Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Jan 2014 18:18

Karan M wrote:It doesnt matter if there is no A330 variant as long as the OEM is willing to support a development of that variant.

True. But we'll have to foot the bill for its development. The UK and France could have chipped in, but they'll be operating their E-3s for long time yet.

Cosmo_R wrote:The Boeing 767 is an interesting alternative"

767s are also available used and lots of parts commonality. The JASDF E-767s have already proved the concept.

Overall, we just need to standardize. Just running the supply chain is a nightmare.

The 767 while a big platform that can support a powerful AEW&C system, is not in service in the domestic civilian market. Even Japan is now reportedly looking into the 737 to supplement its fleet.

Boeing reported further interest in the 737 AWACS from India, the UAE and Japan, with sales of 15 or more aircraft possible.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... outh-korea

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jan 2014 18:33

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... s/mesa.pdf

the NG MESA radar on 737 wedgetail has been able to put a "Aegis" type dual faced flat radar panel instead of a more limited size "balance beam" config.
its "hat" on top has front and back radars to provide the fore and aft coverage for 360' with zero blind spots. it looks less draggy than our triangular Elta radars inside the fixed rotodome....aperture front and back would less than phalcon given the limited size of the "hat" arrays.

pretty neat solution imo. perhaps we could adopt the 737 for our desi AWACS as the stuff like structural load studies, addl electric power, drag studies would already be readymade provide we adopt a similar radar design?

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 31 Mar 2014 03:19

From Livefist: Indian AWACS Reloaded: Competition For 6 Aircraft Announced

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 31 Mar 2014 03:53

10-meter radome?? Nice. CABS is targeting Phalcon/E-3 sized platform.

--Ashish.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 31 Mar 2014 09:37

good news , but it comes with a burden of introducing new platform to the IAF inventory ( provided IL76(476) not chosen )

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Mar 2014 09:48

Generally I have nothing against Shiv Aroor (or most other reporters). But I really want to knock a little on him this time and ask what is the option of not having 3 different types?

Should we not have bought the A-50s? If we should have, then should we throw them away now to maintain commonality?
Should we not have developed the AEWACSs? If we should have, then should we throw them away now to maintain commonality?
Should we not have developed the AWACSs? If we should have, then should we throw them away now to maintain commonality?

And finally, if we imported the AWACS, would we not have had 3 types aerial early warning systems?

So why bring up the point?

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 31 Mar 2014 10:12

indranilroy wrote:...

Should we not have bought the A-50s? If we should have, then should we throw them away now to maintain commonality?
Should we not have developed the AEWACSs? If we should have, then should we throw them away now to maintain commonality?
Should we not have developed the AWACSs? If we should have, then should we throw them away now to maintain commonality?

And finally, if we imported the AWACS, would we not have had 3 types aerial early warning systems?
...

+1. I don't get it, either.
Thats a complete bean-counter approach to things. Criticizing for criticisms sake.

Although, I would have thought we would order more EMB-145 through series production.
DRDO/CABS must be feeling pretty confident about their radar to go for a bigger "version" of it.

--Ashish.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Mar 2014 10:17

Cheen is also saddled with 3 diff types now. IL76 and Y8(round and stick versions)
Khan is the only one who has managed to keep the 707 spares chain alive and uses this ancient 1960s re-engined airframe.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 31 Mar 2014 10:50

Livefist wrote:...In addition, the winning vendor will be required to design and manufacture the AWACS 10-metre antenna dome, attachment (pylon) structure and dome installation.

Shouldn't the antenna dome / structure be developed inhouse?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Mar 2014 11:31

^^^^^

No.

The radome itself provides lift and therefore needs to be designed by the aircraft vendor. The size of the radome is provided by the elec vendor.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Mar 2014 11:49

airbus has a flying testbed of C295 awacs with Elta with 6m dish
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Innovatio ... y/AEW.aspx

back in 2009 there were talks between elta and airbus on a solution using the A320
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ng-335527/

whatever we do, pls make it a long term choice and not stop at 3!!

in that sense A330 with its long range unrefuelled sounds like a good bet and not use any tankers for a 15 hr mission.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Mar 2014 12:46

If at all I would expect to cancel the other two il based awacs.

Point being India seems to have become self s sufficient in detection techs. Sensors, etc. ?????

So I for one do not expect this end to back down

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 31 Mar 2014 17:03

Why havent ordered more Em-145's since desi Awacs will take anther 7-8 years, why not keep the production cycle going?. This logic baffles me, Our defence leaders want to cripple us.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 31 Mar 2014 20:59

my vote for A320 ,well known platform with bulk of our civilian airlines using it

so spares & maintenance will not be a nightmare

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 31 Mar 2014 21:27

NRao wrote:^^^^^

No.

