lol..exactly my thoughts! where on earth did he come up with this term that he and no one else but he uses?Karan M wrote:I really hope Tarmak saar takes some prose classes to get a better idea of what sounds good and what doesn't. Prying plane just doesnt cut it.
It has happened because the Sensor performance being sought is possible in a much smaller size. The JSTARS for example has had its required performance met with a smaller sensor due to advances in AESA radars. That smaller sensor still gives the same level of performance that the JSTARS was getting with obvious improvements in other qualitative areas. The E-3 recap is 5-6 years out so it remains to be seen if the Top Hat NG version can work for the USAF requirements or whether they would have to look for a larger air-frame. Even for the E-10 it was the air-space management task that warranted a larger aircraft once the dual sensor requirement was let go.prahaar wrote:Is it driven by advances in miniaturization or due to the availability of powerful satellites to compensate for the smaller sensors/endurance.Singha wrote:even Khan seems to be coming down to 737 sized airframes to house most of its next gen systems.
And its gonna be operated by India's Prying Pados-wali Aunties.pankajs wrote:Anantha Krishnan M @writetake 7h7 hours ago
#PlaneMorning Here's an exclusive grab of India's Prying Plane AEW&C now undergoing integration trials. @satbasani
Shivji,shiv wrote: You did not say it was correct, but you did not specify that it was incorrect. I need to point out that it is incorrect. Fake, cooked up history by Americans and Pakis after getting an ass whupping from dead accurate IAF attacks. The latter lose credit as long as this fake story survives and that must not happen.
Singha wrote:my dream AEW architecture for India.
1. a few football field sized OTH radars in central and south India to detect aircraft and ship movements upto northern tibet and south IOR using atmopsheric scattering
2. a few truck mounted and few static ABM "big dome" radars for detecting ballistic missile launches , plus few DEW type sats with multiple sensors peering down in and around us.
3. some big IL76/A330 long duration "Linebacker" AWACS, each powerful enough to control one air defence zone and control intercepts in dozens incl on cruise missiles
4. more number of smaller EMB145 "RunningBack" AEW - these will be allocated some on demand to offload work off the LineBackers, some will move forward with strike packages to the edge of what can be called safe, hold position and then help them back. ie extend passive airborne protection data 100s of km fwd from the edge of the Linebacker coverage
5. High alt blimps tethered onto the tops of mountains along our borders to provide earliest earnings of very low level ingress by manned or unmanned platforms
6. apart from datalinks to IAF SAM and fighter units, datalinks to ground based ULSAM Shaurya units for taking down high value non manouvering aerial targets at 1500km range
It would make sense for the USAF to use the E767 platform that Japan is using. Much of the airframe analysis is already done by Boeing and putting in 3-4 AESA panels in a similar size radome is doable. I don't trust NG when it comes to signal processing, I always thought Raytheon was better in terms of radar performance. Raytheon did well with their surveillance SPY-1,2 and 3 receivers and signal processors.brar_w wrote: It has happened because the Sensor performance being sought is possible in a much smaller size. The JSTARS for example has had its required performance met with a smaller sensor due to advances in AESA radars. That smaller sensor still gives the same level of performance that the JSTARS was getting with obvious improvements in other qualitative areas. The E-3 recap is 5-6 years out so it remains to be seen if the Top Hat NG version can work for the USAF requirements or whether they would have to look for a larger air-frame. Even for the E-10 it was the air-space management task that warranted a larger aircraft once the dual sensor requirement was let go.
Unless something changes in the next 5 years that option is about as likely as them doing a 737 based aircraft.It would make sense for the USAF to use the E767 platform that Japan is using
The Radome for the future AEW is going to be most likely based on the Top Hat that Northrop Grumman has already developed. That version for the wedge tail is considered as the 80% solution and there was a path designed to bring it to the current standard as was mentioned a couple of years ago by General Mike Hostage at an AFA event. The sensor itself was to be upgraded through the MRTIP, and expect those activity to continue when the recap actually starts.Much of the airframe analysis is already done by Boeing and putting in 3-4 AESA panels in a similar size radome is doable.
Not sure what you are getting to here, but does it really matter what you (or I) think?I don't trust NG when it comes to signal processing
So much better in the category that they had to compete with someone else's radar for the last AEW contract they participated in.I always thought Raytheon was better in terms of radar performance.
