European Choice: A Kick in the Arms of Boeing and Northrop Grumman

12 088 47
European Choice: A Kick in the Arms of Boeing and Northrop Grumman

Something strange is happening in the world. Countries that have been developing and producing airplanes since the invention of the airplane aviation equipment, now they buy it from others. Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan – story There are many wonderful aircraft built in these countries, there is no point in listing them, and matters of taste are also complex.

Today, things are different. Britain, whose Mosquitoes, Lancasters, and Vulcans inspired fear and respect, is now buying American-made F-35s. The same is true for Italy. Germany is still wearing out its Tornados and Typhoons, but unless it finds a way out of the sixth-generation impasse, it too will have no choice but to buy the F-35.



But besides fighters, almost every country's air force also has other aircraft, including AWACS. And it's these that we'll discuss, since the situation with them is exactly the same, but slightly reversed.

Saab's GlobalEye will be NATO's next airborne early warning and control (AWACS) platform, announced at the alliance's summit in Ankara, Turkey. The decision to purchase 10 GlobalEye aircraft for NATO follows the selection of Sweden, France, and Canada, and a flurry of new military equipment orders under the alliance's broader defense spending program.

GlobalEye has become NATO's latest acquisition for its missions. This is particularly interesting, as the Swedes have never played a leading role in global aviation. While they have occasionally built very good aircraft, including combat aircraft, this turn of events was completely unexpected.

The acquisition of GlobalEye comes amid numerous announcements about expanding NATO's capabilities in the areas of unmanned aerial vehicles, maritime patrol aircraft, tankers, and troop transport aircraft. Against the backdrop of global conflicts, NATO's rearmament is a logical move, as the tides of war are changing so dramatically that it must keep pace as quickly as possible.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte announced that NATO will begin formal negotiations with Saab regarding the acquisition of the GlobalEye system. The system will include Saab's Erieye Extended Range radar, other sensors, and a command and control (C2) system based on the Canadian-built Bombardier Global 6500 business jet. Saab has not yet signed a contract or received an order, and negotiations are apparently ongoing at the highest levels.

"We are honored and proud to support NATO in developing its next-generation airborne early warning and control system," said Mikael Johansson, President and CEO of Saab. "We are confident that GlobalEye is the right choice for the Alliance, as it offers proven performance, adaptability, and long-term operational benefits. Today's announcement clearly demonstrates that GlobalEye is the world's leading advanced airborne early warning and control system solution. We look forward to the next steps in these negotiations."

The North Atlantic Alliance desperately needs a replacement for its fleet of 14 Boeing E-3A Sentry airborne warning and control aircraft, which serve with the NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force based at Geilenkirchen Air Base in Germany.


U.S. Air Force E-3 aircraft on the runway at Geilenkirchen Air Base.

GlobalEye's path to cooperation with NATO was rather convoluted. The implication is generally clear: it's completely transparent who the AWACS aircraft will be targeting in Western Europe. Back in 2023, NATO announced its plan to "take steps to acquire" six Boeing E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft, the first part of an initiative called Initial Alliance Future Surveillance and Control (iAFSC).

NATO's initial selection of the E-7 took into account price and availability, as well as the experience of previous E-7 procurement programs, particularly in Australia, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

At the time, NATO determined that the E-7 was "the only known system currently capable of meeting the Strategic Commands' core operational requirements and key performance parameters and available for delivery within the required timeframe."

However, last November, the Dutch Ministry of Defense announced that NATO had abandoned plans to purchase the E-7, stating that the program had lost its "strategic and financial basis." This decision was also prompted by uncertainty about the future of the US Air Force's Wedgetail program.

At the time, Dutch State Secretary for Defence Gijs Tuinman said the goal was to have the new airborne early warning and control aircraft in service by 2035, referring to the date the E-3's service life would end.

It's difficult to say what went wrong with the E-7. But the project itself is mired in rumors and omissions. What can be said with certainty is that the E-7 AWACS and control aircraft (Boeing 737 AEW&C, Australian codename Wedgetail) was originally developed by Boeing under a 1999 contract for the Royal Australian Air Force, and Australian industry is the supplier of several of its subsystems.

The aircraft is based on the Boeing 737 NG passenger airliner (in the Boeing 737-700ER modification) and is equipped with a Northrop Grumman Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) radar system with an active phased array antenna (AESA) in a fixed, extended dorsal fuselage fairing.

The Royal Australian Air Force received six E-7 aircraft between 2009 and 2012 (the aircraft were actually built by 2006, but their development took considerably longer) and declared them fully operational in May 2015.


Besides Australia, the E-7 was in service with the UK, Turkey, and South Korea, but the US and European countries were not among the aircraft's operators. And now, a Canadian aircraft is making a U-turn toward the Swedish complex.


A Saab Gripen E flies alongside GlobalEye.

