Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

kit · Post by **kit** » 30 Mar 2015 21:32

i guess so , a system like JORN should provide a 24* 7 real time surveillance over the entire eastern front ! , though technically they are not used like that

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Mar 2015 21:33

Cybaru wrote:
Mort,

Sure, there will be some easy peasy missions like tracking inbound smuggling ops and you won't need escorts. But in a semi-state of war, before the actual hostilities as in Kargil, you will fly with escorts and definately so during war. That means hours of practicing to fly like that in peace time to acquire operational readiness and collabration to work as a team. Larger your team, more practice you will need. Protecting these assets may be the difference between losing or winning.

The easy peasy missions are in fact the most important because before the start of hostilities the enemy will be moving assets in and out of a theater of operation. It requires constant surveillance that satellite imagery will be too slow for. In any shooting war with China or Pak, the AWACS will be out somewhere over the Arabian Sea or Indian Ocean looking in to the Indian subcontinent tracking enemy aircraft and their communications. If someone decides to go after the AWACS, great! They'll have less assets for actual missions and their own air defense.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Mar 2015 21:34

rohitvats wrote:
Cybaru wrote: It doesn't have to negate range; 3000kms is decent range. Time on station = range / speed.

<SNIP>

The optimum speed for 707 based awacs is 360MPH or 0.48 mach. It's top speed is .78/.8 mach. I don't think you need numbers to think more about this.
The logic given above and data-point about 707 actually supports the calculation I gave; on the contrary, I took 500 kmph as cruise speed for our EMB-145 while above speed comes out to be 576 kmph.

So, the 3,000 km range after adjusting for ingress and egress, gives 2,600/500 = 5.2 hours of on station time.

You can't use 707's profile to get EMB145 range + you haven't factored in the additional range from the fuel in the 3 extra tanks. There is enough literature all pointing to 8 hour on station time (6 shared). I presume they are all wrong along with Eembraer the manufacturer.

http://www.airvectors.net/averj.html
The E-99 carries a suite of signals intelligence (SIGINT) gear as well. The E-99 is also equipped with GPS navigation and secure comlinks. There are four operator consoles in total, plus seats for five relief crew, along with the flight crew of two. The E-99 features twin ventral fins under the tail and swept "finlets" on the tailplane to compensate for the aerodynamic clutter of the Erieye antenna; it has a reinforced airframe, a more powerful APU, a more capable electric system, and additional fuel tanks to extend endurance to eight hours.

http://www1.embraer.com/english/content ... asp?id=669
To meet Brazilian Air Force requirements regarding the surveillance of the Amazon region, the ERJ 145 went through a number of modifications, of which the most visible are the radar mountings on top of the EMB 145 AEW&C and in the lower fuselage section of the EMB 145 RS. Moreover, the military versions of the ERJ 145 have increased range and sophisticated systems that guarantee the necessary capabilities for its monitoring and surveillance roles.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Mar 2015 21:53

Mort Walker wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
Mort,

Sure, there will be some easy peasy missions like tracking inbound smuggling ops and you won't need escorts. But in a semi-state of war, before the actual hostilities as in Kargil, you will fly with escorts and definately so during war. That means hours of practicing to fly like that in peace time to acquire operational readiness and collabration to work as a team. Larger your team, more practice you will need. Protecting these assets may be the difference between losing or winning.
The easy peasy missions are in fact the most important because before the start of hostilities the enemy will be moving assets in and out of a theater of operation. It requires constant surveillance that satellite imagery will be too slow for. In any shooting war with China or Pak, the AWACS will be out somewhere over the Arabian Sea or Indian Ocean looking in to the Indian subcontinent tracking enemy aircraft and their communications. If someone decides to go after the AWACS, great! They'll have less assets for actual missions and their own air defense.

These awacs in Indian ocean will be without cover during war like state? The enemey will be down by one missile not an asset. Unlike us, if we send it awacs into active zone without cover.

