Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Apr 2014 18:58

Wouldn't that make sense Singha. We seem to be a collectors force, we want one of every type rather than a fighters airforce, where you maximize your supply chain to support a conflict.. 6 days into anything we will be waiting on parts from different parts of the world..

Sure we need to refurbish our old il-76 platform and bring all the 26 unites to one level, and if need be convert the 6 tankers into AEW, and buy a dozen A330 based MRTT. That way all the 9 AEW platforms are easily supportable. Training for pilots and ground staff is standardized.

The Il-76 have enough volume to do a 2 story breakout ( 5.5 Meter height). All computing and heavy equipment at the bottom. Rest / 2nd crew and galley on a mezzanine floor. It is also 20 meter length, which is plenty to work with and it has excellent range, ruggedness and power.

Are there any pictures of what IAI did for our phalcons ? How did they arrange the internals ?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 02 Apr 2014 19:13

Basically, we are now forced to seek peace no matter what TSP or China did. Only if China or Pak directly invade and grab lot of territory we will fight.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Apr 2014 21:30

Singha ji,

That is an excellent suggestion, unless they want to learn how to design and manufacture those chapatis. The AAAU for AEW&C was developed by CABS/DRDO/NAL.

I agree the opening of the IL-476 line is a game changer. I wish their tanker was more multirole. We could have had heavy-lift (I don't think 16 C-17s is going to be enough), refuelers and AWACs based on the same platform. But now that we have spread the raita. Why not complete the spread with 767 based AWAC (at least we would save on development costs).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Apr 2014 23:15

> and if need be convert the 6 tankers into AEW

the Midas due to lack of inbuilt ER fuel tanks unlike the MRTT has addl fuel tanks inside the cargo hold. these can presumably be removed quite easily and cargo/AEW role attempted. only dead weight addl to rip out would be the 3 hoses and the refueler stn in the back. eminently doable but first we would need the MRTTs all delivered to let go our precious 6 tankers.

midas cutaway http://s390.photobucket.com/user/aquasa ... y.jpg.html
can still cart limited cargo in front and back of the tanks. tanks are in middle near CG for balance probably.

no internal pix of the Phalcon belly has been released though RAF E3 crew was allowed to sit inside during a exercise mission with typhoons..and likewise one of our guys got to sit inside their E3.

I read Rus plans to re-engine some of their Il76 with PS90 and do overhaul to get 10-15 yrs more life.
the KC135, E3(707), E4 , B52 are plenty old airframes which with re-engines are doing fine.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Apr 2014 23:36

Yeah, none of these have been flogged. They might go for another 20-25 years. Look at those B52s and the older build 707 still slogging out there 25 years after they were supposed to have been retired.

I think all the bad news about gajraj was written to justify the purchase of C-17. I am hoping we will see a refurbishing package put together soon for all the Il-76, to get them all to the same new standard. Hopefully the arms dealers in russia see benefit in this for themselves and throw together something soon to make this possible.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Apr 2014 23:47

On the topic of radar dome:

2011 :: AWACS Upgrades For Boeing E-3 Sentry And Japan Boeing E-767 (Part 1)

The gigantic dome-housed radar antenna was mounted 11 ft (3.3m ) above the fuselage using two struts. The 30 ft (9.1 m) radius dome was 6 ft (1.8 m) thick at the base and aerodynamically designed to generate enough lift minimizing drag and stress on the AWACS airframe.

In fact a few items of interest:
* Earlier domes rotated. Newer ones do not
* They also designed triangular ones (no idea what happened to that)
* Russians tried the famous "beak", where the dome was mounted on the fin. Tested one and for some reason discontinued it

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Apr 2014 23:50

Only the IL76 platform was available for phalconizing.. the massans never allowed their starlifters be available for others, let alone for India.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Apr 2014 00:22

Buy used A330s for refuelers at 1/3rd price and convert the current 6 refuelers to AEW status. Cheap and effective, use the saved money to start a new IIT type college somewhere.

72 hours in AIR! wow.. Amir khan knows how to fight...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Apr 2014 00:28

Any conversion means upgrading both the structure and power. I do not know for sure, but would expect it to mean plenty of OEM work. Perhaps Israel may have good experience in this area.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Apr 2014 01:11

send back to oem. If we buy a new build, it will end up in a long queue to be produced after all the orders before it are executed. Retrofit will take less than 9 months to a year once you purchase something. You will probably have all 6 refuelers in less than two years from date of purchase. Given couple of sorties that IAF may fly a month, versus the the slated abuse these airframes are designed for ( 14-15 hours a day ), it may last IAF a good 20 odd years even with 30% airframe life left in them.

