Radar - Specs & Discussions

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 13 Feb 2015 03:38

^ puzzling to say the least, aggravating is more like it for jingos. somewhat like IN capital ships, piecemeal orders?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Feb 2015 03:23

Its a very complex program and no doubt the IAF had doubts whether CABS/LRDE/DRDO could pull it off hence the initial low orders. More like TD/LSP level. Then there was the tug of war over specs. More are likely to be ordered on account of pure need but for the fact, pretty much everything right now is hanging fire on account of the Rafale deal capex. Note follow on orders for 2 Phalcons havent been placed either.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 14 Feb 2015 10:11

fanne wrote:I wonder why IAF is only ordering 2? I think we need dozens of AWE&C, we have only 3 from ELTA. At least we can have some less capable but very cheap ones in high number.

The report says 3rd EMB-145I will be arriving in Indian by July this year. I think after induction with IAF , more order of the same class may come but there is also an order for 6 more capable 10 meter rotodome AWE&Cs on larger platform .

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 14 Feb 2015 20:40

There's more than 2 year lead time to any new Emb-145 so I doubt any more of the AEW&C are planned on this platform.

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 14 Feb 2015 21:22

No more Embraer based AEW&C. It will be larger AWACS based on hopefully IL-76 or A-320.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 17 Feb 2015 17:01

http://idrw.org/archives/58246#more-58246

India is close to finalizing several major defence deals with Israel, including the ones for two additional Phalcon AWACS (airborne warning and control systems) and four aerostat radars, together worth well over $1.5 billion (Rs 9,330 crore).

Why are we importing more blimps when we've the desi version?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 17 Feb 2015 17:27

IIRC, endurance, payload and range requirement would determine the kind of blimp.

A quick search show the range for Indian blimp to be around 100 km as compared to Israeli one's 500 km. An followup on the Indian one with enhanced range is under planning/development phase.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 17 Feb 2015 21:39

If we put the XV2004 on a blimp, we probably get 100KM range. If we are buying specialized radars from Israel, they better have longer range. The Dhruv mounted XV2004 probably will be more versatile than the blimps if the range is only 100KMs. They are avaible on demand and more survivable than a blimp. The tradeoff might be slightly higher cost of survelliance, but blimps are worthless in a war. They have known positions.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Feb 2015 22:22

Cy is right. The Israeli aerostats are actually American aerostats which fly really high and are equipped with Israeli radars (long range AESAs). DRDO's last aerostat is the Akashdeep which is simply not in the same class.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Feb 2015 00:26

Saurav Jha

Arudhra and Ashwini radars have entered the field trial stage. Heading towards user trials.

Will · Post by **Will** » 19 Feb 2015 02:26

Shaun wrote:
fanne wrote:I wonder why IAF is only ordering 2? I think we need dozens of AWE&C, we have only 3 from ELTA. At least we can have some less capable but very cheap ones in high number.
The report says 3rd EMB-145I will be arriving in Indian by July this year. I think after induction with IAF , more order of the same class may come but there is also an order for 6 more capable 10 meter rotodome AWE&Cs on larger platform .

Wasn't an RFP put out last year for 6 larger aircraft ? Or was it just an RFI?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 19 Feb 2015 02:30

Karan M wrote:Cy is right. The Israeli aerostats are actually American aerostats which fly really high and are equipped with Israeli radars (long range AESAs). DRDO's last aerostat is the Akashdeep which is simply not in the same class.

Thx. I wish we are able to order few of the desi ones as well.

SidSom · Post by **SidSom** » 19 Feb 2015 18:30

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2015/02/ ... awacs.html

Saw this at the CABS stall. A 360 Degree coverage AWACS proposed on A330 (at least that was what the model was based on. The Gentleman there told me this would take at least 4 years to complete. Could not more questions as was on a business visit. Was easily one of the highlight of the show

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Feb 2015 21:28

A330 is way too big. Total overkill. Cost of each platform will shoot way up and it will require a heavier escort during war time. Anything that can remain in air from 7-10 hours will server us just fine. Any of the 318/319/320/NEO/321 will be adequate for our purposes and cheaper to fly. All the Airbus31X/32X platforms can fly about 5500-7500 kms with the load we have on our platform. We can fit extra fuel tanks on all these platforms as well. Very good to see that Airbus is pitching a bigger platform for use and perhaps CABS is looking at this as well.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 19 Feb 2015 21:59

