Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10195
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by sum »

Kakarat wrote:GIF of DRDO AEW&C flypast at Iron Fist 2016

https://twitter.com/kakarat2001/status/ ... 1651522561

Its a beautiful bird, they should at least order another 3 and base them in the North East
What is the status of this system? Were there any more ordered?
malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by malushahi »

India’s mini-AWACs will be able to refuel in the air
India's mini-AWACS are being developed with the capability to receive fuel mid-air. This will enhance the aircrafts' endurance and allow them to remain longer in the air. The Brazilian Embraer - 145 jets are being modified as per demands of the Indian Air Force, S Christopher, secretary, Department of Defence R&D and director general, Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), said in Kolkata on Thursday.

The IAF already operates Phalcon-mounted IL-76 Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) Systems. Apart from these, three Embraer jets are being fitted with AEW&C systems by the DRDO to operate as mini-AWACS. While the IL-76 carry sufficient fuel to remain airborne for hours at a time, the Embraers don't have that kind of endurance, hence the need to add the facility for mid-air refuelling.

"There are only four countries in the world that have developed AEW&C systems. We are one of them. Fundamental research takes time, even in advanced countries. There are reasons for delay in the development of products. Sometimes, there are miscalculations and people are not aware of the complexities when fixing deadlines. At times, users want modifications at the last stage. This is what has happened with the Embraers. Lastly, there are certain certification processes that take time. The Prime Minister's Make in India policy has come as a boon for DRDO. We are keenly looking out for exports. Even if a big company with 100% Foreign Direct Investment comes in, we are ready to face the competition," Christopher said.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

All these capabilities & a paltry order of 3 birds! Goes against the very spirit of industrialization/mass-production
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

Pehele padho. Phir Padhahi karo.

Mar, 2015 :: Indian Official Describes Latest AEW&C Plans
India is seeking a joint-venture deal with Embraer to export the EMB-145 AEW&C system, now that it has decided on a larger platform to meet Indian Air Force (IAF) requirements. The country has acquired three of the Brazilian aircraft and equipped them with an indigenous radar system. They are now undergoing trials, and two will enter service with the IAF. But the service will not exercised an option to acquire more such aircraft. Meanwhile, however, India will acquire Airbus A330s as the larger platform. .

S. Christopher, director of the Center for AirBorne Systems (CABS) within the government’s Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO), told AIN that an RFP last year sought a longer-endurance and higher-altitude platform than the EMB-145, on which to integrate the indigenous radar system. The RFP was issued to Boeing for the 767, Airbus for the A330 and Ilyushin for the Il-76. But AIN understands that only Airbus responded with a firm offer. An initial two A330s will be acquired, with an option for four more.
malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by malushahi »

dupe - deleted
Last edited by malushahi on 25 Jun 2016 02:52, edited 1 time in total.
malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by malushahi »

India is seeking a joint-venture deal with Embraer to export the EMB-145 AEW&C system
^^^ another pie-in-the-sky mta moment. rather odd that jv news is coming from head of r&d org. wouldn't hold my breath on it unless bel or like (ecil??) productionize the bharatiya components. that won't happen till someone is tasked to run with the corresponding mii component.
Raman
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Raman »

I honestly don't understand how the IAF goes about sizing platforms. The EMB 145 and A330 are as about as opposite size-wise as you can get for an AWACS/AEW&C platform.

It seems really wasteful to spend a whole lot on platform integration and flight testing for only three platforms and end up (a) not being able to amortize those costs over a reasonable production run, and (b) end up with one more type of creature in the zoo that requires special care and feeding. It is extremely unlikely that this product will be exported since which foreign air force will be confident in buying the EMB 145 solution from India if the IAF itself doesn't operate a reasonably sized fleet?

Does anyone know if this was this supposed to be a technology demonstration or prototyping program? It seems unlikely since these airframes are going through the whole IOC/FOC cycle.

From the outside, it seems that choosing an A320 or B737 would have been a better choice; we could have scaled down to A318 or up to A321 with a common airframe. Starting anew from the A330 will require all the antenna placement, structural tests, EMI tests, flight tests, etc. to be redone. It's a completely new program.

