Why haven't Europeans made an AWACS plane using their Airbus A320 as base?:
https://x.com/SwedishPM/status/1936458616581804394?t=3IHYG0w6tPhIt3z7M_qK7g&s=19

I think the real question should be...
Why haven't I taken a shit today?

Euro politicians radiate plebbit energy with an intensity beyond that of a thousand suns.

>>63874508 (OP)
Better question, why is the U.S. abandoning its E-3 Sentry and E-7 Wedgetail and opting for the 1960s E-2 Hawkeye as there replacement?

>>63874618
Fuck, I mean "their" not "there"

>inb4 ESL

well does it still make sense to use big airliners as AWACS instead of smaller jets considering how much radar technology has changed between the E-3 and today?

>>63874638
you are an esl monkey though

>>63874618
Because in any pacific campaign the number of runways that can support the e-7 is limited compared to the e-2.

>>63874508 (OP)
Because Euros only expect their awacs to have to fly along the Russian border.

>>63874742
That has literally nothing to do with it, the E-2 is proposed as a stopgap until the satellite system is running. AWACS is going to die under protest due to budget cuts. More people should watch defense committee hearings.

Although it’s not locked in stone yet because the budget hasn’t been submitted — the DoD is probably fighting it out to decide what gets axed, so it may be that the USAF can save the E-7.

>>63874508 (OP)
a) they wouldn't benefit from most of the advantages it woffers as much as the US or other global players
b) AWACS isn't a priority in until very currently very tight budgets
c) within NATO the US provides a lot of AWACS, command and control, satellite and other intelligence capacities so building out your own capacity is kind of spending twice to end up with less than twice the capacity
d) it isn't interesting for industry because of the aforementioned reasons the US has a better product it could start selling if they felt like Europe needs it and they can be trusted with it