I agree with you mort during peace time missions, you may not need cover, but these to be any use during war, they will need top cover. Or we can do what pakistan did when the orion got shot down, protest in UN.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 Mar 2015 21:53

Mort Walker wrote:An AWACS is used to track aircraft from a long range. Let's say military aircraft take off from a base in the Tibetan plateau and are on a course for somewhere near Karachi. An AWACS is ideal for just that as it will track position, speed, altitude, size, and to monitor that aircraft's radio transmissions as well. For air defense, a ground based solution is much more extensive and considerably less costly.

The IAF does not see AWACS as a simple flying long range radar - they see it as a offensive weapon system which directly aids in winning battles. And air-warfare. And they train as such. There is a reason it is called Airborne Warning & CONTROL System. The main mission of a AWACS is Air-Battle Management. It helps you to manage air-battle in real time and gives you ability to integrate all assets at your disposal. Which no ground based radar will be able to do. ADGES (Air Defense Ground Environment System) - the name IAF gives to series of ground based radars on western front - is more inward looking while AWACS is more outward looking.

That is why IAF wants a larger and long duration AWACS - given the radar+aircraft range and number of on-board controllers, it will help to manage a larger airspace and consequently, more assets and air-battles in real time.

One advantage I see with EMB-145 system apart from filling gaps between larger AWACS is that it can form part of a 'Strike' package for a given sector. That is, the a/c manages air-battle in a narrow corridor as part of overall strike effort thereby relieving larger AWACS for other tasks.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Mar 2015 22:18

^^^I agree with the air battle management and that is not in question. I was referring to peace time operations for surveillance or prior to hostilities and that is what most missions will consist of.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Mar 2015 22:27

Cybaru wrote:
These awacs in Indian ocean will be without cover during war like state? The enemey will be down by one missile not an asset. Unlike us, if we send it awacs into active zone without cover.

I agree with you mort during peace time missions, you may not need cover, but these to be any use during war, they will need top cover. Or we can do what pakistan did when the orion got shot down, protest in UN.

An enemy is going to shoot at you regardless of location, iff they can get access to you. An AWACS over the ocean, be it the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal, can still direct operations effectively in a conflict with China or Pak should they cross into India first. No country AFAIK, has dedicated combat aircraft cover for their AWACS.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Mar 2015 23:02

Mort Walker wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
These awacs in Indian ocean will be without cover during war like state? The enemey will be down by one missile not an asset. Unlike us, if we send it awacs into active zone without cover.

I agree with you mort during peace time missions, you may not need cover, but these to be any use during war, they will need top cover. Or we can do what pakistan did when the orion got shot down, protest in UN.
An enemy is going to shoot at you regardless of location, iff they can get access to you. An AWACS over the ocean, be it the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal, can still direct operations effectively in a conflict with China or Pak should they cross into India first. No country AFAIK, has dedicated combat aircraft cover for their AWACS.

Mort,

During desert storm, US flew approximately 800 CAP missions a week. A majority of them were to support HVAA like Awacs, JSTARS, tankers and other ingressing and returning assets. They got armed for that role, refueled and remained on station for a long time. The only real operator of AWACS is US. If you look at the graph below, they flew the CAPS all the way into the end of the 6 week campaign and that too against an inferior adversary. The number of CAP units remained constant or increased at the end. I also think this number is just for US forces. I am sure all the coalition forces contributed to these CAP roles and if you add them up you will see a large portion of USAF tied up in CAP roles. I think these will be all primo assets with long legs to reduce refuelings.