Cybaru wrote:A330 is way too big. Total overkill. Cost of each platform will shoot way up and it will require a heavier escort during war time. Anything that can remain in air from 7-10 hours will server us just fine. Any of the 318/319/320/NEO/321 will be adequate for our purposes and cheaper to fly. All the Airbus31X/32X platforms can fly about 5500-7500 kms with the load we have on our platform. We can fit extra fuel tanks on all these platforms as well. Very good to see that Airbus is pitching a bigger platform for use and perhaps CABS is looking at this as well.

I disagree. A larger airframe will allow for:
1. A larger radar transmitter and therefore more power and more radar range. It can stay further back without any issue.
2. A larger antenna, therefore more antenna gain and again more radar range.
3. A wide body jet is also much better for weights/balances (loading) and can also easily handle more ECM/ECCM equipment.
4. More crew capacity for better rested crews to effectively manage battlefield arenas.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 19 Feb 2015 22:21

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 16m16 minutes ago Bengaluru, Karnataka

DRDO's Uttam AESA features LPI and is capable of tracking up to six targets for weapons employment.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 13m13 minutes ago Bengaluru, Karnataka

LRDE's synthetic aperture radar meant for carriage by the Rustom-2 will be capable of detecting mobile vehicles out to 40 km in GMTI mode.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Feb 2015 22:29

Mort Walker wrote:
Cybaru wrote:A330 is way too big. Total overkill. Cost of each platform will shoot way up and it will require a heavier escort during war time. Anything that can remain in air from 7-10 hours will server us just fine. Any of the 318/319/320/NEO/321 will be adequate for our purposes and cheaper to fly. All the Airbus31X/32X platforms can fly about 5500-7500 kms with the load we have on our platform. We can fit extra fuel tanks on all these platforms as well. Very good to see that Airbus is pitching a bigger platform for use and perhaps CABS is looking at this as well.
I disagree. A larger airframe will allow for:
1. A larger radar transmitter and therefore more power and more radar range. It can stay further back without any issue.
2. A larger antenna, therefore more antenna gain and again more radar range.
3. A wide body jet is also much better for weights/balances (loading) and can also easily handle more ECM/ECCM equipment.
4. More crew capacity for better rested crews to effectively manage battlefield arenas.

Mort,

Couple of quick questions.

1. Does a larger "airframe" always lead to more power? How much power do you need for your setup and will a large airframe be the only solution on arriving there? Won't an extra APU or two be enough to power all our needs?

2. Will your antenna really get larger or will it be the same size as the one on phalcon? How much bigger would you scale it?

3. Sure a wide body has more space for ECM/ECCM equiptment. How much more do you need? What extra equipment do we have, that we need a widebody?

4. I agree with your 4th point. But anything in the A31X/A32X would be enough for creature comforts, when compared to phalcon or EMB145.

Only japan hosts a 767 based awacs.

What will it cost us if a larger gold plated machine goes down, versus having two generic mid sized machines and losing one of those. What about up-time, maintenance, cost for upkeep and flight time. Won't a larger airframe will always require two crews.

Each plane will end up be different versions if we keep ordering piece meal. We will need dedicated crew certified for each plane and these may not be transferable.

In war time, you will need escorts. USAF/NATO both run large escorts per awacs during operations. what will be the size of your escort during such an operation. If the legs are short for your escort, you will need refuelers. How many of those will you need if you have a larger escort size.

Gold plating larger machines means risking more when in air. I think mid-size is opitmal. Extra large starts to put in penalties and the risk shoots through the roof.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 19 Feb 2015 22:52

Mort,

Couple of quick questions.

1. Does a larger "airframe" always lead to more power? How much power do you need for your setup and will a large airframe be the only solution on arriving there?

2. Will your antenna really get larger or will it be the same size as the one on phalcon? How much bigger would you scale it?

3. Sure a wide body has more space for ECM/ECCM equiptment. How much more do you need?

4. I agree with your 4th point. But anything in the A31X/A32X would be enough for creature comforts, when compared to phalcon or EMB145.