The last time a radar was required they gladly let Northrop grumman take the lead on the project. Since then only one company has invested IRAD and secured government based funding to advance a sensor suitable for such a design. It wasn't Raytheon.Raytheon did well with their surveillance SPY-1,2 and 3 receivers and signal processors
Perhaps for an AEW platform, but I'm not so sure about R&D for other systems. Raytheon is doing the SPY-3 for the Zumwalt class destroyers and Ford class carriers, and does have the IRAD and funding for that program.brar_w wrote: The last time a radar was required they gladly let Northrop grumman take the lead on the project. Since then only one company has invested IRAD and secured government based funding to advance a sensor suitable for such a design. It wasn't Raytheon.
Doesn't matter..NG has other radar projects as well but that counts for absolutely nothing in a recap situation. Northrop's IRAD and government sponsored research is extensive in this class of sensor, and battle management system and the last time a vendor was down-selected it was them again. There is little chance for another sensor for the mission the only thing that is left to be decided is the prime and integrator. Lockheed and Northrop have both demonstrated some interesting technologies when it comes to open system architectures and integrating outside stuff and they may give Boeing a run for their money. Raytheon decided not to run as a prime for the JSTAR recap either so its unlikely they'll even bid as a prime for the E-3 recap down the road.Perhaps for an AEW platform, but I'm not so sure about R&D for other systems
NG may indeed be very good for sensor integration and battle management for an AEW platform. From a radar perspective, a 3D surveillance radar with high clutter rejection and small target detection, Raytheon does very well since its radar division works closely with MIT Lincoln Labs in MA.brar_w wrote:Doesn't matter..NG has other radar projects as well but that counts for absolutely nothing in a recap situation. Northrop's IRAD and government sponsored research is extensive in this class of sensor, and battle management system and the last time a vendor was down-selected it was them again. There is little chance for another sensor for the mission the only thing that is left to be decided is the prime and integrator. Lockheed and Northrop have both demonstrated some interesting technologies when it comes to open system architectures and integrating outside stuff and they may give Boeing a run for their money. Raytheon decided not to run as a prime for the JSTAR recap either so its unlikely they'll even bid as a prime for the E-3 recap down the road.Perhaps for an AEW platform, but I'm not so sure about R&D for other systems
Doesn't matter which labs work with Raytheon the point is that Northrop Grumman was selected once again to be the main designer and developer of the NG sensor for the AWACS replacement. The organization that selected them knows a lot more then you or me or anyone else on this forum. The requirements for the sensor then (E-10) were the same as they are now and if anything they may just be a little watered down to better manage cost. Northrop Grumman has invested in creating a Next generation sensor beyond the E-3, and they have a successful product in the E-7. The E-7 Air to Air sensor was the base for the MP-RTIP program's air to air sensor and this was selected after due diligence by the USAF.NG may indeed be very good for sensor integration and battle management for an AEW platform. From a radar perspective, a 3D surveillance radar with high clutter rejection and small target detection, Raytheon does very well since its radar division works closely with MIT Lincoln Labs in MA
.Northrop grumman was only delivering the sensor on the E-10. The integration and battle management tasks were led by Boeing that was the prime. For Now Northrop Grumman has decided to bid as both the sensor provider and the prime for the JSTARS replacement program and it remains to be seen whether they do the same for the E-3 recap or they continue with their existing partnership with Boeing.They won't be replaced on any platform be it on the 737 or 767.
Again, you misunderstood what I'm talking about. You take the view of program management, which is very good, and I take the view of an engineer. Both Westinghouse (NG) and Raytheon have extensive surveillance radar experience. Westinghouse has contracts with the USAF on surveillance radar and Raytheon has contracts with the USN on surveillance radar. I would argue that Raytheon has radar receivers and antenna design that would allow better target detection based on the work they've done on other surveillance systems for civilian use and that of the AN/SPY-2, but share the same engineering resources on the military side. I also realize that from a program already underway, such as the E-3 replacement, NG has significantly more experience now than Raytheon and it doesn't make sense to do an expensive re-work as it doesn't fit the E-3 development path requirements.brar_w wrote:MAY is a big word especially given the fact that raytheon was not selected to develop the future E-3 replacement sensor. Neither the A2A sensor nor the E-8 replacement A2G sensor. Furthermore, those that had to make a decision on performance did not select their offering compared to the E-7 and that put an end to their ambitions to compete in this market. What CAN they do with a clean sheet design? Who knows, Northrop Grumman can also work on a clean sheet design if required but that would be a non starter because the USAF has a sensor and development path laid out for the future of the E-3. You do not go back and start from scratch when you already have a sensor and its development (growth) roadmap approved all the way till the late 2050's or early 2060. There was and is a very clearly defined roadmap for what is expected from a potential E-3 replacement both in the traditional roles and in non-traditional roles. There is absolutely no indication that Northrop Grumman's sensor that was eventually developed/pursued is deficient in any of those categories. The USAF btw does not expect to be able to deploy the AEW fleet in the FEB in the future.