Seems wasteful, IMO.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

I would think if and when C295 comes into production, there will be an AEW variant based of that as well. I still feel that A330 is way too big for AEW role. A321 would perhaps be more than sufficient for long airtime, 8-12 operators, second crew, rest area, sufficient galley space and payload for even shoe horning a JSTARS style side looking lobes for ground mapping roles.

Losing a A330 will be quite devastating to operations not to mention lives and loss of valuable trained staff during high intensity ops. Instead of 2-6 A330, a serious look at 6-12 A321LR (7600+ kms) based assets would be better IMO. That would mean if it was placed around calcutta, it would reach south korea and back or end of mongolia and back (just to give an idea). Since there is no other luggage, Airbus can fit upto another 6 extra fuel tanks in there extending the 10 hour flight time.
Last edited by Cybaru on 25 Jun 2016 05:47, edited 1 time in total.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Cosmo_R »

Raman wrote:I honestly don't understand how the IAF goes about sizing platforms. The EMB 145 and A330 are as about as opposite size-wise as you can get for an AWACS/AEW&C platform.

...
Seems wasteful, IMO.
We like tutti frutti. It somehow maintains our strategic independence (from reality) and celebrates our diversity.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by shiv »

Cybaru wrote:I would think if and when C295 comes into production, there will be an AEW variant based of that as well. I still feel that A330 is way too big for AEW role. A321 would perhaps be more than sufficient for long airtime, 8-12 operators, second crew, rest area, sufficient galley space and payload for even shoe horning a JSTARS style side looking lobes for ground mapping roles.

Losing a A330 will be quite devastating to operations not to mention lives and loss of valuable trained staff during high intensity ops. Instead of 2-6 A330, a serious look at 6-12 A321LR (7600+ kms) based assets would be better IMO.
I am not an avionics whiz but an A 330 will have a lot more spare power to look a lot further and cover bigger areas. If our "indigenous" electronics are heavier and more bulky and run hotter to do the same job, we may have to go for a bigger platform because otherwise no one else is going to give us stuff

The idea that a bigger AWACS lost will be a "bigger loss" and so we would somehow be better off with "smaller losses" is an argument that I do not like. To my mind it is like saying I don't mind if my 5 year old dies, but if he dies when he is 20 it will be a bigger loss. In fact a bigger AWACS will be able to stay further away from dangerous airspace work longer hours and still be effective.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

I honestly don't understand how the IAF goes about sizing platforms. The EMB 145 and A330 are as about as opposite size-wise as you can get for an AWACS/AEW&C platform.

It seems really wasteful to spend a whole lot on platform integration and flight testing for only three platforms and end up (a) not being able to amortize those costs over a reasonable production run, and (b) end up with one more type of creature in the zoo that requires special care and feeding. It is extremely unlikely that this product will be exported since which foreign air force will be confident in buying the EMB 145 solution from India if the IAF itself doesn't operate a reasonably sized fleet?
Not really.

If one were to place these news reports on a time line and then superimpose funds, tech maturity, jv opportunities, etc, the whole enchilada, then one can appreciate the thinking.

That said fully expect major changes in the future. This India is not even the one from 2010, forget 90s or earlier.

However, it undoubtedly will seem to be wasteful. But that is the way it is. Normal.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

shiv wrote: I am not an avionics whiz but an A 330 will have a lot more spare power to look a lot further and cover bigger areas. If our "indigenous" electronics are heavier and more bulky and run hotter to do the same job, we may have to go for a bigger platform because otherwise no one else is going to give us stuff

The idea that a bigger AWACS lost will be a "bigger loss" and so we would somehow be better off with "smaller losses" is an argument that I do not like. To my mind it is like saying I don't mind if my 5 year old dies, but if he dies when he is 20 it will be a bigger loss. In fact a bigger AWACS will be able to stay further away from dangerous airspace work longer hours and still be effective.
An APU will do the trick if extra power is really required over and above what the engine can provide. The good thing for our operational needs is that it will mostly be based out on our territories so refueling should be less of a urgent requirement. If the radar/electronics work well on il-76/EMB145 and not display operational issues, then the same hardware will have lesser issues on this bigger platform.
shiv wrote: The idea that a bigger AWACS lost will be a "bigger loss" and so we would somehow be better off with "smaller losses" is an argument that I do not like.
Losses happen in war, you have to plan for it. You will lose operational assets unless you invest 10 times what the opponent can and we have china to contend with. Can't play ostrich forever. Again that's how I would plan it, have more availability by having more of the same asset class and if something we don't like happens, then the effect on immediate ops/war efforts are reduced. Again it's okay to disagree with my opinion or post.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by shiv »