Only japan hosts a 767 based awacs.

What will it cost us if a larger machine goes down, versus having two mid sized machines. What about up-time, maintenance, cost for upkeep and airtime. Won't a larger airframe will always require two crews.

1. I'm talking of radar transmitter power. The difference would be between, eg. 500 KW peak power vs. 1 MW peak power. A radar signal is pulsed and you would want a high duty cycle for high average power. The transmitter must be large to generate the required high voltage for this purpose. Average power = Peak power x duty cycle.
2. DRDO is talking about a 10 meter antenna. The Phalcon IL-76 antenna is pretty big, but this newer AWACS design may be different in that the antenna may be designed for better target resolution. At least I would be thinking that way. That is to distinguish targets better against ground clutter and to detect smaller targets such as missiles in flight.
3. You need a lot of EW equipment because the game is always changing. The enemy comes up with a counter measure and you've got to defeat it. It may require more equipment racks and antennas dedicated for EW. It is good that DRDO is thinking ahead, as they've seen the P-8I and E-767 up close by now.
4. Creature comfort is not the issue. Crew fatigue over several hours is. An AWACS basic function is like having an air traffic control crew in the air. Sloppy communications with pilots and directing traffic in the arena can cost lives if the crew is fatigued over 12 hours. The issue is that an AWACS will be in the air long before and long after any hostilities break out. Many times they are simply monitoring the enemy looking to see what they're doing. Training is a big issue.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Feb 2015 23:13

pankajs wrote:
Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 16m16 minutes ago Bengaluru, Karnataka

DRDO's Uttam AESA features LPI and is capable of tracking up to six targets for weapons employment.
Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 13m13 minutes ago Bengaluru, Karnataka

LRDE's synthetic aperture radar meant for carriage by the Rustom-2 will be capable of detecting mobile vehicles out to 40 km in GMTI mode.

If it is true LPI mode as versus LPI capabilities (narrow beamwidth, fast beam steering, adaptive beamforming etc) then wow!

6 targets for weapons employment is fine grain tracking .. for comparisons sake, Bars does 16/4 (16 TWS, 4 target).

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 20 Feb 2015 03:13

Mort Walker wrote: 3. You need a lot of EW equipment because the game is always changing. The enemy comes up with a counter measure and you've got to defeat it. It may require more equipment racks and antennas dedicated for EW. It is good that DRDO is thinking ahead, as they've seen the P-8I and E-767 up close by now.

Where have they seen a E-767 based Awacs platform upclose to be familiar with it?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 20 Feb 2015 03:20

^^^The Japanese Defense Forces. It does share the same radar as the standard E-3, but has a different ECM/ECCM suite.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Feb 2015 04:00

it looks like about 100 t/r modules for uttam.
drdo/.../lrde_AirborneLiquidCirculationSystem_Specs_20.pdf
http://i.imgur.com/HSWLtYz.png
http://i.imgur.com/wDC9JHd.jpg

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 20 Feb 2015 06:47

I disagree with your assessment Mort. Think about what I have written and the operational scenarios and costs. Think training and crews. You will arrive at mid size as well. The USAF would have been all over bigger airframes if they thought there were large payoffs. They still use 707s and will probably move to 737 based ones when they order newer versions. All other air forces have stuck to that size as well. The E-8A is also based on the older 707-300 config.

The Airbus A31X & A32X are one third the price of a A330 aircraft. You can host 6 for the price of 2 and it will easier to refuel these as well, versus you will need dedicated two-three refuelers to refuel a A330 and its escorts for double missions. Way too expensive.