Last year, Saab said it could deploy GlobalEye to NATO in 2031.

The Netherlands was one of seven partners participating in the AWACS replacement program, along with Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Norway, Romania, and the United States. However, the United States later withdrew from the program.

The cancellation of the E-7 meant that GlobalEye became the only viable candidate, as it was the only other Western AEW&C aircraft in production. The Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, a carrier-based turboprop airborne early warning and control aircraft, is also still in production.


Saab also benefits from the fact that GlobalEye has already been ordered by France to replace its E-3F Sentry airborne early warning and control aircraft, as well as Sweden, and, as expected, Canada has selected it. Saab has offered the aircraft to Denmark and Finland for joint use. The company also confirmed that Germany and Poland have "expressed interest" in GlobalEye.


GlobalEye AEW&C

Meanwhile, demand for AEW&C aircraft is growing across Europe as the security situation continues to worsen, according to European officials.

Russia's intransigence has increased the need for persistent, wide-area surveillance and airspace control, while the broader range of operational scenarios is also driving renewed interest in airborne early warning capabilities.

Poland became one of the latest countries to invest in this capability, taking delivery of two twin-engine turboprop Saab 340 airborne early warning and control aircraft equipped with the older Erieye radar system. Similar aircraft have also been delivered to Ukraine, demonstrating the growing importance of these platforms on NATO's eastern flank.


Saab presented Poland's first Saab 340 airborne early warning and control aircraft during a ceremony in Linköping, Sweden, on September 29, 2023, just two months after Poland placed an order for two of the aircraft.

Appearance in the Russian-Ukrainian theater of military operations drones, regularly operating in or near NATO airspace, has accelerated the implementation of this requirement. AEW&C aircraft have excellent top-down surveillance capabilities, making them well-suited to detecting and tracking low-flying threats, including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and winged aircraft. missiles, which may be difficult for ground-based radars to detect.

At the same time, they provide an aerial picture of activity across the entire battlespace, tracking potentially hostile movements on land and at sea.

Saab notes that GlobalEye is particularly good at detecting stealthy and low-observable threats, as well as drones, ballistic and hypersonic missiles, even in challenging environments characterized by a large number of decoys and electronic jamming.

At this stage, it is unclear what will happen to NATO's previous plans to develop a manned airborne early warning and control aircraft as part of an integrated sensor network that includes drones and other types of aircraft that can perform surveillance and data collection functions, as well as space systems.

This reflects the US Air Force's approach, which viewed the E-7 more as a solution to bridge the gap between the retirement of its aging E-3 aircraft and future space-based radar systems and other classified developments. This was largely driven by concerns about the survivability of traditional AWACS platforms in modern air combat.


U.S. Air Force E-7 Wedgetail. Drawing

For NATO countries in Europe, the transition from the E-7 to GlobalEye represents a return on investment in their own defense industries. European officials are increasingly turning to local manufacturers to meet their defense needs, part of a broader effort to reduce their traditional dependence on the United States, which under the Trump administration is viewed as a less reliable strategic partner.

Meanwhile, in response to the deteriorating security situation in Europe, a number of expensive procurement programs were unveiled at the NATO summit. However, as expected, the US defense industry was heavily represented in them.

Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Norway announced they will acquire up to five Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton HALE unmanned aerial vehicles. They will join NATO's Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) fleet, currently based at Sigonella Air Base in Italy and consisting of five RQ-4D Phoenix Q-4 series drones. In addition to the Mediterranean and Black Seas, these drones will operate in strategically important regions of the Arctic and the High North.


An image of an MQ-4C Triton with NATO markings.

"Our collaboration with NATO and the U.S. Navy strengthens the alliance's land and maritime surveillance capabilities," said Jane Bishop, vice president and general manager of Northrop Grumman's Global Surveillance business. "Like Phoenix, Triton conducts surveillance at higher altitudes and with longer endurance than medium-altitude systems and is poised to provide NATO with new capabilities and operational flexibility to monitor and protect maritime interests from the Mediterranean to the High North."

It is unclear whether the NATO version of the Triton will differ significantly from the US Navy version, which is focused on surveillance of large maritime areas and can also conduct signals intelligence (SIGINT).

Other maritime patrol acquisitions include Denmark's first two P-8A Poseidon aircraft. They are believed to be particularly useful in the Arctic and the High North, as well as in the context of Greenland, which Trump has repeatedly stated should remain under US control. Denmark's entry into the P-8 community also opens opportunities for close cooperation in anti-submarine warfare with Canada, Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom, all of which are Poseidon customers.

"With the maritime patrol aircraft, Denmark will significantly strengthen its capabilities to ensure sovereignty and monitor the region,"
— stated Danish Defense Minister Jeppe Bruus.

It's even somewhat cynical: Denmark is planning to strengthen its position in Greenland, which is claimed by the United States, with the help of aircraft designed and manufactured in the United States.