Cybaru wrote: Losses happen in war, you have to plan for it. You will lose operational assets unless you invest 10 times what the opponent can and we have china to contend with. Can't play ostrich forever. Again that's how I would plan it, have more availability by having more of the same asset class and if something we don't like happens, then the effect on immediate ops/war efforts are reduced. Again it's okay to disagree with my opinion or post.
What I disagree with is the idea that because losses happen war we must aim to have more of cheaper and less capable assets and accept losses of personnel in those assets because we would be playing ostrich by getting fewer but more capable assets.

The ostrich reference is worthless rhetoric, but when I ignore that I still see a difference in philosophy of the cold war type between what USSR did versus what US did. To me this looks like "ballpark guesstimates" and would be happy to see some estimates of payload, range, time on station and capability of larger platforms versus smaller platforms carrying the extra burden of bigger APU to power heavier and more power guzzling avionics and why we might want to philosophically accept the loss of a few AWACS in war rather than seeking to keep them safe, small or large using the justification that losses happen in war.

I believe it would be easier to protect a larger and more capable AWACS keeping it well away from hostile airspace rather than risking several less capable ones by sending them into relatively dangerous zones.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

Please try not to twist what I am saying.

I don't think A321 will end up being less capable, rather the A330 will be under utilized asset with lots of empty space marked "growth areas for future" which may never get used (see p8I cutaway). I think they both will get same radar with same range and same number of stations. Currently the largest awacs by volume and payload is the Japanese 767 birds if you want to look around for its cutaway.

Some points while I take some time to put back of envelope calculations over the next week.
The asset itself will cost more to acquire.

The cost of operations for a bigger bird will be higher, more fuel required for every sortie.

Awacs will maintain sectors during ops, you have less birds, means less sectors you can maintain. (See ref below 3.3-1). This also means that you can take the battle to less areas at the same time. You will need for one set of operations to finish before you can task Awacs to another sector making this the bottleneck for operations. As we get used to Awacs, we will probably not conduct operations without the ever seeing eye which helps clean up the fog of war and ensure higher survivability rates for assets that go into enemy territory.

There is also less frames for relief, you can't task your plane out should something go wrong and replace it with another one to keep the ops going.

Reduced ability to cycle crews/frames as fatigue sets in and requiring longer ops and airtime. Even with spare crew on the same flight, there is reduced efficiency and only so many times you can refuel in air to extend on station availability.

Availability will be higher in a fleet that has larger number of birds. In case of loss, the fleet operations will get hit harder. (Esp if you only plan between 2 for real and 4 options). If we acquire only 2, how do you model availability? 50% uptime? (USAF had two losses and NATO had one all during take off due to bird hits)

Crew ops will become more difficult during upgrade. You will need crew certified on particular type, so for a period, crew from one to other won't be transferable esp if the upgrade is scheduled an year or two apart. You will need this long period of time to certify the newly upgraded bird before you can upgrade the second. (debug and unkink it out) as we don't have development platforms separate from operational ones.

With larger fleet size, you could plan to upgrade multiple assets during the same period to ensure operability after first asset is certified. That way multiple crews can get certified and have higher availability.

Long long time ago, CrowSoup talked about this issue during the Su-30K to MK1-4 inductions. Same applies here.

Nice Cutaway for older platform upgrades.
http://www.northropgrumman.com/capabili ... /awacs.pdf

Look at Image 3.3-1 from the following pdf.
http://www.northropgrumman.com/capabili ... epaper.pdf

And you are welcome to put together what makes the A330 a better platform than the A321 as well like you asked.

