Talk:Airborne early warning and control

Requested merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• The result of the discussion was merge, and move to Airborne Early Warning and Control. Only objection was from a user who has been inactive since Dec. 2007, except for 2 edits on this page in the discussion. - BillCJ (talk) 16:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Airborne Warning and Control System → Airborne Early Warning, and move to Airborne Early Warning and Control.

• Proposal - Both articles cover most of the same material. AEW was the early historicl term for E-1/early E-2 era aircraft, including Avenger and Gannet AEWs and the EC-121. The E-3 AWACS added the capability of control, and the term AWACS was then applied to similar aircraft such as the Nimrod AEW and the Russian AWACS-type models. Today, the nuances of both terms are usually covered by the combined phrase "Airborne Early Warning and Control", as almost all such aircraft can perform both the earliy warning and comand and control missions.

(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for details on performing mergers.)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

• Support - Per my nomination. - BillCJ (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I always have believed that AWACS was the term for a specific system, specifically the Boeing/Westinghouse system used on the Boeing E-3 Sentry and Boeing E-767, which is the only reason I am opposing. If I am correct in this belief (and someone with more experience in this matter may have to inform me), then the AWACS article should be altered to reflect this, and the other, general AEW&C system information should be moved to that article. Otherwise, it would be injustice to the true AWACS system. SAWGunner89 (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm extremely confused as to why you've voted "Oppose": The only specific E-3/E-767 content is two lines, plus the user info, which would belong on the aircraft pages, not a program page. What you seem to be asking for is a new page here on the E-3 AWACS program, with the existing info merged as I have proposed. I'm not sure a dedicated AWACS article is necessary, as the E-3 page should be sufficient to cover the history of the program, along with the radar and E-767 pages. Where do we go from here? If I go ahead and merge the non-E3-/-E767 info, all that will be left is 2 lines (assuming I don't add more info, which I probably would do). But you've "opposed" the merge. - BillCJ (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've asked for further input from WP:AIR. - BillCJ (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - No reason to have largely redundant articles. The combined article can cover the older terminology. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - One article approaches from a country by country angle and the other chronological, subjects would support each other if merged. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - There is only one "AWACS" (it's an acronym) and there is already an article on it, the E-3 Sentry. These two articles should be merged into "Airborne Early Warning and Control" (AEW&C), which is the modern technical term for this type of aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of AEW&C aircraft

I can provide a fairly complete list of AEW/AEW&C aircraft. However, I'm not sure this article needs an even more extended list of aircraft types and detailed Operator info. We could include operators as a column in a list. We could also have a column which identifies radars. Introduction dates and service status are other possible entries. Any discussion on what would be the preferred approach here? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I believe I remember a single Lockheed Constellation or Super Constellation being used for AEW experiments.
• Furthermore, I want to mention the Sea King AEW version (British, for aircraft carrier use) and a Russian Kamov helicopter type/version for AEW. I believe helicopters are covered by the "aircraft" definition and should therefore be mentioned. Lastdingo (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

On the Connie, that experiment is probably covered under the EC-121 Warning Star article, which is the production AEW Connie. The two helicopters are covered in the text, but just were never added to the list - simple oversight. The whole article still needs improvement and consolidation, but I keep getting sidetracked with other projects. I'll try to get to it it the near future. Mark, I agree we probably don't need the detailed operators list, and will try to work that into the text if I can. - BillCJ (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Italian Navy EH-101 AEW? Chwyatt (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting removal of Pe-2 Gneis-2 system.

This aircraft have nothing to do with neither Early Warning nor Control. It was simple radar equipped night fighter controlled via ground based long range Redut radar which also provided all necessary early warning. An it wasnt first radar equipped night fighter.

So just delet following text:

"In 1942 an experimental radar station, called "Gneis-2" was installed onboard Soviet dive bomber Petlyakov Pe-2. During successful tests a target plane was detected on a distance about 300 meters. On July, 1942 "Gneis-2" airborne radar was approved by Soviet military authorities."