While the GlobalEye deal still needs to be agreed and finalized, today's announcement effectively cements the aircraft type's status as NATO's next airborne early warning and control platform.

This is a real victory for Saab in the increasingly competitive military aircraft market, and underlines a wider shift towards European-developed defence capabilities as the alliance seeks to modernise in response to a rapidly changing security environment.

In reality, the same old money is behind all this. Rapidly deteriorating relations between European countries and the United States, thanks to US President Trump's unconventional policies toward NATO allies, are naturally leading European leaders to want to keep the money in the EU.

It's not a given that a fully developed E-7 Wedgetail will be better than the GlobalEye. It's certainly worth taking a closer look at both aircraft.


So, the E-7A Wedgetail is based on the P-8 Poseidon, which in turn is nothing more than a Boeing 737.


This medium-sized aircraft has a wingspan of 35,8 meters, a length of 33,6 meters, and a height of 12,5 meters. Its maximum takeoff weight is 77,5 tons.

The engines—two CFM International CFM56-7B27A turbofan engines with 118 kN of thrust each—provide a maximum speed of 905 km/h and a cruising speed of 853 km/h. The practical range is 6,482 km, and the ceiling is 12,500 meters.

Crew: 2 pilots and 6-8 operators.

Overall, it is a standard strategic AWACS aircraft; of course, there are larger ones, like the Russian A-50.

But the Swedish product differs in the direction of reducing everything.


The GlobalEye has the following dimensions: wingspan of 28,7 m, aircraft length of 30,3 meters, maximum takeoff weight of 45,2 tons.

Engines: 2 BMW Rolls-Royce BR710A2-20 turbofan engines, thrust 65,6 kN. Maximum speed 1005 km/h, cruising 905 km/h, range 11,000 km, ceiling 15,500 m.

Crew: 2 pilots and 4 operators.

What do we see? The GlobalEye, which has already been dubbed a "tactical AWACS aircraft," is somewhat smaller and almost half the weight of the American aircraft. Of course, the American aircraft was originally developed from a regular passenger airliner, while the Swedish one was developed from a business jet. This explains its more fuel-efficient engines, which allow it to cover much greater distances. So, it's difficult to accept that the GlobalEye is a tactical aircraft.

But its size suggests that Europe has decided to purchase an aircraft that will present a smaller radar footprint than its American counterpart. The development of anti-aircraft missile systems and air-to-air missiles has made the AWACS aircraft an excellent target: slow, unmaneuverable, and unarmed. That's precisely what enemy crews and crews need.

Much can be said about the defense systems, electronic warfare, and so on capable of protecting an aircraft. But the best demonstration of these systems was the downing of a Russian A-50 aircraft over the Sea of ​​Azov, shot down by a very ancient missile from the Ukrainian S-200 air defense system. This demonstration of "effectiveness" is remembered by everyone whose official duties include it.

No one is saying that the Gulfstream, on which GlobalEye is based, is capable of performing aerobatic maneuvers to evade missiles. And it's not capable of such a feat. Its only advantage over the Boeing 737 is that it is actually less visible and can maneuver slightly better when attempting to evade enemy missiles.

But, apparently, this is precisely where half of the reasons for the Europeans’ choice lie.

The second half is that Saab has succeeded in solving the rather complex problem of creating a truly multifunctional airborne complex for airborne early warning and control, maritime reconnaissance and electronic intelligence.


This unified "three-in-one" aircraft could be of interest to countries that, for one reason or another, cannot have specialized aircraft systems to address each of these missions separately. Therefore, Saab is seeking to consolidate and expand its success by offering GlobalEye AWACS systems to other countries. Some have already expressed interest, such as South Korea and Finland, whose global locations necessitate the protection and defense of their land and sea borders.

In general, it can be concluded that there is growing global interest in precisely this type of airborne early warning and control system—one that is both moderately sized and maximally versatile. Most of these so-called tactical airborne early warning and control aircraft are equipped with the Erieye radar system, developed by the Swedish company Ericsson, a division of Saab since 2006.

One of the reasons for the Erieye system's popularity is its modular design, which allows for modernization and modification at the customer's request, as well as the expansion of its capabilities through "field upgrades."

The developer's website states that "the complex is upgraded for each new customer. Although it has a similar appearance, the interior is completely different. As a result of this policy, each customer receives the most modern technologies."

Another important feature of the system is its compactness and relatively low weight, which allows it to be installed on various platforms, including jet and turboprop airliners or business jets.