Not related to above discussion: Awacs refueling gone bad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcLiAAVeYhk
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Since India is one of the first countries int he world looking to do a modern AEW from the ground up, it will be one of the first to grapple with the challenges associated with modern IADS, long range HOJ missiles in the a2a and g2a context and of course the problem of ever shrinking target RCS values:

- How do you make the AEW perform at stand off distances against a threat that has its RCS shrinking exponentially compared to legacy (See J20, J-31, at least 2 UCAV programs all significantly lower RCS values than legacy flankers)

- How do you make the AEW survivable against very long range Anti-AEW interceptors launched from the Ground and from the Air (S400 long range interceptor is 200+ Nautical Miles weapon against this target type, SM6 is very similar and more weapons in this class will no doubt come form China once it gets its hands on the S400)

- How do you communicate at long ranges (in case you decide to stand off) under network attack

- How do you distribute Situational Awareness and Early Warning to eliminate single, critical points of failures

There are no SIMPLE answers to these and modern AEW designers and operators have to come up with new concept of operations and doctrine to deal with these newer denial measures that an adversary can take up. If you up Stand Off distance you run the risk of reducing AEW coverage against higher end threat (which will push unrealistic performance expectations given the nature of platform RCS's is going to tend to get smaller as everything from Fighters to UAV's, UCAV's, cruise missiles see RCS reduction which in some cases is broadband), and must compensate with a much larger sensor, power and ultimately platform footprint. If you go closer to the threat you run the risk of being targeted and therefore must build in survivability features against a myriad of kinetic and non-kinetic threats against mostly cooperative AEW targets.
Last edited by brar_w on 25 Jun 2016 23:50, edited 1 time in total.
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Gyan »

We will need to work both on DIRCM as well as Anti Missile Missile.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

DIRCM won't help since its not going to be flying low enough against MANPADS, and there isn't any IR, long range anti AWACS weapon, or SAM out there apart from off and on rumors of one of the Ft2000 variants having IIR.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

I don't think this tender or platform choice is going to force a redesign of AEW components we have in EM145 and Il-76.

It really is going to take those components and put them on a bigger more comfortable platform. If there are minor tweaks or additions now that we have some more empty space, that may happen. But lets not get carried away that this will be a blank canvas attempt at diamond plating AEW to capture every possible scenario there is. Subsequent upgrades can address unmet needs when R&D has an answer, till then tally ho..
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

EM145 has Indian electronics. The IL-76 has Israeli.

We can expect the bigger plane to host Indian stuff. And if it was just for kicks, there are other platforms inbeteen, sizewise.

I think brar is right. Clean sheet stuff.

It will take awhile. Need patience.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Gagan »

The A330-200 is 58.5 m long. The A321s are 37-45 m long
The smallest 330 is slightly different than the rest of the 330s. It has an extra centerline fuel tank, specially lengethened tail & wings, & look at its range - 13500 kms cf 5500 km for A321s, & it is some 14-18 m longer.
IA can standardize this for AWACS & Refueler. Maybe a make in india thing can be discussed for this model? But certainly component manufacture should be mandatory.
If cheen can get the A320 factory, India should get something similar too - ask boeing

The 330 size aircraft is selected for range / loiter time reasons
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by shiv »

Cybaru wrote:Please try not to twist what I am saying.

I don't think A321 will end up being less capable, rather the A330 will be under utilized asset with lots of empty space marked "growth areas for future" which may never get used (see p8I cutaway). I think they both will get same radar with same range and same number of stations. Currently the largest awacs by volume and payload is the Japanese 767 birds if you want to look around for its cutaway.

Some points while I take some time to put back of envelope calculations over the next week.
The asset itself will cost more to acquire.

The cost of operations for a bigger bird will be higher, more fuel required for every sortie.

Awacs will maintain sectors during ops, you have less birds, means less sectors you can maintain. (See ref below 3.3-1). This also means that you can take the battle to less areas at the same time. You will need for one set of operations to finish before you can task Awacs to another sector making this the bottleneck for operations. As we get used to Awacs, we will probably not conduct operations without the ever seeing eye which helps clean up the fog of war and ensure higher survivability rates for assets that go into enemy territory.

There is also less frames for relief, you can't task your plane out should something go wrong and replace it with another one to keep the ops going.

Reduced ability to cycle crews/frames as fatigue sets in and requiring longer ops and airtime. Even with spare crew on the same flight, there is reduced efficiency and only so many times you can refuel in air to extend on station availability.
My main objection was not to technical arguments but the idea that because there will be losses in war we should select a larger number of smaller platforms that you feel will be more affordable and the loss of one or more AEW aircraft will not lead to loss of AEW support because we have so many smaller platforms.

