So short range only then.. the distance is hard to judge in the first instance but the second seems to suggest that its ~2 to 5 miles. so around 7 seconds of warning

The DAS will provide full 360 deg. (solid) situational awarness. If a plane is comming from behind/lateral you wouldn’t notice; with DAS you will.

Also, try to look down in a normal jet. You’ll see your legs and the floor. With the DAS and the new helmet, you can see what’s under you. So, no more blindspots.

Finally, the DAS/HMS is accurate enough to fire 360 deg. around, when the sidewinder 9X block II (with datalink) will be available (that’s earlier than the F 35 will be oprational). Look this way: with older jets, in WVR fights, you can fire in a 20-30 deg. cone (that’s what HUD allows you). With present day fighters (well not all, AFAIK, EF, Rafale and Grippen, do not have yet a functional HSD :p), using a HMS, you can fire at 180 deg. (frontal semi-sphere). With DAS that’s full sphere.

Hawkeye is a good asset to a carrier indeed, but they are still a niche in the market, optimised for naval surveillance, slow moving etc.
it still got some goodies like the brand new solidstate emitters..

In the article I mentioned, they said that the older versions (actually even the one flying now in USN) suffered, indeed, of limited performances over land: that’s the penalty for using a different set of frequencies than the land-based AWACS. These frequecies, offer the Hawkeye (even if it’s much smaller than the AWACS) a longer detection range, but only over sea. However, the new “D” resolve this problem, so it can perform over land as good as over sea, while retaining the range advantage. Also, NorthropGrumman offer a land based version with 8 hours flying time (instead of 3 hours for the carrier-based version -in this case because the wings must be folded on the deck, you can’t use them as fuel tanks)

Regarding which AWACS is more capable, I red somewhere an article about the new E2D. the author was extatic about the performances.

He said 10 years ahead was too early, and 2 years was too late for a buildup, so lets say he suggest 6 years.
Are you under the impression that China are about to conquer the world militarily anytime soon ? if ever ?
He suggested proportional timely response, should the need ever arise, which is not even likely.
Or are you talking about Taiwan ? So USA would wage war for a country they don’t even dare to recognize ?

It’s a good bet USA will continue saber rattling for as long as is profitable,
(i.e access to cheap electronic components while at the same time make money on gun running)
Then when enough saber rattling to be credible become unprofitable, it will be handed over just like Hong Kong, and in much the same way, One country-two systems/elections etc.

Where did I mention Taiwan in my post? I just said that the solution proposed by the author (investing mainly in R&D and little in aquiring the developped items) is not viable-IMHO.

What was the premise in your opinion?

To me it seemed like the article was mainly about three things:

a) calling for a strategic reevaluation of a position as world police
b) proposing to force the defense departments into prioritizing their procurements more strongly instead of entertaining a defense spending culture where budgets keep increasing due to motivations cultivated by domestic politics (political positioning where being unconditionally pro-defense-spending-increase is equated with being patriotic, and state/district industry pork)
c) asking for a sober and realistic reassessment of the actual current and short-term (hinging on deployment readiness and buildup latency) threat situation

What was the premise in your opinion and how was it flawed?

He may be right in describing the situation (Iraq war was dumb, US must not regard itself as the word policeman, etc.), but those are truisms. However, the main solution proposed:

The correct way to hedge against the long-term China threat is by adopting a mobilization strategy: developing plans and organizing resources now so that military capabilities can be expanded quickly later if necessary. This means carefully designing a system of readiness to get ready — emphasizing research and development, professional training, and organizational planning. Mobilization in high gear should be held off until genuine evidence indicates that U.S. military supremacy is starting to slip toward mere superiority.

is childish. It might work in WWI, when US shifted its economy to war production in around 6 month. Nowadays, it would take years. By then any war would be over. Also spending only the R&D part won’t bring many savings. Look at the F 22 program: more than 1/2 of the costs are R&D ! Not to mention that it took years to fine-tune it to became an operational fighter.

As I said, the price discution was just a cheap diversion. The subject was that Sweetman and Kopp questioned the F 35 qualities, before all. Or, up to now, neither LM or NorthropGrumman failed in producing excelent fighters. Why on earth would they now, on the biggest military contract ever?

That’s your own problem. You cannot force commercial sector to buy goods they don’t need/don’t want. Companies and consumers will buy according to their own preference and have every right to do so. But military hardware is public/govt spending and as such should follow different scheme – keep jobs at home even at some (reasonably) higher expense/tradeoff.

:p:p:diablo::D:D
It would be suicidal for EU economies! If EU forbids US to enter its miltary market (worth maybe 3% of the GDP), than the US will forbid EU to enter with all its exports (CIVILIAN&MILTARY) in US!