It's fair to say that the Europeans' choice was to reduce everything: funds, construction materials, and potential losses should GlobalEye become involved in modern military conflicts. Moreover, as experience has shown, AWACS aircraft are more often lost on the ground than in the air.
47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 10
    14 July 2026 04: 43
    This is all interesting, but what good does this choice do the Russian Armed Forces? We can't even fully deal with the drones NATO has deployed to Russia's enemies; we haven't mastered accounting for our own A-50s (A-100s)... It seems Headquarters has its own methods of warfare, but we'll never know about them...
    Although, what's there to know: we have different weapons based on different physical principles, but we won't use them...
    1. +9
      14 July 2026 06: 02
      Quote: yuriy55
      This is all interesting, but what good does this choice do the Russian Armed Forces? We can't even fully deal with the drones NATO has deployed to Russia's enemies; we haven't mastered accounting for our own A-50s (A-100s)... It seems Headquarters has its own methods of warfare, but we'll never know about them...
      Although, what's there to know: we have different weapons based on different physical principles, but we won't use them...

      One of the reasons holding Russia back from more decisive action around Ukraine is the unpreparedness of some elites for a real head-on clash with the West. The West demonstrated its capabilities in Yugoslavia, then in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, and Iran. Iran survived, but at the cost of dozens of members of the country's top political elite. Our elite is not prepared to sit in bunkers, especially when many have children living in the West, and who knows what else they have there? It's not for nothing that almost everyone who falls out of favor immediately flees to the West.
      1. + 10
        14 July 2026 07: 19
        Quote: vkfriendly
        One of the reasons holding Russia back from taking more decisive action around Ukraine is...

        ...the ability to enrich oneself at the expense of Russians and become billionaires during a war... Yes
    2. 0
      16 July 2026 22: 16
      No, it's all clearly written – E7 will help get rid of E3, i.e., not only see moving targets but also hear them. There's no need for that...
  2. -6
    14 July 2026 05: 58
    Interesting material, thank you. Now that the NATO-led Banderites have reached Siberia, protecting the Trans-Urals, Siberia, and the Far East is crucial. The Gulfstream-based AWACS is a modern platform with modern detection devices. It could be used as the basis for our AWACS aircraft to protect Siberian airspace. We have the aircraft for this, the Yak-40, which sits in storage in the hundreds. The main thing is that we have someone to develop and build it. These are the Novosibirsk Institute of Flight and the Krasnoyarsk Aerospace Academy, formerly a plant-university college. The situation in the skies is such that we need to patrol the skies around the clock. Army AWACS based on the IL-76 that are capable of flight can be counted on one hand. And as the saying goes, a drowning man's business is to save himself. Realistically, for full combat duty, at least 10-12 aircraft are needed to protect the skies around Siberian cities around the clock. If Novosibirsk residents take this on, all the territories and regions could pool their resources to subsidize it. Unfortunately, there's little hope for Moscow to contribute. hi soldier
    1. -2
      14 July 2026 07: 08
      And buy from the Swedes. It will be faster anyway.
    2. +6
      14 July 2026 08: 38
      You could at least read the performance characteristics of the Yak-40, it’s an AWACS after all, an aircraft from 1965...
      1. 0
        14 July 2026 09: 50
        Please read how Novosibirsk engineers modernized the Yak-40. It features a black wing, composite construction, two engines instead of three, a speed of up to 700 km/h, a doubled range, and new electronics. It meets all modern requirements. hi
        1. +3
          14 July 2026 10: 30
          the flight range has been doubled
          - Do you mean from 900 km to 1800 km? bully
          1. +1
            14 July 2026 10: 54
            I looked at the performance characteristics of the modernized Yak-40 with a composite wing and two engines, with a range of up to 5000 km. The latest Yak-40s flew fully loaded for up to 1800-2000 km. In 1974, I myself flew from Igarka to Krasnoyarsk with a full cabin, a distance of almost 2000 km without stopovers. hi
            1. +2
              14 July 2026 11: 55
              You forgot to mention that the modernized Yak was equipped with American Garrett TFE731 engines.
              And Soviet modifications with increased range weren't produced. Is your last name Andersen? The same as Hans Christian (the storyteller) bully
              You might as well remember the diesel Pe-8s...
              1. 0
                14 July 2026 12: 45
                So what? Do you want checkers or should you fly? As they say in Odessa. Everything was manufactured, I have a ton of friends who are pilots and flight engineers, and your last name is Doubting Thomas? The An-2 is now being upgraded with an American engine in Novosibirsk, and should people in the north not fly out of patriotic convictions? hi
        2. +1
          14 July 2026 17: 32
          The operational time of a Yak-40 with a composite wing, even with additional fuel tanks, cannot exceed 3 hours (more likely 1-2 hours—don't forget the time it takes to enter and return to the patrol area). Calculate how many aircraft (at least 3) and crews (at least 8) that would require to cover the skies around the clock.

          And try comparing it to the E-3 (9-11 hours) or E-7 (10-12 hours) – which are perfectly capable of covering the skies with two aircraft and three or four crews. I don't have exact data on the Saab, but I heard somewhere about eight hours of patrol (plus flight time) – so again, only two aircraft are needed, unless you need four or six crews.