Even apart from this issue, the number of assumptions that I saw there are huge because the assumed scenarios do not answer the following questions:
1. How many AEW aircraft do we need? This would depend on the volume of airspace that any individual aircraft can cover, the time it can cover that space, and if we are looking at 24x7 AEW coverage across the entire border region of India. What is the plan?
2. Are we ever going to deploy AEW aircraft flying over Pakistan or China inside hostile airspace? (see next question)
3. What sort of air dominance situation do we need to have before we send an AEW into hostile airspace - or do we simply send in one or two because we have so many and don't mind losing one along with the smaller crew component that smaller and cheaper aircraft have?
4. What is the "availability" of any AEW fleet. Do I see an assumption here that AEW aircraft are like high performance fighters whose availability drops because of the demands of flying in and out of hostile airspace approaching the limits of engine performance and structural strength. I see words like "availability of an AEW fleet". Is there a suggestion here that having 20 AEW will give us at least 15 while having only 3 will give us 2? On what basis are these assumptions being made?
5. Is there any information that Indian developed electronics are as miniaturized and as energy efficient as say what the US and Japan have? What is the reliability of our AESA T/R modules? Can we achieve better reliability by building in redundancy in having a larger number of modules allowing for good functionality even at moderately high failure rates? If we had to do that our radars would be bigger, heavier and more power guzzling than radars of equal performance from the USA or Japan requiring bigger aircraft. What information is available in public source about this?
6. There is a huge difference between 3 hours flying endurance and 6 hours flying endurance. The shorter the endurance the greater the percentage of patrol time eaten up by the time it takes to take off and reach the patrol zone and return. If it takes 30 minutes to reach the patrol zone and return, 1 hour patrol time is eaten up that is 33% of a plane with 3 hours endurance but only 16% of a plane with 6 hours endurance. the latter can do 250% more patrolling on station. Three smaller aircraft have to take off and land in the time that just one larger aircraft stays on station.
Last edited by shiv on 26 Jun 2016 07:18, edited 1 time in total.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2918
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

Some fleet uptime for NATO and US forces. Have fun!

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA393970
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by srin »

My biggest concern is the timelines. The A330 based chapati-style AWACS likely won't be operational for some 10 years atleast. The Embraer is available here and now. So make do with "good enough" - so keep getting one a year - and work in parallel on the A330. That will also allow breathing space for the development and can absorb a couple of years of additional delays
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Gagan »

AoA
What is the attraction of people with small programs onlee? Not wanting to see programs mature?
Make more LCA MK1s, Vikrant 1s, Arjun MK 1s, Embraer AEWs.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by srin »

^^ That's a wrong understanding of the point, sir - nothing about small programs or big or any size.

It is about what we have *now* and that is the Embraer. I don't know why DRDO didn't start with A330 and went for a smaller airframe. If you have a system you have readied through a lot of efforts, then go ahead and mass manufacture it. Keep it available - you don't know when we're going to enter a conflict and something will be better than nothing.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by shiv »

Cybaru wrote:Some fleet uptime for NATO and US forces. Have fun!

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA393970
This is a precise example of the problem I have.

Using the analogy of US and Nato forces flying AWACS at huge distances from their home air bases at foreign locales with iffy maintenance being compared to some theoretical and completely undefined Indian scenario. Don't want to digress but this is the overwhelming weight of American infoblasting that stops us from thinking about what we might need. On another thread there has been talk of targeting tanks with their APU running in desert heat. The only tank I could find with an APU was Abrams, until I was informed that Arjun, a tank not yet in service has an APU. American garam hawa flows a long way

How far away from home base will India employ its AEW planes? How many will we need? What can be done with limited numbers? What can be done with larger numbers? What is the minimum number we need? What is the maximum number?

US experience in the Gulf wars simply does not answer these questions.
Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Gyan »

When we are gaming the scenarios about SAMs and AAMs shooting down AWACS we must take into consideration that long range average speed of SAM/AAM missiles is Mach 1.5 while AWACS can fly at 0.8 Mach. The missile range will also decrease if AWACS maneuvers even in a limited manner.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by shiv »

srin wrote:My biggest concern is the timelines. The A330 based chapati-style AWACS likely won't be operational for some 10 years atleast. The Embraer is available here and now. So make do with "good enough" - so keep getting one a year - and work in parallel on the A330. That will also allow breathing space for the development and can absorb a couple of years of additional delays
I might be wrong here but let me stick my neck out and state my thoughts.