Rest all barely have any useful platforms to support any sustained major operation. If you want to look at mature operations, US is the benchmark. Australia can fly without cap all day long within its borders, so can NATO unless they are getting close to ukranian border. Just to prove a point, a pilatius with a gun can take an unprotected asset like awacs down. So the enemy doesn't have to spare any missiles if you let an un protected asset meander around an active war zone. Canon fodder!

ref: Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air Campaign
By Kwai-Cheung Chan
https://books.google.com/books?id=-T7mf ... er&f=false

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Mar 2015 23:36

NATO including the UK, France operate 28 E-3 variants. The USAF operates 32 E-3A/B/C. Desert Storm type operations happen once in a decade even for the US. For Desert Storm, I would say most CAP missions were not to provide air cover strictly for the E-3, but for other HVAA operating in the theater. Much of this was an abundance of caution as there was worry about Aloha Snackbar of RSAF and other gelf coalition countries.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Mar 2015 23:57

Mort,

Okay, we are going in circles. I have made my point. You can disagree. Gulf war was the only real war fought with AWACS and provides good analysis of capablities/warfasre style and what to expect. It was against an inferior enemy and even then US continued to keep CAP cover for all its HVAA. Sure the CAP was for more than just jstars/awacs and that 800 number is a combined number and the breakdown is not given. But I suspect that higher the value of the asset, more CAP aircraft assigned to it. JSTARS/AWACS >> Tankers >> Other platforms.

If we fight against china or pakistan, for us CAP is far far far more important.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 31 Mar 2015 02:02

Cy,

No disagreements. JSTARS was being deployed and tested during the Gulf War, and it was for supporting ground troops. So protecting the E-8 was a priority. CAP will most likely be used during a shooting conflict, especially if there is a competent adversary. I don't know how extensive it would be, but the CAP may be part of the battle management strategy. The Gulf War was the first publicized and advertised use of AWACS. The doctrine and use of the AWACS was well in place by the USAF by the mid 1980s. AWACS have been used in every US war since then. After 9/11, the US was attacked and NATO by obligation had to send their AWACS to the US in case of further attacks. In the 1971 war there were reports of Russian Mainstay A50 testing in India at one point.

Historically USAF used its AWACS for tracking USSR aircraft entering in to North America. The Russians and Americans have played this cold war game for decades where the Russians launch a Bear bomber sortie to North America and then time the USAF as to how soon it makes a detection and scrambles combat intercept aircraft. At the last minute the Bear turns course before being intercepted.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 31 Mar 2015 02:07

Another area where Embraer AEW&C will be extremely useful is in *internal monitoring*. Support for COIN operations, tracking Maoist movements etc. It needs to be geared up for that with GMTI, FPR etc, but its an important role that a full-blown AWACS is overkill for & UAVs are too small to do. We also need ARC-Gulfstream type aircraft for internal SIGINT/COMINT to pick up sleeper cell phone calls, Maoists planning IED blasts etc - this is another role that the AEW&C can play

Ordering just 3 AEW&C is a disgrace. Its like setting up an entire assembly line and churning out 10 cars! AN initial order of 3 is perfectly understanable, given that its a new platform & the user needs to build confidence in it. But the 1st one landed in August 2012. By now, the IAF would have had a full assessment of its capabilities. Unless its found to be defincient (there has been no news to this effect), by now there should have been orders for several more to keep the production line going.

Besides Akash-MK1, the IAF & IA have not learnt the idea of supporting iterative development with large orders. INSAS-MK1, Arjun-MK1, Tejas-MK1 - sadly, too many examples

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 31 Mar 2015 03:03

Prem Kumar wrote:Besides Akash-MK1, the IAF & IA have not learnt the idea of supporting iterative development with large orders. INSAS-MK1, Arjun-MK1, Tejas-MK1 - sadly, too many examples

Dhruv, LCH, IJT?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 31 Mar 2015 03:12

Mort Walker wrote:Cy,

No disagreements. JSTARS was being deployed and tested during the Gulf War, and it was for supporting ground troops. So protecting the E-8 was a priority. 1CAP will most likely be used during a shooting conflict, especially if there is a competent adversary. [2]I don't know how extensive it would be, but the CAP may be part of the battle management strategy. The Gulf War was the first publicized and advertised use of AWACS. The doctrine and use of the AWACS was well in place by the USAF by the mid 1980s. AWACS have been used in every US war since then. After 9/11, the US was attacked and NATO by obligation had to send their AWACS to the US in case of further attacks. In the 1971 war there were reports of Russian Mainstay A50 testing in India at one point.