Its futile to compare WHAT IF's, and they MAY do X Y Z as that May applies to anyone that can compete for such a work. Unless you have access to the technical evaluations based on which you are claiming a superior sensor "ability" with raytheon you are really guessing especially when no in the USAF has ever hinted at allowing them to do the program. Furthermore, some of the largest partially-classified aerial sensor contracts in the 90's (USAF) went to ONE company. It also wasn't raytheon
Northrop grumman was only delivering the sensor on the E-10. The integration and battle management tasks were led by Boeing that was the prime. For Now Northrop Grumman has decided to bid as both the sensor provider and the prime for the JSTARS replacement program and it remains to be seen whether they do the same for the E-3 recap or they continue with their existing partnership with Boeing.They won't be replaced on any platform be it on the 737 or 767.
Cybaru wrote:i don't think it's the hardware alone that makes a winner. It's the overall package hardware/software combo that decides the final outcome. One without the other is pretty useless. Software is more difficult to get right and needs many many iterations. Hardware is still a fairly well documented commodity.
I am well aware of where Raytheon's and Northrop's strengths and weaknesses lie. Having said that, for the roles demanded there is absolutely ZERO edge in raytheon being awarded. There is nothing in the requirement that Northrop has not successfully demonstrated to be capable of achieving or hasn't actually demonstrated. Furthermore, as mentioned they have secured each and every contract for such systems over the past many decades. Because Raytheon worked on the Spy system, it does not qualify them to do something better than Northrop in an area where Northrop is incumbent and has demonstrated capability to the satisfaction of the customer. There is absolutely no ENGINEERING capability requirement that Northrop is incapable of accomplishing or is inferior to in capability compared to Raytheon. Strength of portfolio has little to do with it especially when it is the responsibility of the technical evaluators to do just that i.e. EVALUATE.Again, you misunderstood what I'm talking about. You take the view of program management, which is very good, and I take the view of an engineer. Both Westinghouse (NG) and Raytheon have extensive surveillance radar experience. Westinghouse has contracts with the USAF on surveillance radar and Raytheon has contracts with the USN on surveillance radar. I would argue that Raytheon has radar receivers and antenna design that would allow better target detection based on the work they've done on other surveillance systems for civilian use and that of the AN/SPY-2, but share the same engineering resources on the military side. I also realize that from a program already underway, such as the E-3 replacement, NG has significantly more experience now than Raytheon and it doesn't make sense to do an expensive re-work as it doesn't fit the E-3 development path requirements
In this context extensive is a bit of an understatement.E-3 replacement, NG has significantly more experience now than Raytheon and it doesn't make sense to do an expensive re-work as it doesn't fit the E-3 development path requirements
Sunday, April 05, 2015, New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to France next week will herald a new chapter for the Indian Air Force, as its dream project of having 360 degree ‘eye in sky’ is likely to take off with both countries finalising a deal for procuring two Airbus-330 aircraft to be used as platforms for AWACS-India programme.
The Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), in its meeting held last Saturday, has given a go ahead to the proposal of acquiring the aircraft for Rs 5,113 crore and the formal signing of the deal is likely during Mr Modi’s three-nation tour, that will also take him to Germany and Canada. The DAC has also approved ‘Project Maitry’, under which, India and France will be working on development of Short Range Surface to Air Missile (SR-SAM) for the Indian Navy.
