flexible are intelligence agencies? drones, it would be better to ask the Houthis, who have already shot down more than two dozen American aircraft practically for fun.
But our topic is about AWACS aircraft. And it looks like these aircraft, in their current form, won't remain in service for long in the air forces of various countries.
So, AWACS is a dead end?
That's practically true. There are many arguments, and they're all valid. The fact that they're incapable of defense and maneuverability, the fact that they're subject to increased scrutiny, and the fact that these aircraft are essentially collective flying coffins for highly trained personnel.
And technological progress. When our Tu-126s and their Grumman E-2 Hawkeyes began to ply the skies in the 60s, missiles, capable of resisting them, let's say, they could fly very short distances.
The S-75 of that time could engage targets within a 40-kilometer radius, while the AN/APS-125 radar installed on the E-2C could detect up to 800 airborne targets at a range of up to 480 kilometers from an altitude of 9000 meters and guide fighters to 40 targets simultaneously. Thus, the AWACS aircraft had only one enemy—a high-altitude, high-speed fighter-interceptor capable of delivering an R-60 missile with a range of 10 kilometers to the attack line.
Today, of course, everything has changed. aviation The missiles exceed the 200-kilometer mark, while their ground-based anti-aircraft counterparts easily reach 400 kilometers. AWACS aircraft have become somewhat uncomfortable in the sky, not to mention the ground.
In the past, the loss of an AWACS aircraft was a real problem for any country's air force, usually followed by lengthy investigations, and sometimes the military personnel would retire in droves.
But the world is changing. Over the past three years, three nuclear powers have collectively lost at least five, perhaps six, such aircraft to combat. And this no longer surprises anyone or prompts any "red lines"; the entire world takes the situation quite calmly. It's more of a demonstration of capabilities and nothing more.
The Russian A-50Us were shot down by Patriot and S-200 missiles (which demonstrated the complete inability to defend against even such an old weapons).
Pakistani Saab Erieye-2000s – one was hit by an S-400 air defense system, the other was hit by a BrahMos cruise missile in a hangar near Islamabad.
American Boeing E-3 Sentry aircraft at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia suffered a combined missile and drone strike from the Iranian IRGC, after which one aircraft may be repaired (a matter of time and money), but the second one has definitely been destroyed.
In reality, the AWACS/AEW&C is such a valuable prize that it will always be coveted by interested parties. This valuable asset is worthy of an entire operation or a multi-day ambush to destroy it. The result will be worth it.
But the true reason for such a persistent hunt is one. It's such a valuable yet vulnerable asset that it can always be dealt with through a special operation or a successful multi-day ambush, as was the case with the Russian AWACS aircraft.
Even the Americans (Defense and TWZ) realize and write in their materials that today a state with more or less decent Defense and the Air Force is capable of eliminating such aircraft relatively quickly.
However, some American analysts say that new next-generation radars will make it possible to produce airborne early warning and control aircraft in the format of a tactical or multi-role aircraft, with onboard defense systems and maneuverability similar to a fighter jet.
There is a grain of truth in this, plane EW Based on the F/A-18, the E/A-18 Growler has proven itself to be a highly effective combat aircraft. The only drawback of this concept is the inability to comfortably accommodate a suitable crew for long-term operation. One or two operators would be unable to analyze such a data stream and effectively distribute it to users, unlike a team of 12-16 operators on board the Sentry. Furthermore, the aircraft's operational endurance would be limited to just a few hours.
Others predict a rapid transition of all this functionality to unmanned platforms, which, in my view, is even less productive. UAVs are not bad at collecting information. They are less visible than a Boeing or an Ilyushin and can gather certain information, but they are even more vulnerable to air attack (as has been proven time and again) than a normal manned aircraft, which can detect an enemy aircraft and take appropriate action.
Yes, the development of AI could strengthen the position of UAVs, perhaps to the point where strategic reconnaissance aircraft won't need to refuel intercepting aircraft. But that's certainly not tomorrow or even the day after.