Historically USAF used its AWACS for tracking USSR aircraft entering in to North America. The Russians and Americans have played this cold war game for decades where the Russians launch a Bear bomber sortie to North America and then time the USAF as to how soon it makes a detection and scrambles combat intercept aircraft. At the last minute the Bear turns course before being intercepted.

Mort,

True true. The reason for the line bar chart earlier was to point out that CAP increased even though iraqi air/sam threat got totally neutrealized. High Value Asset CAP (HAVCAP) is normal protocol all over. No missions run without having HAVCAP when HVAA is put in an active zone. so your point "1" is assuming that start of a conflict point is known. If there were no threats, we wouldn't need Awacs! So you have to assume that $hits gonna fly on your watch or there is no point of active deployment. 2 It's exhaustive and standard procedure as far as I understand from all my browsing. I am sure there maybe points when HVAA don't have escorts, but that's probably in the safest zones of transit or in nirvana peace moments, when the cows are grazing the meadows and all is well.

So we better plan on getting more long legged fighters as they will need to task for it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Mar 2015 13:07

reason for those CAPs was the continuing presence of Iraqi Mig25 and the chance they might reappear back from Iran.

on some occasions the us tried but could not take down iraqi mig25

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 31 Mar 2015 17:42

The use of AWACS in GWI in 1991 served as management of the air campaign, but mistakes were made too even after first receiving the E-3s in 1977. The E-3s along with a couple of F-15s shot down US Army transport helos because they were mistaken as Iraqi Hind helos. The E-8 was being deployed and there lot of coalition forces involved. Part of the reason for the CAP was the big fear was that Sunni sympathizers in the coalition would turn against other coalition members.

After GWI the E-3 did enforce the no-fly zone in Iraq. I could see something similar happening to Pak without it officially being declared should the IAF have sufficient long range AWACS.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 31 Mar 2015 20:09

Singha & MW:

Yes, those were some of the reasons. And we will have a list of similar/different reasons to protect our own HVAA. We will need to run HAVCAP when deploying in a semi active war zone.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Mar 2015 20:32

Mort Walker wrote: In the 1971 war there were reports of Russian Mainstay A50 testing in India at one point.

These were Pakistani and American reports with no basis in fact. No such reports were seen during the war or in the years after the war, and time and the internet has given me and others the oportunity to interact with hundreds of Indian pilots and others involved directly in the war. Allegations of Russian help were made when Pakis with their Amriki equipment got their asses roundly whupped. Americans are sore losers and this is how historians cook up history.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 31 Mar 2015 20:40

seriously senior BRFites need to be careful in such baloney

all these years it was TU 126 Moss and then now new names are getting added

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Mar 2015 21:13

Surya wrote:seriously senior BRFites need to be careful in such baloney

all these years it was TU 126 Moss and then now new names are getting added

I was chatting with a relative of mine visiting from the US and he was telling me that the US now has a serious constituency of people who believe that the moon landing was a hoax. Goes to show how baloney can gradually morph into believed fact by time and repetition.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Mar 2015 21:33

apparently IAF pilots speaking in russian for info security was taken as proof of presence of moss.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 31 Mar 2015 22:54

shiv wrote:
Mort Walker wrote: In the 1971 war there were reports of Russian Mainstay A50 testing in India at one point.
These were Pakistani and American reports with no basis in fact. No such reports were seen during the war or in the years after the war, and time and the internet has given me and others the oportunity to interact with hundreds of Indian pilots and others involved directly in the war. Allegations of Russian help were made when Pakis with their Amriki equipment got their asses roundly whupped. Americans are sore losers and this is how historians cook up history.

This was from radar journals published in the late 1980s. I did not say they were correct. The Mainstay A50 was not even in production in 1971.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 31 Mar 2015 22:57

shiv wrote:
Surya wrote:seriously senior BRFites need to be careful in such baloney

all these years it was TU 126 Moss and then now new names are getting added
I was chatting with a relative of mine visiting from the US and he was telling me that the US now has a serious constituency of people who believe that the moon landing was a hoax. Goes to show how baloney can gradually morph into believed fact by time and repetition.

