Regarding the two Russian A50 shot down during the Ukraine war, but it would also apply to US style AWACS.
Beside the price-tag of the plane itself, I would expect that the crews operating the radar are also highly trained, and that if it may be even harder to train a crew than to build a new plane.
I know, that something as simple as pulling the big-red handle on your paraglider harness is pretty hard when you’re in a severe flight incident dealing with G forces and the ground moving full speed toward you, and I imagine it’ll be even harder on a large plane, where you need to access a escape hatch, most likely in a burning and depressurized cabin while having no idea where is up/down due to the G-force and the rotation. However, when flying a plane which like a high value target for the opposing army it would at least feel more comfortable to know that you have a low but non zero chance to escape if you’re shot down.
I don’t think the design of the plane allows for it.
In fighters, it blows the canopy, triggers a rocket in the seat that gets the pilot clear of the disintegrating plane, and eventually deploys the chute.
These types of planes don’t have a canopy. They’re also much larger, which means it’s much more difficult to get clear.
You don’t necessarily have to have ejector seats - WW2 era bombers for example relied on the crew making their way to a hatch to bail out. Despite being a considerably lower chance of survival than modern systems (not helped by various positions having to crawl through narrow spaces to escape and/or find and put on their parachutes due to not having space to wear them during normal operation) the option of bailing out saved a large amount of people.
Most WWII planes were brought down with gunfire, or other passive projectiles. These tended to do small amounts of damage, that added up. E.g. A plane with 2 damaged engines on 1 side, and a cut fuel line on the other, can still glide for quite a while.
Modern missiles are designed to do maximum damage over a large area. A missile hit will generally render an aircraft unflyable. The aircraft will be in an extreme tumble, if not coming apart completely.
In short, a modern plane being shot down won’t give the crew a few minutes and a stable platform to bail out from. It will be a tumbling whirl of wreckage, rapidly approaching the ground.
i thought those planes were purposefully kept far out of reach for most weapons as they don’t need to be that close for their operations. those crews prolly arent expecting to being fired on
Bet the crews of the two or three awacs they have left are a lot more paranoid these days, whether they’re in “safe” airspace or not.
AWACS had parachute and some chut you could slide out at one time. Don’t quote me on that entirely. They simply were not worth it. First most accidents happen and have happened on takeoff and landing. No good in that situation. In a war environment, getting hit by a missile, pretty much the only weapon that will take down an AWAC or similar. Missiles likely won’t give crew time to escape. Plane will be doing some kind of tumble. Then you got training. It not simply train once and all good but every year. Sometimes it is better to use that money and time to provide better alternate training that will be more effective. Say for more escort aircraft or better alternate safety systems within the aircraft. You also have the space it takes up resulting in less functionality of your aircraft.
In a large scale world war III scenario, AWACs and similar would be a dangerous plane to crew. Shot down rapidly. In our current warfare situation, they are one of the safer planes to be in. Unless you are Russian and incompetent.
Being Russian and incompetent tend to be dangerous nowadays
So, redundant?
In a war environment, getting hit by a missile, pretty much the only weapon that will take down an AWAC or similar. Missiles likely won’t give crew time to escape. Plane will be doing some kind of tumble.
But is that an instant death, or is that like 1-2 minutes tumbling in a burning inferno before everything goes black.
Is there a functional difference?
A big one when you"re in that plane. In the first case you don’t know what happened. In the other you’re strapped to a chair, get G load, breathe smoke and know you’ll die. It’s the case where at least trying to reach an escape hatch gives you something to do during you’r last minutes of life
Neither case would benefit from a parachute.
Sometimes it is better to use that money and time to
provide better alternate training that will be more effectivebuy a weeery big yacht, comrade.
Those two AWACS were the first in the world to be ever shot down. It usually is a suicide mission to even try. They are deep in enemy territory, covered by friendly SAM and fighters. The only place for a fuckup would be liftoffs and landings.
I can’t speak to a Russian plane but I can speak to it from the US side. Wearing a parachute and survival gear makes it nearly impossible to do your job, you can barely walk around in it. Also If training Russians is anything like the US aircrew’s training, you really only practice using the gear on the ground and once every couple years. Going into a combat zone you don’t expect to have to use it and it’s essentially just sitting there in a closet. And not only do you have to have the presence of mind to put it on, but you have to strap on your crew mates gear as well. Then find the usable door. Then jump out of a plane which you’ve certainly never done before. Unless you’re in a slow controlled descent it’s basically impossible to do
deleted by creator