          So it turns out that the only domestically produced aircraft currently suitable for use as an AWACS base is the Tu-204/214, but that's not certain (since there's no one to revive the old ones, and there's not much to use, while Kazan can only promise new ones). And of course, the Superjet—thankfully, both Sukhoi Civil Aircraft and the new Yakovlev are currently the only adequate manufacturers, and they're also capable of listening to their customers. Plus, installing additional fuel tanks in the trunks (and perhaps even in the fuselage) would easily increase the operational time to a respectable 8-10 hours (plus the time it takes to reach the zone and return to the airfield), making it quite feasible to operate with two aircraft and four to six crews. A very positive factor is the availability of several dozen "grounded" aircraft, which can be returned to service fairly quickly (at least not longer than the design and production of radar equipment) and at a low cost. And even re-motorizing them with PD-8 will require less time due to simpler certification procedures for military vehicles (compared to internationally recognized procedures for commercial vehicles - at the same time, experience will be gained for re-motorizing the latter).
          1. -1
            14 July 2026 18: 42
            In my comment, I outlined the problem of protecting cities, industry, and civilians in the Trans-Urals, Siberia, and the Far East from missile and UAV threats. Sorry, not the entire country, but the region where I live. I'm proposing what's available now and can be quickly equipped or armed with the necessary equipment. It's fast and relatively inexpensive. I don't see any other existing aircraft that could be quickly equipped with an AWACS besides the Yak-40. What other aircraft in our Gulfstream class could be used to create an AWACS? Can you tell me? The modernized Yak-40M is available in metal and composite construction and with fuel-efficient American engines, and it flies. In fuel-efficient mode, it can fly in its zone for 10-12 hours; the crew physically can't handle more. And an unmodernized Yak-40 in fuel-efficient mode will stay in the air for 6-7 hours. And its patrol and patrol zone is near protected cities like Novosibirsk, a city of 1.5 million, Krasnoyarsk, a city of 1 million, or Omsk. The missile threat increases with increasing range, and we need to prepare for it in advance. If there are other solutions, please let them do so. Since I live in the European part of Russia, I don't want to be under fire. soldier
    3. +4
      14 July 2026 09: 33
      Quote: V.
      There is a plane for this, it is the Yak-40.

      The Superjet 100 is suitable for this purpose. The Superjet is larger in size than the Saab GlobalEye, but its maximum takeoff weight and engine power are roughly the same.
      1. +4
        14 July 2026 09: 55
        I'm not against the Superjet 100, but it's still in demand for passenger transport, which is tight. And there are Yak-40s sitting in storage, many of which have never flown and are halfway airworthy. hi
        1. +1
          14 July 2026 10: 32
          From the storage sites, their only route is to non-ferrous metals...
        2. +1
          14 July 2026 13: 09
          I'm not against the Superjet 100
          - I'm against it stop , but I vote for Yashka good More precisely, I vote for a fundamental difference in production, i.e., the concept—from design to the first production aircraft. All this is wonderful—new factories, modernization, import substitution (I believe we will, by the way), technology, and other components of aircraft manufacturing progress! But here's the problem, as I see it: in the USSR, the entire civilian aircraft fleet was built after a particular aircraft was accepted by the USSR Ministry of Defense and designed according to their specifications, and only then was the decision made to adapt the aircraft to civilian needs. And now, the uncompromising priority is profit and profit margins, not the state's need for reliable aircraft. This needs to change, or rather, return to the "first for the Army, then for the people" mentality. And I'm not sure that the originally civilian "Super-Duper-Sotka" would be able to perform anything in a critical situation in extreme aerobatics—it would just fall apart. But the Yak-40 can do it, even though it was designed as a pure replacement for the Il-12 and Il-14 passenger jets, building on previous developments for military and sport aircraft. I also believe removing a third crew member from the cockpit is unacceptable for military aircraft! Therefore, the Yak-100 is also unsuitable as an AWACS; someone has to handle the aircraft's defenses without being distracted by piloting, while the Yak-40 has three people in the cockpit: two pilots and one flight mechanic! The Yak-40 was designed as a medium AWACS by the Yakovlev Design Bureau (though it wasn't intended to be one), but one only has to look at its variants and everything becomes clear – the "K," "DTS," "AQUA," "LIROS," "SHTORM," "PHOBOS," "REO," "KALIBROVSHCHIK," and others. Yes
          1. 0
            14 July 2026 13: 35
            Frankly, I was a bit cowardly when I said I wasn't against the Superjet 100, so as not to stir up controversy around it. I completely agree with you about the Yak-40. The Yak-40 as an AWACS aircraft was already in the drawing boards, and a life-size wooden model was rolled around the deck of our aircraft carrier. It was designated the Yak-44. We could really use one now.
            Our country, with its vast expanses and harsh climate, needs a third crew member. Once planes are made entirely from our parts, all these Frankenstein Superjets, this hodgepodge of parts collected from all over the world, will disappear and become scrap metal. There's nothing there to even use as ideas. Thanks for the comment, I learned a lot. God bless you! hi
            1. 0
              14 July 2026 15: 48
              Thank you. I knew nothing about the Yak-44. request Health and peace to your home. drinks
              1. +1
                14 July 2026 17: 49
                And it's not worth it in its current form. The Yak-44 is a copy of the E-2, having nothing in common with the Yak-40.
                1. +1
                  14 July 2026 18: 04
                  The Yak-44 is a copy of the E-2 and has nothing in common with the Yak-40.
                  - I looked and agree. But how useful this modified Yak-44 would be right now. Thanks to you too! For your objectivity! recourse And regarding Tushka, I objectively agree with you! good
            2. 0
              14 July 2026 17: 48
              The Yak-44 has nothing in common with the Yak-40 - it is, in fact, a copy of the American E-2 (both in size and in layout).