Its okay for Airbus to want us to buy these, but lets hope IAF is pragmatic and orders at the most A321s for this config. And if you really want a proven airframe, just order the same 737's and mount the wedgetail as Boeing already does it for umpteen customers.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Feb 2015 07:08

In the 2025+ time-frame expect new western AEW aircraft to be off the 737/320 size. Electronics, computing and command and control footprint is only getting smaller, meanwhile the sensor size is getting smaller compared to previous generation as well. The USAF wanted the MRTIP on a 767 only if they could get both the sensors on a common platform (E-10 version 1)..In the absence of that they shifted to a split between a 767 and 737 buy before deciding to upgrade the E-3's for a decade+. Expect the eventual purchase to be a 737 based solution. The E-8 is moving to a 737 or G550 line as well.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Feb 2015 07:23

I have a feeling the days of rotodomes are over (whether rotating inside or fixed triangles or squares). advances in electronics will probably eliminate the small blind cones at either end of a balance beam like the T shaped northrop grumann mesa thing on the wedgetails.

so either it will be two panels back to back on balance beam(with T cap at one end) or two E8 style side facing arrays in conformal fuselage panels...better drag reduction and much less need to flight test.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Feb 2015 07:26

SaiK wrote:it looks like about 100 t/r modules for uttam.
drdo/.../lrde_AirborneLiquidCirculationSystem_Specs_20.pdf
http://i.imgur.com/HSWLtYz.png
http://i.imgur.com/wDC9JHd.jpg

looking at how other aesa fighter radars have high 100s of modules...probably what we are counting is "tiles" each of which contains a fixed number of txrx elements.
looking at how the rbe2aa has some 850...I would expect atleast that number for a production model that would be acceptable to the IAF. remember it has to outperform the EL2032 and match contemporary aesa radars before the IAF will accept...it cannot be a science project proto for demos only.

the tile thing permits replacing a tile with faulty elements wholesale at the cost of having to do a 2nd level repair later to isolate the individual faulty element. it might have some advantage in wiring and power supply module commonality at the back end.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Feb 2015 07:34

Singha wrote:I have a feeling the days of rotodomes are over (whether rotating inside or fixed triangles or squares). advances in electronics will probably eliminate the small blind cones at either end of a balance beam like the T shaped northrop grumann mesa thing on the wedgetails.

so either it will be two panels back to back on balance beam(with T cap at one end) or two E8 style side facing arrays in conformal fuselage panels...better drag reduction and much less need to flight test.

Whenever the E-3 Recap happens in the USAF and with it possibly the NATO fleets the front-runner would be the top-hat configuration. It was the configuration funded through the various design efforts that would no doubt contribute towards at least one OEM's offering in this segment.

The E-10 had that configuration in mind as well.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 20 Feb 2015 19:39

In war, we may be interested in looking at different areas for intelligence, recon, GTMI & Airborne activity. IAF may have different requirements than IA. Keeping them separate will have a better operational flexibility. I would go with a G550 based Jstars like plane and keep the AEW component separate.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Feb 2015 19:45

it is going to be bel rather lrde
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/12227/ ... OdM4PnF-TM

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 20 Feb 2015 22:01

The USAF E-10 was to be on a 767 platform, but due to budget constraints it was killed. I suspect it will be revived earlier now that there is militarily resurgent Russia.

The design approach that DRDO is taking, or at least what we know from public information, appears to be one with high gain antenna to improve detection capability. Hence, the reason DRDO is looking at the A330 or 767 airframe. Between design, procurement of parts, assembly, and deployment covers a long time frame. I suspect DRDO knows of a specific design of antenna, receiver, signal processor, and software that is locked down to a doable configuration. For a smaller airframe should DRDO redesign the antenna, would require redesign of the receiver, signal processor and software. This is no easy task and takes years.

What we don't know is if DRDO is using a solid state transmitter or amplified power tube design. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but both take considerable space and weight. A fighter aircraft target detection and fire control radar can not be scaled up to be a full 3D surveillance radar. The idea is to put enough energy on the target for a reflection and then be able to have an excellent S/N. Modern military surveillance radar can easily make a detection 2 times below the thermal noise floor. Where Pd < 2*kTB for any given bandwidth.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Feb 2015 22:20

The 767 was chosen as a primary platform for the E-10 because they wanted to explore the possibility of combining the E-3 and E 8 mission set onto one platform to save life cycle cost associated with multiple platforms. That plan has long been dropped due to power constraints on the two competing sensors. Subsequently the requirement shifted to a high low mix of larger 767 based platforms and 737 based platforms for both missions. Fast forward to today, the e8 recap requirement has the 737 bbj as the largest offering and this would also be reflected in the E3 recap that follows this program. Expect the 737 to be the platform of choice for the e3 mission, given that both northrop Grumman and raytheon have demonstrated the feasibility of fitting the desired sensor on this platform along with all the necessary apertures and room for growth