The radome itself provides lift and therefore needs to be designed by the aircraft vendor. The size of the radome is provided by the elec vendor.

No, it may be designed along with CABS, very similar to how CABS and Embraer worked together for the AEWACS, and ELTA and Beriev worked for the A-50.

What you are seeing now is the issuance of the RFP after the RFI was issued in June last year.

indranilroy wrote:Radome for AWACs starting to take shape:

RFI issued for Design and Development of Radome for Airborne Surveillance

CABS has been entrusted with Design and Development of Airborne Surveillance Systems. The envisaged system will have uniform surveillance performance over full 360 degree coverage. The front end of the Radar and the Identification Friend or foe (IFF) systems shall be housed in an ellipsoidal radome on top of the fuselage installed using pylons. In addition suitable mechanical structures to transfer the air loads will be designed and housed in the radome. The radome also houses parts of the liquid cooling system(piping structure) and ladder system for maintenance.

Diameter of the radome (of the order of) 10.0 m
Height of the radome(of the order of) 2.0 m
Radome shape Ellipsoidal
Weight of the radome Shells (about) 1500Kg
Electromagnetically transparent in S and L band
Withstand aerodynamic loads on the radome as per flight envelope of wide body aircraft.
The radome shall have lighting detectors/dischargers and should have surface which will not permit ice accumulations.

The radome shall have 4 shells (3 in case of design change) and shall be easy to install /de-install as seen in figure 2.

The envisaged will have 4 faces arranged in a rectangular /square configuration (see Fig 3). The shells shall have suitable attachments to the antenna panels/supporting structures.

CABS can exercise any of the following combinations:

a) Option 1
b) Option 1 and option 2
c) Option 1 and option 3
d) Option 1 , option 2 and option 3

Option 1: To deliver the fully certified radome as per specifications from CABS.
Option 2: Transfer of knowhow and know why in terms of radome design and analysis in terms of:
- Electromagnetic design.
- Structural design including material selection.
Option3 : Transfer of knowhow and know why in terms of radome manufacturing technology in terms of :
- Tooling and fixture.
- Manufacturing process.
- Dimension inspection and other checks procedure.
- Certification and qualification process.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Mar 2014 22:06

No, it will be designed along with CABS, very similar to how CABS and Embraer worked together for the AEWACS, and ELTA and Beriev worked for the A-50. It has to be that way, because CABS doesn't have airflow data of the platform and the platform vendor is not aware of the airflow requirements inside the dome.

(I was on a smart phone when I typed that!!!!!!!!! I should have stuck with my dumb phone that I had for eons.)

I am not talking of the electronics part of it.

The radome itself is a aerodynamic component and therefore will generate drag if it is not part of the lift mechanism. Forget the electronics within and then think of it. Perhaps that will help.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 01 Apr 2014 18:24

India To Augment Awacs Fleet

news was first reported by shiv in his blog

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 01 Apr 2014 19:38

Easiest is the 737 NG similar to the Wedgetail

vic · Post by **vic** » 01 Apr 2014 19:38

Only indigenous products are rejected on grounds of logistics and commonality, for imported maal, more suppliers there are, the merrier it is!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Apr 2014 20:03

the two losing bids in the aussie wedgetail program were

A310 body + northrop grumann + Phalcon radar

C130J body + E2 radar + northrop grumann + LM

you can see photos of the two in ausairpower site. the C130J TB even flow under USCG markings.

if raw ceiling is not a issue C130J is big enough and has enough endurance.

actually none of the big airframes can comfortably cruise at 50,000ft....all are rated to around 42000ft....

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Apr 2014 20:32

What do we really need in AWACS.

1. Uptime for about 8 hours with one crew and upto 16 hours with refueling or extra fuel tanks.
2. Space for two set of crews, 8 workstations, Commanders unit, galley and rest area with almost the same rest room configuration as passenger liner.
3. Cost - shouldn't cost too much if disaster does strike, it should be replaceable.
4. Spares - Easily available and non sanction able parts during war time.
5. Same type could be used for ELINT and other needs without adding yet another new type in future.

IMO, Airbus 321 Neo meets the bill. Good internal space, long ranged enough, has capacity to add extra fuel tanks, upto 9 I think. Current range is around 4000NM+ in NEO config and no extra tanks, Good space for rest and 2nd crew. Cost is $110 million and Indigo has ordered about 150 in number for its fleet so spares should never be a problem.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Apr 2014 23:45

Cybaru wrote:...