--83.167.116.137 (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Magic

I heard on air craft investigation that theese aircraft used a callsign of "magic <number>", is this true and if so is it restriced to one particular air force? Plugwash (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is true that some aircraft use the callsign "MAGIC", it is a NATO callsign for a operational E-3s, but it is not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

NATO as operator

The NATO E-3's needed to have a nationality as every aircraft. NATO agreed to choose the nationality of its smallest member to avoid prestige issues. The NATO E-3 are therefore registered as aircraft in Luxembourg. I think that should be added. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E-3_NATO_Luxembourg.jpeg Lastdingo (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

True but this is just an overview article and that level of information is not really needed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Airborne Early Warning and Control → Airborne early warning and control —

Lowercase spelling of "airborne early warning and control" is correct and necessary unless it's a proper noun, in other words when part of the official name of one of these systems in a specific country or military alliance. See for example Britannica: Over-the-horizon radars and AWACS (airborne warning and control systems) are even more promising. Uppercase spelling of the lemma would violate Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Acronyms_and_initialisms. --Espoo (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose a move, and to gain a consensus for it. - BilCat (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You are defending a personal opinion and preference by revert editing, which is always a very bad idea but especially bad considering that you provide no source for your personal preference and in addition simply ignore the arguments and reliable sources provided. Since your personal preference also violates Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Acronyms_and_initialisms, it's you, not me, who needs to get a consensus for your proposed move. --Espoo (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

When showing the source of an acronym, initialism, or syllabic abbreviation, emphasizing the letters that make up the acronym is undesirable:

Incorrect: FOREX (FOReign EXchange)

Incorrect: FOREX (foreign exchange)

Correct: FOREX (foreign exchange)

— Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Acronyms_and_initialisms

It's my impression that the burden of proof is on the move proposer, not the defender of existing naming. MOS for Military terms suggests talkpage consensus determines the outcome in arguable cases. A closed merge discussion above demonstrates previously accepted naming consensus as recently as February 2008. So here we are discussing a change in talk page consensus. Burden is on User:Espoo to prove the case. Here, I'm not certain the section User:Espoo quoted is directly relevant to this discussion. I'm more concerned with consistency inside the page than any naming worry. Starting with the introduction, this page badly mixes two styles: the style used in naming, and the style given to other system acronyms like C2BM (command and control, Battle Management) and MESA (Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array), to use two examples used on the page. I don't understand why this second style gets mixed with the style under discussion. And the MOS quote seems to apply directly to at least the second of these examples. BusterD (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

When something clearly violates MOS, there is not normally a need for any major discussion. If so, the place to discuss it is on MOS's talk page, not here.

You're right about lowercase and uppercase usage being mixed up in this article (and many others on military terms, take a look at the typical mess that was on battlespace). The problem is that many texts written on military topics copy the style used by the military of individual countries, and these usually refer only to their own systems, in which case uppercase spelling of some common nouns can be defended (as an abbreviation of sorts) but is not advisable or used by careful editors even then, especially when talking about more than one system. But the main reason these texts often use uppercase for common nouns is to make a term or invention look more important or because it's become a habit to explain acronyms using capitals. The only time uppercase spelling of a common noun is actually correct is if it's part of the official name of a system. If MESA is only produced by one company, capitalisation of the explanation is possible, but "multi-role electronically scanned array" is the only correct spelling if it's not the name of the product of only one company and instead describes a kind of product. (I fixed the other example you mentioned.) --Espoo (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support WP:TITLE. On a more behavioral level... let's not be WP:LAME here.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Doubt about terminology

Hi wikipedians, I've noticed the move to Airborne early warning and control (AEW&C). I have seen the "old" terminology (AEW and AWACS) in quite a few books and magazines, but never the new one. Can anyone please let me know where this new acronym/term comes from (ie: source), and if it is universally used?
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have the same doubt. I'm not an expert, but in computer sims and by reading magazines, I've always seen "AWACS" and never "AEW&C". I'd like to see support that the term AEW&C is a) the new terminology, and b) widely used. Also, Wikipedia is inconsistent with itself, since the related article E3 Sentry links to the now extint page AWACS. If, as some in this discussion claim, E3 Sentry and AWACS are synonyms, AWACS should redirect to E3 Sentry! 190.17.55.223 (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

. AWACS is merely a system while AEW&C is the concept. AEW without the "&C" is either a system that has no workstations for controllers on the aircraft or someone was too lazy to write the full category name. AWACS is very often used because of a NATO-centric view of things among NATO journalists and soldiers - many people know very little about AEW&C and think that there's AWACS and nothing else. Lastdingo (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Peace Eye of Korea.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Peace Eye of Korea.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AWACS vs AEW&C