As far as I can tell our Il 76 chapatis are non rotating and from images it appears to me that there are three modules arranged as a triangle giving 360 degrees cover (or nearabout that figure)

Our Embraers have a flat mounting that gives (IIRC) 120 degrees on each side. I think there is no coverage directly in front of the a/c and directly behind. This need not be a great disadvantage, but add that to other issues like endurance and the possibility (my musharraf derived guess) that Indian T/R modules may be larger, heavier, more numerous and/or more power guzzling that Amriki "state of the art" then we may be looking at a larger airframe as "desirable"
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by shiv »

Gyan wrote:When we are gaming the scenarios about SAMs and AAMs shooting down AWACS we must take into consideration that long range average speed of SAM/AAM missiles is Mach 1.5 while AWACS can fly at 0.8 Mach. The missile range will also decrease if AWACS maneuvers even in a limited manner.
I am no avionics whiz. but active "detection range" is dependent on the power that the radar can push out, all else being equal.

An aircraft with a radar that has a detection range of 350 km can safely be used to look 200 km into enemy airspace staying 150 km inside safe airspace. This does not ensure absolute safety from all missile threats, but it certainly makes threats to have to work harder to get the AWACS. An enemy radar that is shining a light 150 km into India to target an AWACS needs to be put out permanently and soon.

Naturally a detection range of say 200 km would change the dynamics in a different way and for safety of the AEW and efficacy it may have to stay 75-100 km inside while "looking" an equal distance into enemy territory.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Cybaru wrote:Some fleet uptime for NATO and US forces. Have fun!

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA393970
That is the totally wrong reference point. US and NATO AWACS fleets are old, although very well modernized they are still old airframes with old Radar technology. It has ZERO bearing on a completely clean sheet AEW aircraft being designed by india that may come with a completely new indigenous sensor (see the previous pages of the thread). The last advanced AEW developed by US or Europe was the pocket E-7 that was born out of a sensor funded for another project, and the and the E-2D. The next one is 15-20 years from showing up.
How far away from home base will India employ its AEW planes? How many will we need? What can be done with limited numbers? What can be done with larger numbers? What is the minimum number we need? What is the maximum number?

US experience in the Gulf wars simply does not answer these questions.
This gets to the point. Net Centricity, and C2 is doctrine dependent. Without understanding the doctrine you go NO WHERE with requirements or even trying to predict what should be traded off or brought in at something else's expense.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

CY,

A few points (via google):

1) Airbus was the ONLY one who responded to the tender
2) India had request 2 planes, with a follow-on order of 4 and options of 4. For a total of at least 6, potentially 10
3) That was for the AWACS. The MRTT being the other dimension to this

Point being, considering that this came about *after* the EM145 procurement, this is not something stopgap. In fact, this topic goes back to 2009 or so.

BTW, IIRC, the EM145s are *not* 360, or are they? The 330 will be 360, no blind spots.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Would be great to see if they go for a 'round' chapati on it like our il 76 phalcon or and 'triangle' plate like a computer model on v 22 awacs !
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

I believe the radar structure itself is triangular. But it is encased within a disc.

The disc actually is designed to carry its own load - while flying, it is a wing.

The triangular radar is what gives it 360 all the time.

A rotating disc, a radome, provides 360, but on a rotational basis. Every few seconds. These should be AESA. ????

My understanding.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

Some ball-park figures (and I could be absolutely wrong here; please correct me) say that you'd need 3 x smaller AWACS to do what a single big guy can do.

Some rough numbers (all sourced from Google) - ERJ-145 range is ~2,800 km. Assuming a 200 km x 2 - 400 km ingress and egress route, we're left with 2,400 km of range. At about 450 kph loiter speed, we've time on station of 5.3 hours.

