Talk:E-3 Sentry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the E-3 Sentry article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Orders to shoot down airliner September 11, 2001

Dear Netsnipe:

You recently commented after your edits, "E-3s are unarmed, so this source is highly doubtful. Please find more sources to corroborate."

I request that you please read carefully. No one at the University of St. Thomas nor Lt. Kuczynski, quoted in University publications, has claimed that E-3's are armed. The fact that the E-3 is unarmed casts no doubt whatsoever on the fact that the pilot of the E-3, a plane which coordinates battle commands, said he "was given direct orders to shoot down an airliner." You are conveniently ignoring the fact that Lt. Kuczynski's E-3 Sentry was accompanied by two well armed F-16 fighters. Two university publications have published these facts on two different occasions. These two university publications are within the standards of Wikipedia reliable sources. If have some actual evidence that the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) is a "highly doubtful" source please present it. The fact that the E-3 is unarmed is not in dispute and irrelevant to the facts established by the University of St. Thomas. Thomist 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. I think the problem is that, as posted, it implied that the Sentry itself would be shooting down the airliner. It'll need clarification if it's to stay in the article - which I'm not sure it should; it's a bit anecdote-ish. --Scott Wilson 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thomist has been insisting on putting conspiracy theories in other articles: United Airlines Flight 93, and Brett Kavanaugh. 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I have read in several aircraft books that E-3s are in fact armed with underwing AIM-9 Sidewinders for self-defence. 85.210.7.19 13:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The E-3C and later versions can be armed with 2 AIM-9Ps that fire backwards. However, I think that kinda disproves that conspiracy theory since it's nearly impossible to use them offensively. ZakuTalk 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless they've mastered the Russian "Cobra" aerobatic move ;} Akradecki 06:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh... well, since the AIM-9P isn't all aspect like the L or M, the E-3 would have to pass the airliner head on, lock onto the back of the airliner and fire. (sigh) ...nutjob conspiracy theorists... ZakuTalk
"All-aspect" is with respect to the seeker, not the target. Not that it gives the theory any more creedence. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The E-3 is unarmed. It has a common mount that could be used to carry an air-air missile, but there is no wiring, or cockpit controls for any weapon system.137.240.136.82 18:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has had operational experience on the US and NATO E-3 from 1985-2006, I can tell you the following, the E-3 is unarmed and it most likely will stay unarmed since diplomatically it is allowed into more foreign airspaces. When fighter aircraft are under it's control, they can use them as "weapons", however the kill command must come either directly from a higher authority or clearly outlined in the Rules of Engagement. The order to shoot down would never be given to the E-3 pilot, but to the Mission Crew Commander or Tactical Director in NATO. The mission crew is almost always in contact with a higher authority when operating, even in peacetime. On 9/11 the crews were in contact with NORAD regional headquarters. I have heard two unverifiable stories, one that the FAA tried to force an AWACS to land when NORAD declared SCATANA and one that the E-3 was told to look for one of the hijacked airliners without much information (A nearly impossible task given the sheer volume of air traffic in the US). It should also be noted that on 9/11 the AWACS were the only long range radars in most of the US interior but due to peacetime and timing of the attack I believe only a couple were airborne at the time. Radar on an aircraft was not enough to do an identification at that time. The hijackers turned off their aircrafts SIF making ground (FAA) identification impossible. Basically, we were blind inside the US at that time without SIF squawks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.122.140 (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E-767

Should a page about E-3s really have a section Units Using the Boeing E-767 a completley different aircraft. There is also Japan has four Boeing 767-based AWACS aircraft. No problem with a mention of the E-767 as an alternate platform but I believe the other information should be removed - any comments from watchers ? MilborneOne 22:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As nobody has commented I have removed E-767 units and amended Future Direction MilborneOne 09:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AN/SPY-2

Where does the reference to the SPY-2 come from? Isn't an SPY designation reserved for ships, while APY is normally used for 3-D Surveillance radar systems.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.82 (talk • contribs)

It's supposed to be APY-2 (I looked it up). As A and S are adjacent on the keyboard, it was probably a simle typo. Using detailed edit summaires for deletions is helpful to avoid others mis-understanding your reasons for deleting. - BillCJ 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I would just delete it, as you have to specify both APY-1 and APY-2, which are both in use, and the radome equipment for the radar is common to both, and mainly because it should be a more generic paragraph.137.240.136.82 18:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I would delete it as well. The antenna is part of the system, and APY whatever refers to the system in total. For example you wouldn't call it a AN/APY-1 12AT7 Vacuum Tube. You would call it a tube. Same with the antenna. K5okc 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tragedy