IMO, Airbus 321 Neo meets the bill. Good internal space, long ranged enough, has capacity to add extra fuel tanks, upto 9 I think. Current range is around 4000NM+ in NEO config and no extra tanks, Good space for rest and 2nd crew. Cost is $110 million and Indigo has ordered about 150 in number for its fleet so spares should never be a problem.

I guess 4000NM range will be reduced because of the added weight and drag of the radome and its vertical pylons. Adding extra fuel tanks may not work because of the same reason. The aircraft may go over its MTOW when fully fueled.

If Airbus is willing, the A330 is the best option. Will provide maximum time on station along with oodles of space for cramming in all sorts of secondary sensors, comm equipment and processing power. A330 MRTT + A330 based AWACS will be a good way to maintain commonality and reduce maintenance costs.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Apr 2014 01:26

nachiket wrote:
Cybaru wrote:...

IMO, Airbus 321 Neo meets the bill. Good internal space, long ranged enough, has capacity to add extra fuel tanks, upto 9 I think. Current range is around 4000NM+ in NEO config and no extra tanks, Good space for rest and 2nd crew. Cost is $110 million and Indigo has ordered about 150 in number for its fleet so spares should never be a problem.
I guess 4000NM range will be reduced because of the added weight and drag of the radome and its vertical pylons. Adding extra fuel tanks may not work because of the same reason. The aircraft may go over its MTOW when fully fueled.

If Airbus is willing, the A330 is the best option. Will provide maximum time on station along with oodles of space for cramming in all sorts of secondary sensors, comm equipment and processing power. A330 MRTT + A330 based AWACS will be a good way to maintain commonality and reduce maintenance costs.

It has 3650 NM fully loaded in 185 passenger config. Close to 45,000 kgs of fuel and payload at this point. From what I know, AEW payload won't cross 12 to 15K for all the modifications and compute needs, food, extra crew, water etc.. Leaving a healthy margin for extra fuel in Auxiliary fuel tanks. Things are getting smaller, Don't need bigger anymore. Bigger is not necessarily better in this case. A321Neo is plenty plenty big. Expect it to have close to 8000+ KMs or a healthy 10/11 hour uptime with no refueling.

Some part of tomorrows AEW will go on UAVs, with ground operators in place of airborne ones.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Apr 2014 01:56

because of the added weight and drag of the radome and its vertical pylons

As posted earlier, the radome is designed (shape of it) to lift its own weight. The vertical pylons are also designed to reduce drag to a minimum.

So, one should not see too much of a diff in range solely due to the radome + pylons.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Apr 2014 02:28

That is not right. The plane does have higher induced drag due to added weight. The same reason why a loaded plane uses more fuel than an empty plane. Also, note that a circular dome is not ideal for form drag either, but it is not that bad.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 02 Apr 2014 02:53

tushar_m wrote:India To Augment Awacs Fleet

From the above report, its not all bad news:

a) Phalcon: 3 + 2 (I hope its not DDM'itis & the last 2 are confirmed orders)
b) EMB AEW: 3 + 5 (all 3 of the initial lot to be delivered this year itself)
c) AWACS: 6

Ideally we would like EMB AEW to be 12 - 15 in number. Its a large enough country + we need lots of help in COIN & anti-Naxal operations and other internal security needs. But if the above numbers materialize, that's a pretty decent AWACS fleet.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Apr 2014 03:00

Indranil,

IMO it will be minimal if at all. The ranges given for the 737-700 fall in line with the reported range for 7A platform used for the Wedgetail program. There seems to be no difference listed. Even if there is a penalty, the range will still be twice the ERJ145 unit seems to have.

Given that the AEW will fly over Indian Ocean or close to home base and will have opportunities to refuel and take off again with a fresh crew, we may not need to cater for extreme cases. Flying a fully loaded A330 isn't going to be cheap. Per hour in air cost or per trip costs are going to be significantly higher and closer to double for A330 vs A321NEO.

The Il-76 platform are probably achieving about 6000 to 7000 KMs in their AEW mode. More with A2A refueling, but given the amount of fuel used, using a non russian platform would make more sense. Less maintenance and cheaper operating costs.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Apr 2014 03:04

Prem Kumar wrote: Its a large enough country + we need lots of help in COIN & anti-Naxal operations and other internal security needs. But if the above numbers materialize, that's a pretty decent AWACS fleet.

I don't think you can use aew for that. How would you use it for COIN + naxal stuff ?

Better suited would be Nishant, and those man portable radar units for detecting movement. And heli based optical sensor and some air based elint stuff on a UAV.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Apr 2014 03:47

Cybaru wrote:Indranil,

IMO it will be minimal if at all. The ranges given for the 737-700 fall in line with the reported range for 7A platform used for the Wedgetail program. There seems to be no difference listed. Even if there is a penalty, the range will still be twice the ERJ145 unit seems to have.