              You may have been referring to the An-71, which is based on a modified An-72 (with a new tail section). It was even built in metal and tested, but the "blind" radar system failed the first prototype, and a second one with updated equipment was never built due to the collapse of the USSR.
              But it shouldn't be used as a model due to its short operating time—alas, its fuel-guzzling engines (of which it has three, though the third is only needed for takeoff and landing) and limited fuel capacity, despite its large size, limited its operating time to just four hours. And if we're talking about re-engining, it's better to look at the incomparably more modern SSZh than at a plane produced abroad more than a quarter of a century ago...
        3. 0
          14 July 2026 17: 38
          Quite a few of these aircraft, especially the early ones, have been retired for non-objective reasons (often due to aircraft failure and the lack of willingness on the part of our airlines to use subsidized aircraft for used ones instead of ordering new ones for their own needs). Plus, some of them have become engine donors for the fleet—well, that's just another excuse to practice re-engining in real-life flight time, but without the extremely stringent requirements for commercial aircraft.
  3. IVZ
    +9
    14 July 2026 06: 15
    Its only advantage over the Boeing 737 is that it is actually less visible and can maneuver slightly better when trying to evade enemy missiles.
    The difference in the radar cross-sections of these aircraft won't affect their detection range even with the radar inoperative, as the Saab's radar cross-section is still enormous. There's also a difference in maneuverability. No matter how good a business jet's maneuverability is, it's impossible to talk about evading missiles. But their economic, operational, and airfield performance are a different matter.
    1. +2
      14 July 2026 08: 20
      There are several options for evading a missile, not all of which involve literally defeating the missile kinetically. For example, there's the option of going to a 9:00-3:00 course and jettisoning the dipoles, or the more reliable option of going to a 9:12-3:00 course and deploying a jamming generator. Also, maneuverability is always a good thing during takeoffs and landings.
    2. +2
      14 July 2026 12: 49
      It's like comparing a Volvo and a Kamaz.
  4. +2
    14 July 2026 08: 32
    For NATO countries in Europe, the transition from the E-7 to GlobalEye means a profitable investment in their own defense industry.

    Despite the fact that the GlobalEye deal still needs to be agreed upon and completedToday's announcement effectively cements the aircraft type's status as NATO's next airborne early warning and control platform.

    American airline lobbyists haven't yet managed to offer Dodik a "small share" after the "250" and the World Cup!... It's quite possible that some components of the "Swedish product" originate from the States or countries that can't refuse them. We'll see.
  5. 0
    14 July 2026 08: 43
    But its size suggests that Europe has decided to purchase an aircraft that will present a smaller radar footprint than its American counterpart. The development of anti-aircraft missile systems and air-to-air missiles has made the AWACS aircraft an excellent target: slow, unmaneuverable, and unarmed. That's precisely what enemy crews and crews need.