But it's clear that the old "flying mushrooms" don't have much longer to live. In one of my previously published articles, I bet that AWACS aircraft would simply shrink in size, thereby becoming somewhat more stealthy and maneuverable. And as an example, I cited the Swedish Saab Erieeyea-2000, a very good AWACS aircraft in my opinion.
But alas, even here I was disappointed. Clearly, the Pakistani crew was simply unlucky enough to be within range of the world's best air defense system, the S-400. So even if AWACS aircraft were reduced to the size of a fighter-bomber, anti-aircraft missile systems would be indifferent.
And AWACS aircraft will disappear as a class, just as torpedo bombers, reconnaissance aircraft, and attack aircraft did before them. Attack aircraft, of course, are still in use, but the last Su-25 was produced in 2005, and the A-10 in 1984.
In principle, it’s not a big deal; entire classes of aircraft and ships were lost. artilleryThis is a normal course of progress. The other question is: what will replace it?
Satellites, money, and a future without mushrooms
It is believed that in the near future, orbital satellite constellations will play an even more significant role than aircraft and radar-equipped drones. Everything is moving in this direction, and the ongoing US-Israeli war against Iran is the best proof.
Since February 13, 2026, the Chinese space agency MizarVizion, which is close to the GRU General Staff of the PLA, has been publishing orbital images with detailed, down to the meter, display of American air bases with all military facilities and equipment, literally on a daily basis.
The fact that no one in the US or the Middle East has taken any notice of the data posted publicly on MizarVizion resources is, as we say, the problem of those who can't see.
And then, based on this data, Iranian missiles launched... And they launched well, two AWACS aircraft—that's a lot of damage. Yes, one aircraft could have been loaded, flown to the US, and repaired there... And that would have cost another $150-170 million.
And as if nothing had happened, MizarVizion continued to publish decrypted satellite images, this time with objective verification of the destruction of American bases. And one could only guess what information was being sent to Tehran through secure channels.
So, a satellite that can monitor a specific area of the Earth's surface is very useful. China currently has about 1,000 satellites in orbit, and it's hard to imagine how many of them could be used to replace reconnaissance aircraft. But the fact is, Iran, which lacks AWACS aircraft, manages quite well without them.
Of course, in a tactical situation that requires more rapid target tracking and decision-making, the use of aircraft and UAVs appears significant, but even here there are options.
And the Americans themselves admit this.
The US began talking about China's "destructive" participation in the events in the Persian Gulf, with the information coming from intelligence agencies.
"The Iranian military is using satellite imagery produced by the Chinese firm MizarVision, powered by artificial intelligence, to refine strike targets against US military installations across the Middle East. The imagery uses automatic object recognition and tagging, allowing operators to identify bases, equipment, and infrastructure in minutes rather than hours.
This capability shortens the kill chain and increases risk to U.S. personnel and assets by transforming commercially available data into near real-time targeting intelligence."
This capability shortens the kill chain and increases risk to U.S. personnel and assets by transforming commercially available data into near real-time targeting intelligence."
That's quite a high estimate. Indeed, receiving data from orbit in real time is extremely important, especially for a country whose strike power lies in its missiles. And the more accurate these missiles are, the more difficult it will be to deal with Iran.
Can satellites replace AWACS aircraft in operational and tactical terms? Yes, of course. In general, these "mushroom-bearing" aircraft today look very vulnerable, both to air defense systems and to aircraft. Yes, theoretically, they can provide cover from enemy aircraft with fighters, but that's a very limited option.
A fighter, even with external fuel tanks, can't "hover" as long as an AWACS. So, we're adding a flying tanker. That's another vulnerability.
Catching aircraft refueling could be a lucrative opportunity for attackers. Reinforcing security with additional aircraft during refueling... Modern warfare is a money war. And at this rate, any budget could be exhausted. Even the American one. This fuss with AWACS aircraft, fighter escorts, and tankers will eat up so much money... And most importantly, it will be perfectly trackable from orbit.
But clearing orbit of spies is much more difficult. However, since there are entire online communities plotting various ways to restore order at the top, we'll discuss the best way to do this next time.
Information