Given that the AEW will fly over Indian Ocean or close to home base and will have opportunities to refuel and take off again with a fresh crew, we may not need to cater for extreme cases. Flying a fully loaded A330 isn't going to be cheap. Per hour in air cost or per trip costs are going to be significantly higher and closer to double for A330 vs A321NEO.

The Il-76 platform are probably achieving about 6000 to 7000 KMs in their AEW mode. More with A2A refueling, but given the amount of fuel used, using a non russian platform would make more sense. Less maintenance and cheaper operating costs.

There is no way that you can use the same platform and carry more stuff using the same amount of fuel.

Going from a civilian airliner, one loses the passengers,furniture and luggage but adds electronic equipment. Generally the plane gets heavier. There is no workaround.

There are other factors affecting range too. If you have strong power hungry electronics (the E-3 requires about 1MW of power for its electronics), then you have to lug around more fuel to burn. Sometimes, you would have to add ballasts too (for example going from the E-3As to the E-3Bs).

Coming to the wedgetails, they do have auxiliary fuel tanks (taken from the 737-BBJs). Additionally, although they have the 737-700 fuselage, they had to have the stronger and heavier 737-800 wing to support their extra weight and the BBJ aux fuel tanks. The Top Hat antenna alone weighs close to 3000 kgs, but this is much lower than the chapati on say the A-50s or the E-3s. Also such arrangements have lesser form drag when compared to the chapati.

P.S. I have no idea of what size the plane should be. I don't know what are the weights of the electronics and the envisioned range.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Apr 2014 05:40

If airbus defence is not interested a320 wont happen. Its a new test pgm. They are doing c295.

imo least disruptive path is new build il76 with ps90 engine.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Apr 2014 06:01

indranilroy wrote: There is no way that you can use the same platform and carry more stuff using the same amount of fuel.

Going from a civilian airliner, one loses the passengers,furniture and luggage but adds electronic equipment. Generally the plane gets heavier. There is no workaround.

There are other factors affecting range too. If you have strong power hungry electronics (the E-3 requires about 1MW of power for its electronics), then you have to lug around more fuel to burn. Sometimes, you would have to add ballasts too (for example going from the E-3As to the E-3Bs).

Coming to the wedgetails, they do have auxiliary fuel tanks (taken from the 737-BBJs). Additionally, although they have the 737-700 fuselage, they had to have the stronger and heavier 737-800 wing to support their extra weight and the BBJ aux fuel tanks. The Top Hat antenna alone weighs close to 3000 kgs, but this is much lower than the chapati on say the A-50s or the E-3s. Also such arrangements have lesser form drag when compared to the chapati.

P.S. I have no idea of what size the plane should be. I don't know what are the weights of the electronics and the envisioned range.

You are right, there is no way you can add more payload and go farther. Plus you use some fraction of fuel for lighting up your stuff.

Let me work the payload in a different way.

Two requirements keep showing up in our indian scenario.
One - Elint and the favorable platform of choice seems Gulf Stream V ( Useful payload - 3000 Kgs. )
two - AEW again gulf stream has in past has shown interest, but ERJ145 has been chosen We will take the larger payload ( 5500 Kgs )

If we were to order a bigger bird, it would be to combine both those options and perhaps even do a E8 type mode using the same AESA radar ( Extra hardware ) if we are lucky ( but unlikely )

So if we combine all three requirements in one bird, we would have about 3 consoles from gulfstream and about 5 from ERJ145. Plus we would not have to constantly juggle different modes on these consoles. We could add an extra 2-3 and a commanders work area which the above units would have difficulty in accommodating.

Gulfstream payload = 3K
ERJ payload =5.5 K
Chapati = 3K ( as per you )
Extra compute hardware for other modes, rest area seating furniture+ commanders work area = 3K
Total = 14.5K ( Totally generous )

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Apr 2014 06:25

Some of soln like gulfstream or falcon tout ability to cruise at 45,000ft around 3km higher than heavy ac.
might make a diff in himalayas for better longer pickup of Tibet air situation.

Santosh · Post by **Santosh** » 02 Apr 2014 06:43

dinesha wrote:Two smaller Airborne Early Warning Systems fitted on Embraer 145 aircraft should also be with IAF by mid-2014.

Have the 2nd and 3rd aircraft arrived in India?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Apr 2014 06:54

Cybaru wrote: ...

A little caught up this week. There are a lot of weights and payload capacities that I do not know about. Let me read up a bit and get back to you with my back of the envelop calculations.