    It's a little less noticeable, but the RVV's homing head will reliably lock onto such a target. It's not stealth.
  6. -2
    14 July 2026 09: 56
    So it's all clear. NATO = USA, Canada = the 52nd state. The "European" GlobalEye is based on a Canadian aircraft. So, the Americans will be dead set on the Europeans when it comes to this class of equipment. Any hiccup and there won't be any aircraft or spare parts, or the aircraft's software might even display the "I WANT COOKIE" message during a scheduled update.
  7. +1
    14 July 2026 11: 11
    The A-50 example isn't representative. It's a truly ancient aircraft, and it had to fly relatively close to the front lines. If Russia had seriously pursued such technology, this might not have happened. However, the Swedish aircraft has a right to exist, as it's cheaper and more widely available, because it would have to fly closer to the front lines, and here, in a potential conflict, losses are inevitable. The conclusion is that early warning can be formed based on a small number of E-3 or E-7 aircraft, and a large number of Saabs.
  8. +1
    14 July 2026 11: 30
    Why beat around the bush? It's clear that the era of large air defense systems, and not just missile defense systems, is coming to an end. Much is being done to downsize the platforms on which they'll be deployed, as well as to increase the required performance (range, accuracy, selectivity, etc.) and survivability. Therefore, solutions have long been proven and are moving toward deployment on small and medium-sized aircraft and low-orbit satellites. As for our Tu-4XX aircraft platform, for example, building satellites, albeit not particularly good ones, and heavy rockets for launching them are manageable (the main thing is desire, the allocation of resources, and the use of past know-how), but microelectronics and radioelectronics are in a shambles. As even the article itself demonstrates, we clearly cannot do without our own schools and industries in radio communications, radioelectronics, and microelectronics. But how to manage this and restore/rebuild our schools and industries in these areas are major, systemic challenges for a large country and/or group of countries. As the government declared: we are the world's third pole, and it's time to move from slogans and fairy tales for the mob to real action in governance, economics, science, and technology. And military technology will be built on this foundation. Otherwise, we will all (many) be like Africa, where external players will solve their problems for us. And the princelings, at the snap of a finger from the outside, will turn into hamsters, because they have no rearguard. Or, to put it more simply: a large and robust state machine with a developed economy, science, and technology.
  9. +1
    14 July 2026 11: 31
    We are exactly missing a plane like this in the SVO!
    I just can't understand why the Kremlin doesn't want to do ANYTHING for its country? It doesn't make any planes, but it's been planning to for years! The president declared the need to produce 1000 planes (of its own) by 2030! And where are they? They assembled 4-5 planes in 2024... At this rate, how many will we make by 2030? And today I read the plant is on the verge of bankruptcy.
    The "Armata" tanks they boasted about before the Second World War are nowhere to be found at the front! And the media and TV are silent about it. How are we going to defeat the enemy? Russia has been lagging behind in everything in recent years; there's no progress. It's terrible to watch!
  10. +1
    14 July 2026 11: 41
    [quote=ankon]We just need a plane like this in the SVO!
    I can't understand why the Kremlin doesn't want to do ANYTHING for its country? It doesn't make any planes, but it's been planning to for years! The president declared the need to produce 1000 planes (of its own) by 2030! And where are they? They assembled 4-5 planes in 2024... At this rate, how many will we make by 2030? And today I read that the Voronezh plant is in bankruptcy proceedings. The developer of the flap systems for the MS-21 and SJ-100 is facing bankruptcy.
    The "Armata" tanks they boasted about before the Second World War are nowhere to be found at the front! And the media and TV are silent about it. How are we going to defeat the enemy? Russia has been lagging behind in everything in recent years; there's no progress. It's terrible to watch!
    1. +2
      14 July 2026 15: 42
      Quote: ankon
      And today I read that the Voronezh plant is in bankruptcy proceedings. The developer of the flap system for the MS-21 and SJ-100 is facing bankruptcy.

      After all, no matter how much a chess player dresses up in tricolor down jackets for the amusement of Moscow and St. Petersburg audiences, no matter how much a Kinder Surprise egg prances like a young goat before yet another phony youth movement for the children of the well-fed masters of life, London's henchmen (the entire chain of command from top to bottom) are faithfully carrying out their mission to destroy Russia with their own hands. And no revolution is in sight. As soon as the people begin to grumble, they'll immediately deploy a multi-million-strong Wahhabi group, so that the people, defending their homes and families, will have no time for protest.
    2. -2
      14 July 2026 18: 09
      1)
      He wants to. But he's stunned by the gap between the "capitalists'" promises and their actual actions. In reality, only the seized factories and their inner circle (who, apparently, have non-capitalist methods of pressure) are able to produce any results.
      2)
      More than half of the promised 1000 aircraft are small aircraft, which are of no use to anyone worldwide at current prices (and the government can't afford to fully subsidize them due to the SVO). So, we can safely write off this part.
      The MS-21 and SZh-100 are fully developed (just in case, developing an airplane isn't a piece of cake; it takes world leaders 5-7 years. In our case, only three years have passed since the start of the SVO, and both aircraft are already in full swing undergoing testing. The MS-21 has even passed its "baseline" and is awaiting certification to begin commercial flights). And any technically complex production always has a "mastering" phase, during which production is significantly lower than after reaching design capacity (and for aviation in the modern world, this period takes a year or two). So, while it's likely we won't be able to produce all 400+ aircraft of these types by 2030, there's still plenty of time to get close.
      3)
      The deployment of Armata tanks in the SVO in quantities exceeding those required for field trials can only be described as sabotage. These vehicles were designed for close-quarters combat, not shootouts and combat engagements where UAVs are the primary lethal force. As a result, their combat effectiveness is only slightly superior to that of the T-90M and even the latest modernization of the T-72, despite their incomparably higher (by a factor of several times!) cost and labor-intensive production.
      What's really missing, however, is the BTR-12 (BTR-82A with a front-engine configuration and rear-mounted troop entry) and mortars on a light self-propelled chassis, which don't require a ton of time to reposition. The drone situation seems to have improved recently. At least in the combat zone, we have plenty of these "birds" on our side (yes, a good portion of this is due to the efforts of volunteers, not the government, but at least it's something).
  11. 0
    14 July 2026 12: 27
    What the author allows himself to do:

    Intractability Russia has increased its need for continuous surveillance over a large area and control of airspace...
  12. +1
    14 July 2026 13: 34
    If the US is the dominant power in NATO, then the US can dictate who and what the EU purchases. But if it is no longer the dominant power in NATO and constantly irritates and blackmails the EU, then the EU will favor its own suppliers. The EU has almost all the necessary weapons expertise. This, in turn, will lead to its own political preferences within the EU.
  13. -3
    14 July 2026 16: 20
    AWACS aircraft are an instrument of aggression. They operate in enemy territory.
    For the purposes of defending YOUR territory, it is quite sufficient and will be cheaper to deploy modern ground-based radars, as well as radars on slow-moving carriers, including crop dusters and airships... Their operators must be located on the ground.

    Therefore, we shouldn't copy and paste and build expensive AWACS. We need to focus on mass-produced and affordable AESAs, their software, and the development of tactical deployment strategies.
    1. +3
      14 July 2026 18: 24
      If only God could hear your words, he would laugh heartily...
      Because there's a concept called the "radio horizon" that's so harmful to advanced minds (physics, you harmful bastard). And no matter how sophisticated the radar, it won't be able to see the "enemy" beyond the radio horizon.
      And the only known way to increase the range is to raise the radar higher. You can mount the antenna on a 50-meter mast, and instead of just 3-4 kilometers, you can "cover" a whole 25.
      Or you can go as far as 4-5 kilometers—and then the detection range is limited only by the radar's capabilities and the target's stealth. And that's for the price of the radar carrier aircraft (often several times less than the cost of the radar itself). A third option is tracking from a specialized satellite—but for small targets, this is orders of magnitude inferior to the capabilities of a ground-based radar or AWACS (due to the extreme distance from the target and distortions as the signal passes through the different layers of the atmosphere and ionosphere), and it's not much cheaper than an AWACS aircraft.
  14. 0
    14 July 2026 17: 23
    Europe never purchased E2, nor even planned to. Both Canada and Sweden are NATO members, so both the money and the technology will remain in their pockets. And after Trump's harsh demarches against his allies, he'll soon have no one to play golf with, let alone sell AVAKS.
  15. +1
    14 July 2026 17: 24
    Quote: also a doctor
    AWACS aircraft are an instrument of aggression. They operate in enemy territory.
    For the purposes of defending YOUR territory, it is quite sufficient and will be cheaper to deploy modern ground-based radars, as well as radars on slow-moving carriers, including crop dusters and airships... Their operators must be located on the ground.

    Therefore, we shouldn't copy and paste and build expensive AWACS. We need to focus on mass-produced and affordable AESAs, their software, and the development of tactical deployment strategies.

    Ground-based radars have poor visibility (or don't see them at all) of low-flying cruise missiles.
  16. 0
    14 July 2026 21: 36
    The doctor said something sensible and agreed. Someone mentioned small-size aircraft, too, and there's a grain of truth in that—fighters should carry containers, and network communications—that's probably the solution. But there's no manpower or time to build new ones, and nuclear weapons are keeping the enemy at bay.
  17. -1
    15 July 2026 07: 43
    Quote: yuriy55
    This is all interesting, but what good does this choice do the Russian Armed Forces? We can't even fully deal with the drones NATO has deployed to Russia's enemies; we haven't mastered accounting for our own A-50s (A-100s)... It seems Headquarters has its own methods of warfare, but we'll never know about them...
    Although, what's there to know: we have different weapons based on different physical principles, but we won't use them...

    Rate? A dubious term.
    Leopold's nest would be a better description of the situation.
  18. 0
    16 July 2026 15: 14
    I'd like to remind you that the equipment on board is much more expensive than the launch vehicle. Significant miniaturization of the equipment is also necessary, and that's cutting-edge technology, but sanctions are a factor.
  19. 0
    18 July 2026 21: 00
    Most likely, all the "goodies" are "hidden" in the weight and dimensions of the equipment and the software of the processes...
  20. 0
    4 August 2026 02: 46
    In the mid-1980s, 10-12 E3s flew from Geilenkirchen per day, five times a week, from morning until evening. You could use them to check your watch. The planes were over 40 years old. They were long overdue for replacement.