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Feb 2015 22:44

The DRDO radar is an AESA. The design is likely to be a new one. Its not one of the older MSAs with a large TWT/s or other conventional arrangements.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 20 Feb 2015 23:39

You can have upto 9 Aux tanks in the cargo bay in the 737. It can fly upto 11000 KMS non stop in that config. It is plenty enough. If the engines don't produce enough power an APU or two can be added. There is enough room for everything in the 737 sized platform.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Feb 2015 23:49

to understand space, power and size needs do we have detailed specs on the chappati?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 20 Feb 2015 23:58

Karan M wrote:The DRDO radar is an AESA. The design is likely to be a new one. Its not one of the older MSAs with a large TWT/s or other conventional arrangements.

Are you certain? AESA has limitations of beam width resolution. If I were designing a system, I would want at least 1/2 degree beam width. The antenna may be phased in azimuth and elevation scanning.

SaiK wrote:to understand space, power and size needs do we have detailed specs on the chappati?

I don't think that is available for public consumption. We can only go by what is shown or discussed openly.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Feb 2015 00:01

I think we can consider EL/M-2075 Phalcon specs for discussions

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/21309648/7 ... 9/name/IAF
chacha cache

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 21 Feb 2015 00:02

Cybaru wrote:You can have upto 9 Aux tanks in the cargo bay in the 737. It can fly upto 11000 KMS non stop in that config. It is plenty enough. If the engines don't produce enough power an APU or two can be added. There is enough room for everything in the 737 sized platform.

I'm inclined to agree with DRDO on this one.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Feb 2015 00:07

The Phalcon system is believed to be capable of tracking up to 60 targets at ranges between 435-500 miles

The EL/M-2075 is a solid-state D-band conformal array radar system for use on a Boeing 707
and other aircraft. Phalcon, as the complete AEW mission suite is referred to, is intended for
airborne early warning, tactical surveillance of airborne and surface targets and intelligence
gathering. It also integrates the command and control capabilities needed to employ this
information. The system uses six panels of phased-array elements: two on each side of the
fuselage, one in an enlarged nosecone and one under the tail. Each array consists of 768
liquid-cooled, solid-state transmitting and receiving elements, each of which is weighted in
phase and amplitude. These elements are driven by individual modules and every eight
modules are connected to a transmit/receive group. Groups of 16 of these eight module
batches are linked back to what is described as a prereceive/transmit unit, and a central sixway
control is used to switch the pre-transmit/receive units of the different arrays on a time
division basis. As used in its Chilean Boeing 707-based application, the lateral fairings
measured approximately 12 × 2 m and were mounted on floating beds to prevent airframe
flexing degrading the radar accuracy. Each array scans a given azimuth sector, providing a
total coverage of 360°. Scanning is carried out electronically in both azimuth and elevation.
Radar modes include high PRF search and full track, track-while-scan, a slow scan detection
mode for hovering and low-speed helicopters (using rotor blade returns) and a low PRF ship
detection mode. These modes can be ...

EL/W-2085 – Airborne Early Warning System Next Gen

The EL/W-2085's four sensors are: Radar, IFF, ESM/ELINT and CSM/COMINT.
The EL/W-2085 advanced radar has everal conformal phased array antennas. They are mounted on the fuselage of the aircraft and can provide up to full 360 degrees coverage

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/phalcon.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EL/W-2090

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 21 Feb 2015 00:09

SaiK wrote:I think we can consider EL/M-2075 Phalcon specs for discussions

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/21309648/7 ... 9/name/IAF
chacha cache

I don't think we can.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Feb 2015 00:14

The RFP stipulates OEM responsibility for design and manufacture of the 10-meter-diameter antenna dome attachment (pylon) structure and installation, provision for installing external and internal elements of mission systems, power source and distribution circuits, structures for mounting the mission system, and installation of customer-furnished equipment, amounting to an additional 20 tons of weight. “Vendors willing to support the buyer in the installation of the mission systems on the aircraft alone will be considered,” said the RFP

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... ance-awacs