I think these two terms have a different meaning. AEW & C whereas with control limited functionality as an additional function of AEW, AWACS is what has sufficient control function. In other words, AEW & C is cheaper stripped-down version of the AWACS.--Blueredge (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No - AEW&C is the general type of system, AWACS is a specific American AEW&C system as installed on the 707 and on Japanese 767s. AEW is the earlier term, sometimes used now for a stripped down version lacking command capabilities.NiD.29 (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the Boeing quote added by Blue actually proves the point being asserted by NiD.29. This news release by Boeing from 1998 states: "Boeing today formally introduced the newest member of its airborne early warning & control (AEW&C) family, delivering the company's first two 767 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft to the government of Japan in a ceremony at Boeing Field in Seattle." It's clearly calling AWACS a type of AEW&C system. - BilCat (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

what part of that citation saying what is older term of what?--Blueredge (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

No part. The citation doesn't deal with that, and I've never claimed it did. As far as AEW being an older term for AEW&C, that’s simply the usage of the term in history. I doubt you’ll find a specific source for it, but to any one familiar with aircraft history, it's probably common knowledge. - BilCat (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not matter of new or old. Those are CLASSFICATION. Who calls E3 AEW&C? --Blueredge (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Boeing calls the E-3 an AEW&C. See the quote above. - BilCat (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Boeing only declared E3 is one of the family of AEW&C. Boeing commonly calls E3 an AWACS. Do you always call E3 an AEW&C?--Blueredge (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yes, if it's part of the AEW&C family, then that's what it is. Again, AWACS is the actual system installed on the E-3 and E-767 aircraft, and thus the aircraft are often called by that name. - BilCat (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think AWACS simply indicate a specific system installed on aircraft. Because boeing has clearly classified E3/E767 as it is AWACS, not AEW&C. But difficult to find certain citation...--Blueredge (talk)

But I think some improvement have been done thanks to your cooperation.--Blueredge (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You still have not built a consensus for your changes, so please stop putting the same stuff back in after it has been taken out repeatedly. In addition, as you do not appear to write fluently in English, you really should stop making major edits to any article at all, and use the talk pages to make suggestions instead. Continuing to edit war can get you blocked, as can adding poor English to articles over a long period of time. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

BilCat, I have 2 question.

1. Who says "AWACS (Airborne Warning And Control System) is name of the specific system installed in the E-3 and Japanese E-767 AEW&C airframes"? Boeing only introduced AWACS as a family of AEW&C. Does it mean AWACS is a system installed on AEW&C airframes??? AEW&C means airframe and AWACS means system??? [1]
2. What is AWC&S?[2]

Please answer me.--Blueredge (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to respond.

1. AWACS is a member of the AEW&C family. AEW&C is the umbrella term, while AWACS is more specific.

2. That seems to be an error and I have corrected it per the source. Ishdarian 06:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

thnk you for your reply.

1. awacs is a family of aew&c and some more specific system, ok i agree. however, what part of citation says that awacs is only actualy system which installed on aew&c airframe?

2. thank you for your correction.--Blueredge (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The NATO unit that operates the AWACS E-3 is called the "NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force (NAEW&CF)" as per the official website.

FWIW, AWACS was originally the program that resulted in the system (one of two competing systems from two different manufacturers) that was installed in the E-3. The E-2 has an unrelated system and the Navy doesn't use the AWACS terminology, despite the similar capabilities. If AWACS described the role rather than the system, then the USN and USCG would likely use the AWACS term for their AEW&C aircraft as well. In the same token, the RAF uses/used AEW as the designation for the Gannet (AEW.3), Shackleton (AEW.2), Nimrod (AEW3), Sentry (AEW1), Skyraider (AEW.1) and Sea King (AEW.2/5) aircraft that fill the role.NiD.29 (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

so, what part of citation says that awacs is only actualy system which installed on aew&c airframe?--Blueredge (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ka31/

  Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Airborne Command and Control Center

Hello,

I believe the above is another name for this type of aircraft. ABCCC pretty much ran the air war during the Second Indochina War. I have the official U.S. Air Force Project CHECO (Contemporary Historical Examination of Current Operations) report on these craft. Should I make a section for them in this article, or should I branch off another article from this one?