The two Defence deals are being seen as a consolation for France as the hectic efforts to seal a deal of acquiring 126 Rafale fighter jets for the IAF were unlikely to get the desired results. The French leadership was particularly keen to finalise the 20 billion dollars defence deal for Medium-Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) during Mr Modi’s Paris visit, as the long-drawn talks for finalising the contract remain inconclusive even after three years of tough negotiations between the two sides.
A proposal for buying eight Airbus A-330 MRTT mid-air refuellers for 2 billion US Dollars was also hanging in balance for quite a long time. In this backdrop, the proposal for buying two Airbus A-330 aircraft has come as a silver lining for not only France but also for the IAF as its quest for acquiring AWACS (Airborne warning and control system) is finally and firmly getting its roots.
India’s new ‘eye in the sky’ will be mounted on Airbus A-330 with Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)-developed rotodome radar fitted on it.
The IAF has planned to develop six such AWACS with an estimated cost of 1.12 billion US Dollars. The cost of the first two of the AWACS is pegged at more than 817 million Dollars.For France, revival of 5 billion USD Short-Range Surface-to-Air Missile (SRSAM) project for the Indian Navy is being seen as a big achievement. Project Maitri between French MBDA and India’s DRDO was started in 2007 but lost its steam as India’s own Surface to Air missile Akash was preferred by the IAF and the Army.
The project got a new lease of life after the Navy showed interest in the French SR-SAM system. At present, Navy’s warships are equipped with Israeli Barak air defence system having a range of around 10 km which is under process of getting increased to about 70 km.
Airbus was eagerly waiting to receive Mr Modi at its headquarters in Toulouse, which is widely known as the manufacturing hub of the country’s French civil and military aviation sector. “For us, most important part of Prime Minister’s visit to France is his tour to Toulouse as this will be the formal launch of our AWACS-India project,” said an IAF official.
DRDO and the IAF have been pushing the project for more than a half decade. The government sanctioned the 1.12 billion USD project for developing six AWACS platforms sometime in 2012 and the RFP (Request for Proposal) for the aircraft procurement was issued to foreign vendors.
The IAF was focusing on two large platforms–Airbus A-330 or Boeing — 767 for long endurance of its AWACS. It finally chose the first one. At present, the IAF has three Israeli Phalcon radar based AWACS mounted on Russian IL-76 platform. The first such AWACS was delivered in 2009, with the third in 2011.
The fleet of three AWACS uses significantly advanced technologies such as electronically steered phased array radar, IFF, C3I, ESM, data-link, and elements of SIGINT, COMINT, and ELINT. Procurement of two more AWACS under option clause from IAI was cleared by the DAC in February 2014, and this is likely to materialise by 2016. Additionally, DRDO is working on a mini-AWACS project, under which indigenous AEW&C systems are to be mounted on three Embraer-145 jets obtained from Brazil for 210-million dollars.
!!!!
I dunno if this an artist's highly imaginative artwork based on the fossils.
http://sharkopedia.discovery.com/shark- ... f-its-back
DID YOU KNOW?
A WEIRD ANCIENT SHARK LOOKED LIKE IT HAD A HAIRBRUSH STICKING OUT OF ITS BACK
Stethacanthus – a fast-swimming shark that lived around 320 million years ago – was a very odd-looking fish. It had an enormous, flat-topped dorsal fin bristling with enlarged scales; together, they gave Stethacanthus the appearance of having a hairbrush sticking out of its back. Even the top of its head was covered in bristle-toothed scales.
But what were these for? Perhaps they were defensive, the brushy fin and cranial bristles looking like the jaws of a far larger predator. It seems more likely, though, that they played some role in courtship rituals. Females may have chosen males with the biggest dorsal brush, or perhaps males used these to push against one another in vigorous battles over mating rights.
Q. What’s been the progress on the Air Force’s requirement for more AWACS, beyond the three that you already have mounted on the IL-76 platform? What is your assessment on the requirement for such platforms, including the AEW&CS for the Indian Air Force? Do you foresee the use of more Aerostats and such airborne radars in ISR roles and what could be your ISR platforms requirement, say in 2030?
A. We have already inducted three IL-76 based AWACS and are in the process of procuring another two. The Embraer based AEW&C aircraft is nearing completion of its flight testing. The indigenous AWACS programme, AWACS (India), is currently at contract negotiation stage. We had inducted two Aerostat systems in May 2002. A case is being processed to procure additional Aerostats.