There are lots of idiots in the US.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 31 Mar 2015 23:53

Fuel cost considerations: (Ignoring other costs for now): Fuel at 6$ a gallon both places.

A330-300
24.15
http://planes.axlegeeks.com/l/234/Airbus-A330-300

EMB145
$5.90
http://planes.axlegeeks.com/l/310/Embraer-ERJ-145-XR

If I do the same with this alternate website, I get something similar:
http://www.freightmetrics.com.au/Air/Ai ... fault.aspx

EMB: 6.63 or 2,153$ per hour
A330 34.96 or 11,372$ per hour.
A320 16.89 or 5,495$ per hour.

So a 8 hour sortie every other day leads to 183 missions per plane.
Costs are:
Hours 8
Missions 183
EMB 3,143,380
A320 8,022,700
A330-300 16,603,120

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 01 Apr 2015 00:01

^^^The EMB145 is not a viable option for the type of radar, antenna, number of consoles, crew, and range the IAF needs. I don't see why this is being brought up over and over? Anyway, with the external radome/antenna the fuel consumption will be different.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Apr 2015 00:04

Why is EMB being brought up? Because it is part of IAF! And I suspect that they will order more of these.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 01 Apr 2015 00:22

^^^It appears the IAF is committing to large platforms.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Apr 2015 02:30

Not sure what we are comparing, but:

Code: Select all

Passenger Planes:     A-320   A-330
Passenger:            150     253
Max range:            3300    7500 NMs
Max TkOff Wt:         172K    529K lbs
Max payload:          36K     80K lbs
Fuel:                 6.4K    36.7K Gals

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 01 Apr 2015 07:04

Guys, EMB 145 is single aisle regional passenger jet used for atbest 700-1000 miles hops. A330 on the other hand is intercontinental longhair aircraft. No comparison between two!!!.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Apr 2015 07:12

Mort Walker wrote:
These were Pakistani and American reports with no basis in fact. No such reports were seen during the war or in the years after the war, and time and the internet has given me and others the oportunity to interact with hundreds of Indian pilots and others involved directly in the war. Allegations of Russian help were made when Pakis with their Amriki equipment got their asses roundly whupped. Americans are sore losers and this is how historians cook up history.
This was from radar journals published in the late 1980s. I did not say they were correct. The Mainstay A50 was not even in production in 1971.

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.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Apr 2015 07:16

Rahul M wrote:apparently IAF pilots speaking in russian for info security was taken as proof of presence of moss.

Much more than that. Pinpoint accuracy in navigation and craters made dead center on airfields. In the last 2 weeks there was an IAF autobiography in which a former IAF POW in Shitistan was interrogated by Chuck Yeager who tried to squeeze out "Russian secrets" from him to explain deadly accurate attacks.

Reading Jagan's books and IAF accounts one finds the reason for that kind of accuracy. And it was not Russian AWACS or ELINT.

vsunder · Post by **vsunder** » 01 Apr 2015 07:58

shiv wrote:
Rahul M wrote:apparently IAF pilots speaking in russian for info security was taken as proof of presence of moss.
Much more than that. Pinpoint accuracy in navigation and craters made dead center on airfields. In the last 2 weeks there was an IAF autobiography in which a former IAF POW in Shitistan was interrogated by Chuck Yeager who tried to squeeze out "Russian secrets" from him to explain deadly accurate attacks.

Reading Jagan's books and IAF accounts one finds the reason for that kind of accuracy. And it was not Russian AWACS or ELINT.

Shiv: There is an appendix in P.C. Lal's book by S/L Jafa who was taken POW and escaped but was apprehended. He was interrogated by Yeager who insisted that IAF had Moss. Jafa claims in his writeup, that he retorted " ..only Indian eyeballs Mk2".

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Apr 2015 08:04

sunilUpa wrote:Guys, EMB 145 is single aisle regional passenger jet used for atbest 700-1000 miles hops. A330 on the other hand is intercontinental longhair aircraft. No comparison between two!!!.

