In the final stages of its flight, an anti-ship missile dives down to a very low level until it is "sea skimming". The Sunburn actually flies at just 20 metres. This is so low that you don't even need stealth - the missile just hugs the horizon and is out of line of sight, therefore cannot be detected by radars. It is only until it approaches to very close range that it passes the horizon and is visible. But at this stage, the ship's defences only have 25 seconds to react because the missile is flying at Mach 2.2. The Sunburn can also pull 10 g in this stage.
Speed is absolutely necessary to attack ships, hypersonics are a whole different ball game and only Russia is working on a hypersonic ASCM (note: cruise missile).
The E2C/D Hawkeye can see.
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm
The main problem with low altitude flight is that sensors, no matter which type, are line-of-sight (LOS) limited. So if the target has X seconds to react, it also means the attacker has the same X seconds to acquire it. AWACS changed the equation in favor of the defender by extending the detection horizon one-way.
Let us take the machine gun, for example.
Say that the machine gun is a new technology that only a few wealthy armies has it. The machine gun changed the equation of warfare in terms of battlefield tactics in favor of the army that has it. One gunner replaces 100 riflemen. Does that mean this army will hire 100 less soldiers? No, it mean this army will have 100 soldiers who can do other things on the battlefield, aka 'force multiplier'. Some will remain single-shot riflemen, some will field additional artillery batteries, some will become additional transport, and so on. If your army do not have the machine gun, you cannot assume that this other army also do not have the machine gun. You have to assume the worst -- that he does have at least one machine gun. He can change his battlefield tactics. Either you cannot or your options are limited.
You can point out on paper all the limitations of an AWACS but in reality, the moment that aircraft is airborne, the wise commander would assume the worst -- the AWACS sees all -- and prepare compensating tactics, if there are any.
You also cannot assume that the US carrier fleet is overly dependent upon the AWACS, as if the aircraft is down for unexpected mechanical problems, the carrier will halt offensive operations and is completely defenseless. The US Navy do have alternate tactics for just about every probable (not possible) events that can limit its fleet ability to wage war. If the Hawkeye is not available for a while, better believe it that a few Hornets can take over. Maybe not as good, but will be good enough.
The point is that when speculating fighting the US military, you have to assume the worst, that whatever branch of the US military you are (on paper) fighting, it will bring with it
ALL the available methods of combat it can get its hands on. If the US military has the ability to teleport men and machines, you better believe it that we will use that method with all the new tactics that comes with it.
