Admittedly I speak English English rather than American English but I found the report very hard to follow and quite frankly I gave up. It seemed to be written by someone who wanted the document to sound formal and authoritative but actually made it cumbersome and pompous.
Given that I didn't get very far there appeared to be a few fallacies regarding radar performance.
For example the distance an AWACS or any other primary radar 'sees' is not fixed but very dependent upon a lot of factors. Salemen and people ignorant of radars often quote the instrumented range of a radar as the "range", ignoring the fact that it may only be able to see something the size of a mountain at that range. In many modern radars even the instrumented range is selectable