P.S. the chapatis weigh more, the antenna on the Wedgetail weighs about 3000 kgs.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Apr 2014 07:11

indranilroy wrote: A little caught up this week. There are a lot of weights and payload capacities that I do not know about. Let me read up a bit and get back to you with my back of the envelop calculations.

P.S. the chapatis weigh more, the antenna on the Wedgetail weighs about 3000 kgs.

Sure.. Take your time.. Do you mind unquoting me. I feel like deleting my mail now that you read it.. Save it away if you like..

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Apr 2014 09:13

Santosh wrote:
dinesha wrote:Two smaller Airborne Early Warning Systems fitted on Embraer 145 aircraft should also be with IAF by mid-2014.
Have the 2nd and 3rd aircraft arrived in India?

I believe so , quite a while back.

vic · Post by **vic** » 02 Apr 2014 09:19

We should go for IL-76 and stock up on extra spares.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Apr 2014 12:27

around 18 months ago, Russian defence minister places a order for 39 IL-476 planes. so we might see first deliveries in 4Q2014

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ts-377334/

Aviastar-SP has already produced a ground-test airframe, and is now working on its first three deliverable examples. State acceptance trials should commence in 2014 with two production aircraft, with the air force also planning to retrofit 43 of its in-service Il-76s with PS-90A-76 engines. The activity is expected to extend the type's service life by 10-15 years.

Compared with the legacy Il-76TD/MD, the -90A variant offers a 10% lower fuel burn, and has an increased maximum take-off weight of 210t. The new aircraft will have a range of 2,700nm (5,000km) with a 52t payload

---
I really believe we should stock screwing around with these long winded global tender and fresh radome thing and just order this bird , with the proven phalcon dish which will need minimal retest and support from Bereiev. I am sure Rus future awacs will also be based on this platform carrying on from the A-50 legacy. LRDE can make the radar square, rectangle, circle, whatever they want but current phalcon housing should be good enough.

there is no point in introducing yet one more type in the zoo of a.c/

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Apr 2014 12:31

dec4, 2013 - we dont even need to wait for some of the cargo hauler tests for the awacs role as payload will be much lighter than 52t. we can order it for cargo hauling also later as I dont see Namo getting a dollar note printing press to order more C17 at current exchange rates.

http://www.ilyushin.org/en/press/news/ev2266/?print=y

irst prototype of Russian upgraded military-transport Aircraft IL-76MD-90A manufacturer № 0102 carried out the flight from Flight Test Center named after M.M. Gromov airfield to CJSC «Aviastar-SP» («Ulianovsk-Vostochniy») for subsequent upgrade as per results of the first stage of state joint testing.

At the present moment IL-76MD-90A Aircraft have finalized the first stage of state joint testing under the Schedule of Ministry of Defense of Russia at Flight Research Institute OJSC «IL». Finalization of the first stage of state joint testing gives official right to carry out serial production of Aircraft and commence manufacturing of preproduction batch of the present Aircraft and of its modifications.

First stage of state joint testing was carried out by combined air crew of OJSC «IL» and Ministry of Defense of Russia. During the testing, 38 flight were done, operation of navigation system «KUPOL-III-76M(A)» and all its component sub-systems, fuel system, autopilot, communication system was checked. Ultimate modes on reliability at maximum speed, ultimate overloads, combination of simultaneously achievement of ultimate speed with ultimate overload were tested as well. Within the scope of state joint testing, flights with maximum takeoff weight 210 tons and maximum landing weight 170 tons were conducted, procedure of missed approach at failure of one or two engines was worked out as well.

Aircraft is designed by OJSC «Aviation Complex Ilyushin» and manufactured at aviation manufacturing Company CSJC «Aviastar-SP» (city of Uliyanovsk). Both Companies are a part of OJSC «UAC». IL-76MD-90A is the first flight prototype assembled in Russia. Decision of designing and manufacturing of upgraded IL-76 in city of Uliyanovsk was taken on 20 of December, 2006 in accordance with directive of State Government.

At «Aviastar-SP» (Uliyanovsk ) upgrade of Aircraft will be done. New communication and defense complexes, internal and external video cameras are planned to be installed. After finalization of upgrade, the second stage of state joint testing of the prototype will be commenced in Zhukovsky. At the second stage of state joint testing it is appointed to test on-board defense and communication complexes, airdropping of cargo and technics will be carried out as well.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Apr 2014 12:32

MOSCOW, January 3 (Itar-Tass) —— State flight trials of the Ilyushin-76MD-90A jet, a modernized version of the military transport Il-76, also known as Il-476, will be over in the third quarter of 2014