Wow! BillCJ, you've turned the whole thing into a tragedy. Might as well delete it all, as it is worthless to read now. 68.12.189.249 05:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Having verifiable sources is not a suggestion or guidline on Wikipedia, it's POLICY. If you aren't going to supply sources for the material you've added, then you're right, we might as well delete it. However, we have some good editors here in the Aircraft Project, and we'll get some sources lined up soon, and toss what what we can't cite. - BillCJ 05:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standing Over Shoulder

"(Reverted erroneous change by K5okc; please do not change template fields, as they will only work with specified words; Range is fine)"

BillCJ, please don't edit quickly like that. Give it a few minutes, and the person will be able to correct their error. If you want to jump in like that, it only causes more problems. I don't think you need to stand over everyones shoulder here. Take a deep breath and back away from the keyboard for a minute. I appologize for hitting the wrong key, I mean't to hit preview, and missed. Your jumping in there only caused me more problems. That may have been your intent, and I wish you would stop it, but I will give you the benefit of doubt this time. K5okc 01:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact you even mention it might have been intentional is insulting, and violates WP:AGF. I'm sorry we had an edit conflict, but that often happens. I've not seen you editing aircraft articles very often, and so have no idea the level of your competence in editing. A mistake like that is indicitive of a novice, and I don't apologize for reverting it, given the information I had at the time. I totally understnad now that it was a mistake on your part, having hit the wrong key many times myself. However, a simple edit conflict does not warrant the response you gave above. I'd suggest may you should stap away form the keyboard for awhile, and calm down. The more you edit on Wikipedia, the more these things will happen, given the amount of editors on WIkipedia at any one time. Remember, any edit can be reverted, and the change I made was constructice, as you had to use the same field anyway.
A hint: when it gives you the edit-conflict screen, it shows the conflict, and gives your edits in the bottom edit screen. JUst go th that screen and copy the changes you made, then paste them into the new edit. It's what I do when someone esle jumps in while I'm editing.
Second, if you intend to make a lot of changes you don't want interupted for a period of time (15 mins, for example), consider placing the {{tl|inuse} tag at the top of the page before you begin editing. This will let other users know you would like them to "step away from the keybord" for awhile. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cost of the E-3?

What was the cost of the E-3 manufacturing? Usual articles state the cost of the 68 aircraft and then the cost per aircraft when it's all averaged out. Tempshill 06:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

When I first started at Tinker and the planes started arriving, we were told they were 250M USD per copy. We were paying for R&D as well. At any rate, the first crews were composed of high ranking and high flight time personnel, and even the lowly airman on the ramp knew that to lose one would be the loss of a national asset. By the time the first two E-3's were destroyed, the total cost had come down, and there are a lot of aircraft that cost more today. K5okc (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expand How?

What exactly are we looking for in the requested expansion? ComputerGeezer (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not explaining sooner - I had hoped those familiar with the subject would regognize the deficieny, but I negleted to account for those not familar with the subject who might like to help out too!
The article covers none of the history leading up to the creation of the AWACS program, the competition, nor the early development of the E-3. For example, the section should mention that the aging EC-121 Warning Stars needed replacement, and the new capabilities that the USAF wanted. There is no mention of the original designation, "EC-137D", or the fact that the original design was to have been powered by 8 TF34 turbofan engines. In addition, almost all of the existing "Development" section should be placed in the "Design" section, as that is what it covers. Also, there is no variants section in the article listing the variants summary, which would include the EC-137D and all current or proposed designations. I have a few print sources with relevant info, and hope to get to it sometime in the future. However, my wiki-plate is pretty full for the time being, so it may be awhile, hence the tag. - BillCJ (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edits by 62.253.240.2 replacing "France" with "Saudi Arabia" in two places

Was patrolling changes and noticed two replacements (opening paragraph and side bar) of "France" with "Saudi Arabia." Quick research indicates that E-3 is used by both, so it is fine for Saudi Arabia to be added, but no need to remove France. Is there? (I'll leave it to the page experts to decide.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Only the top 4 users are listed in the Infobox. Saudi has more than France. Good point about the Lead though. No reason both can't be listed there. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Added France back into intro paragraph, infobox is probably OK as RSAF operate 5 aircraft one more than France and it is usual to use number operated as a qualifier for the more operators entry. MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)