Why the comparison? Because we may have both and its good to compare! That's we do really well here anyways!

On a serious note, the reason for the comparison is to understand what the pros and cons of each platform are:

Costs: if you are going to run many sorties, IAF better have the budget to cover all sectors effectively. How many need round the clock before hostilities start? How many sectors need to be monitored every day if cost were not an issue.

Fleet downtime: How many do you need to effectively support all our borders. If for some reason one is under refitment and we have only 6 A330 in another 10 years, and one has malfunction. Are 4 enough to provide us what we need?

Support Aircraft: If you have an uber expensive gold plated plane, how many planes will you task in havcap. Will this number vary if you had smaller platforms. Can you fly two smaller awacs 300 miles apart to scan two different battle sectors and run a common barcap and support both aircraft and neutralize any threat? Do we have the support aircraft to protect a 0.8 to 1 billion dollar platform when it goes up in air? Would you not put support fleet around an aircraft carrier? How is this any different. What would it cost in acquiring, maintaining and supporting these aircrafts?

Budget: Does it make sense to buy 6 high value/12 mid value/24 small value configs? Which one allows us to effectively police all our borders?

Sorties: What is the average time of sortie? 8 hours/12/16/20? How many tankers are needed to refuel your havcap/barcap support craft and the planes. Do we have those? Are they being planned?

Given that EMB145 can do 8 hour sorties and is refuelable and a Airbus A320 can fly for 8 hours plus you can extend by adding about 30000 liters of fuel in the cargo bay (7 extra tanks) and double its flight time, is that not enough? If you did the same for A330-300 you would get an insane number of hours, but is the A320/A321 or the EMB platform not enough? IF that allows you to buy 12-15 platforms vs the 2+6 you could if you bought A330. If all we want to buy is 8 platforms then just buy the A32X series and add in some used A330 refuelers. That's money well spent. Or there are enough noble causes in India we can spend the money on.

The wedgetail which is the same config as the P8I already flies 13 hour sorties.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Apr 2015 08:15

vsunder wrote: Shiv: There is an appendix in P.C. Lal's book by S/L Jafa who was taken POW and escaped but was apprehended. He was interrogated by Yeager who insisted that IAF had Moss. Jafa claims in his writeup, that he retorted " ..only Indian eyeballs Mk2".

Thanks - Jafa was the name I was looking for - he has recently released an autobiography - but he does not mention Yeager by name although the incident is well known from earlier works as you point out.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 01 Apr 2015 10:17

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

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Apr 2015 10:35

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.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Apr 2015 10:44

even Khan seems to be coming down to 737 sized airframes to house most of its next gen systems.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 01 Apr 2015 10:46

@KaranM -- Unfortunately few news editors would fault his usage today. I guess whatever works though...

It's a beautiful shot that also gives some idea of how packed this baby is - it's streets ahead of the Erieye or any other vanilla balance beam equipped aircraft.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 01 Apr 2015 13:51

As with Arjun MBT and LCA, services have a view that DRDO cannot deliver. But when DRDO does deliver, they do not have the guts to admit it.

Discussion about Emb-145 operational roles or whether it has sufficiently long legs is moot as IAF knew what it was getting into when they first went for it. Dumping it now is either an admission that they were wrong or a wilful neglect of resources that could go elsewhere. Whichever the reason, I'd like to see someone punished for it. Otherwise, order some more rather than wait 8 years for a A330 CABS AEW.

Having a foreign market for Emb-145 CABS AEW is a fallacy that should not be encouraged. No country can sell anything if they do not buy themselves. China is selling rubbish aircraft to Pakis, but it is creating a market for those in third countries by simply having a production line.

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 01 Apr 2015 15:16

Singha wrote:even Khan seems to be coming down to 737 sized airframes to house most of its next gen systems.

Is it driven by advances in miniaturization or due to the availability of powerful satellites to compensate for the smaller sensors/endurance.