The 'time-on-station' for big guys is in the range of 12-13 hours. And this is based on western experience. One data point for Japanese E-3 Sentry AWACS based on Boeing-767 (which has similar range to A-330) says and I quote, "9.25 hours on station at 1,000 nautical-mile radius;
13 hours at 300-nautical mile radius". In kilometer terms, the latter on station time is for loiter at a distance of 500 km.

Interestingly, using same back-of-the-envelope calculations as done for ERJ-145 gives loiter time for A-330 based AWACS of 21 hours! But human endurance will be the limitation here.

Nice document which gives a good primer on AWACS and details of E-3 system and program:

https://www.forecastinternational.com/a ... _RECNO=405

The data sheet shows that weight of the radar and processing unit itself is more than 4,500 kg. And the Radome with struts weighs ~5,800 kg (Not sure this weight is with or w/o the radar unit inside).
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Gagan »

DRDO's radar for the indian AESA AWACS was supposed to be square shaped, not triangular like in the IL-76 Phalcons.

/ \
\ /

as opposed to

| \
| /

Perhaps the Israelis don't give us the range we need, or the algorithms that the IAF seeks, or that an imported system is simply too expensive and the upgrades even more so - surely all of the above.
Last edited by Gagan on 26 Jun 2016 21:26, edited 1 time in total.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

Gagan wrote:DRDO's radar for the indian AESA AWACS was supposed to be square shaped, not triangular like in the IL-76 Phalcons.

Perhaps the Israelis don't give us the range we need, or the algorithms that the IAF seeks, or that an imported system is simply too expensive and the upgrades even more so - surely all of the above.
The money sanctioned for the mini-AWACS and larger ones ( 03 of the former and 02 of the latter) roughly translates into ~USD 120 million for ERJ-145 based solution and ~USD 300 million for larger one. This includes the R&D cost.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

With IFR you are essentially limited by crew endurance and fatigue. The RAAF put more than 17 hours on the way to their longest E-7 deployment but you would definitely be pushing crew endurance limits even with the crew rest area. The typical TOS for that size/weight from practical experience (RAAF) has been between 8-12h depending upon the specifics of range etc but as per requirements it demonstrated 9 hours endurance at 555 km from base (300 nm) part of the Australian requirement.

Typically, the Wedgetail deployed to Iraq has flown missions lasting 13-16 hr., including 8-12 hr. on station. Inflight refueling, while previously practiced, has become routine.
Last edited by brar_w on 26 Jun 2016 22:28, edited 1 time in total.
Raman
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by Raman »

Some additional factors to keep in mind:
a) The point about additional power to feed the antenna was raised. The EMB-145 based solution carries an (extra?) APU to drive the radar.
b) Mid-air refueling can extend the EMB-145's time on station considerably. May also help the A330, but the A330 can probably already carry enough fuel.
c) You cannot send up an AWACS all by its lonesome - AWACS/AEW&C aircraft need defensive fighter cover.

Looking ahead, India will operate:
- Three IL-76 based Phalcon (RFP sent for two more)
- Three EMB-145 based DRDO AEW&C
- Three(?) A330 based AWACS India

Seems like we really have a thing for bespoke/small-batch instead of settling on a standard solution and cranking out larger numbers.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

Data points.

India to build two next-generation Awacs for Rs 5,113 crore
The Manohar Parrikar-led defence acquisitions council (DAC) approved the building of two Awacs, which will involve mounting indigenous 360-degree coverage AESA (active electronically scanned array) radars on Airbus A-330 wide-body jets, at a cost of Rs 5,113 crore.
"It will take at least 5-7 years to build the first two Awacs . Six more Awacs will be ordered when the project is mid-way," said a source.
The "Awacs-India" project, with 80%:20% cost sharing between IAF and DRDO, is far more ambitious than the ongoing project to build three AEW&C (airborne early warning and control system) systems at a cost of Rs 2,275 crore. Under it, indigenous 240-degree coverage radars have been fitted on three smaller Brazilian Embraer-145 jets.
Pakistan seems to be better in AWACS.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: AEW&C News & Discussion

Post by abhik »

The cost difference between an A330 based AWACS vs something like A320 is going to be huge. The basic aircraft is about $250 million, after all the modifications made i doubt it will cost less than $350-400 mil, just for the airframe. Add the radar and other equipment plus development cost you will end up with a per unit cost of well over a half a billion USD.
Post Reply