Notability does not enter into this decision. The ABCCCs orbiting over Vietnam and Laos ran the largest bombing campaign in history. It is more a question of where to fit the information.

Responses, please, to my Talk page. Thanks.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If AEW is AEW&C without the C, this is just it without the AEW, which is carried out by E-3s, so it should probably have its own page.

Cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airborne early warning and control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708110548/http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=2416333 to http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=2416333

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Airborne early warning and control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3721499%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218070817/http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/infoelect/awacs/index.html to http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/infoelect/awacs/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

AEW redirect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I will be redirecting AEW to All Elite Wrestling. Per the page views, it is the primary topic. starship.paint (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• All Elite Wrestling · 12/31/2018 (date of start of article) - 5/26/2019 · 2,028,851 pageviews (13,802/day) - Ranked 651 of the most viewed pages for April 2019 [3]
• Airborne early warning and control · 7/1/2015 - 3/11/2018 (date All Elite Wrestling first appleid for trademark) · 498,579 pageviews (506/day) [4]
• Aerosvit Airlines · 7/1/2015 - 5/26/2019 · 46,254 pageviews (32/day)
• List of Air Expeditionary units of the United States Air Force · 7/1/2015 - 5/26/2019 · 21,505 pageviews (15/day)
• Ambakich language · 7/1/2015 - 5/26/2019 · 1,175 pageviews (1/day)
• AEW UK · 2/2/2017 - 5/26/2019 · 8,322 pageviews (10/day)

Please discuss at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 27#AEW. Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The RfD has been WP:SNOW closed. As you were, folks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AEW vs AEW&C

The term Airborne Early Warning (AEW) goes back at least to the Douglas Skyraider AEW.1 of 1951 and was extensively used for several decades. I never really came across AEW&C until the recent spat over the redirect. According to GlobalSecurity, "Airborne early warning and control [AEW & C] is air surveillance and control provided by airborne early warning aircraft which are equipped with search and height-finding radar and communications equipment for controlling weapon systems." That seems to me to be a composite of AEW and Command and Control (C&C), which also includes Communications etc. Has AEW&C really made AEW obsolete, or should we actually have a separate article on AEW to match that on C&C? Obviously, if the combined AEW&C retains sufficient notability then keeping this article also needs to be kept as an overview. When did "AEW&C" come into use? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the sections above, #Requested merger, #Doubt about terminology, and #AWACS vs AEW&C? Together, they answer most of your questions. As far as control/communications, that's really just an added capability to AEW, not really a separate concept, and so better covered together. The Command and control article is really an overview of the military concept,and not about a specific role/type of aircraft as this is. - BilCat (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I did not see a big evidence base to support the claims being made. For example it helps me to know that Flight frequently mentioned AEW and AEW&C in different contexts during the period 2000-2004.[5] Back in the 1950s the C bit was in distinctly short supply.[6] My copy of Jane's for 1981 lists AEW in its glossary, but not AEW&C. AEW&C seems to have first appeared in Flight in the mid-1980s.[7] This hard evidence supports the thesis that the terms do not overlap as much as some might suggest, at least historically. Had I been a part of those discussions, I would have had something to say about that at the time. But that was then and this is now, so here I am asking for that elusive evidence to set mine in context. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

On the matter of C&C, I notice that the article on the US 1st Airborne Command Control Squadron does not mention AEW. Further evidence (if somewhat less hard) that even in aviation, C&C does not necessarily encompass AEW. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

No evidence but I look at the Shackelton as an AEW platform were it carried a radar and passed on the information to an integrated air defence system but when the Sentry came on board it could work as part of an integrated system or independently and control its own fighter or otherwise assests. As AEW is far more prevalent in the history I would have said this article should be at Airborne Early Warning with a mention of the control aspect rather than the other way around. MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Different link in intro?

In the intro it reads

"An airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) system is an airborne radar early warning system designed..."

where early warning system is separate from radar. But apparently, there is a page with early-warning radar, which has a military function. This seems more appropriate, because the regular civil early warning system also refers to sirens etc. Shouldn't the link be changed? 2001:1C02:1501:4200:559D:6117:8CE0:5FF3 (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)