I don't understand why did we not convert the older Airbus from Indian airlines that we got rid off. Most get converted into freight units. They do soldier on for a bit.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Apr 2014 08:23

a while back I was ranting about why dont we buy up used A320/737 from market and use them to move around people and pallets of cargo for IAF transport command, leaving the limited number of IL76/C17 free for the stuff that really needs it - bulky objects , parachuters or things that need to be dropped off the ramp in resupply missions.

moving people and sacks/bags of mail using IL76 a huge waste of time and money.

there may be one or two places like Thoise that a Il76 can use that 737 cannot, but not too many. the IL76 might also have better payload fraction to places like Leh where 737 operates with light loading and early morning hours only.

people who do not have the budget of USAF should try to change the rules of the game to suit their own budget instead of attempting to be a full service pale imitation. one cannot provide service levels of Taj hotel on a Ginger budget. israel did not have huge H&D issue about converting T55 and Sherman tanks into something useful but very ugly.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Apr 2014 09:28

Model Revels A-100 Configuration ( AI )

http://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/15/54/62/79/a-10011.jpg

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Apr 2014 11:49

excellent. we should quit sitting on our thumbs and use this readymade and proven shell to meet our next gen AWACS program.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Apr 2014 20:33

Phalcon based on the changes for A-100 would be ideal!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Apr 2014 21:59

phalcon++

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 03 Apr 2014 22:53

An Il-72 will likely never be able to match an airliner like the A330 in efficiency and availability. It's rear cargo ramp, short landing on rough runways etc are of no consequence for an AWACS or refueler. Don't see how the il-72 might be better.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 03 Apr 2014 23:25

abhik,

You are right, it doesn't match a 330 in availability, but A-100 or Il-76 is purpose modified and the work is already done, whereas you would need to convert a 330 to such a program. Boeing continues to do such work on its line due to US demands, but airbus does not have that much incentive.

The rear ramp is not present in the AEW versions. I believe it is sealed or missing. It does bring ruggedness (il-76) to allow it to land in an emergency on badly prepped forward bases if need be. No such luxury for civilian converted platforms. It may also be able to take harder evasive maneuvers as it may have **higher g-limits** ( ** Unsubstantiated, I could be wrong and the A330 may be equally capable ) and it also may have more military hardening in place.

I think the A330 will probably never be chosen. We won't go from ERJ145 (5.5 ton payload ) to A330 (70 Tons). We don't have enough hardware to put on it.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 04 Apr 2014 02:38

Unless the IAF and/or DRDO insist on having a dome on top (and there's no reason why they should), the obvious choice is the 737.

1. Ilyushin Il-76

'Unpredictable Russian support'. Commonality is limited to the 3 Phalcons (after Gajraj retirement). Transport platform fundamentally less efficient than a commercial jetliner.

[Given the Russian propensity for ignoring the terms of a contract, I'm leery of its prospects.]

2. Boeing 767

Only one military operator. No domestic operators. Too large. No commonality.

3. Airbus A330

Large size. Less than a dozen operated by the domestic industry. Commonality with IAF's MRTT fleet. No AWACS variant.

[With development costs likely to be footed by India, we may as well include the (technically superior) Boeing 787 in the race. (Or replace it with the 737-sized A320 instead.)]

4. Boeing 737

Nearly 150 aircraft operated by domestic industry. Three current AEW&C operators (will likely increase to six or more). IAF fleet includes four 737s in VIP roles.

[From a technical standpoint, with AEW&C airframes in production, the 737 is the most hassle-free option. Can use the same power & cooling options as the Wedgetail. Primary radar larger than domed type, i.e. longer range. Downside is lower range in frontal & rear aspect.]

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Apr 2014 05:52

I do not think the IAF is interested in *any* 'transport' based asset from the Russians. I am not sure what the reason is, but that trend is on the way.

Also, the recent comment by the Russian amby, about IAF's inability to plan, does not bode well. And, the situation will only get worse with small number of planes ( < 15 ) from Russia. Supply chain is not a Russian strength, seems they are not even close.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 Apr 2014 06:23

Don't we have close to 26 Il-76 aircrafts in transport, tanker, aew roles ? If they are refurbished and re-engined, these should soldier on for another 20 years or so. They have tons of life left in them. 6 more will hardly make a difference.

The navy does operate a 737-800 variant the p8i. So 737-800 does seem like a doable platform and the wedge tail program has modified it before. So that is an option.

So the likely candidates will be:
1. Il-476/A-100 unit.
2. 737-700/7A/p8 derivative.
3. A32X derivative. Hopefully the A321NEO platform due to range and capacity.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Apr 2014 06:40

Per Wiki:
* 17 IL-76 transports. Plan is to retire all of them by 2022, that includes the recent upgrades they went through (I think only 9 are operational)
* 3 A-50. Plenty of life there. 2 more planned, so 5 total
* 7 IL-78s. Have no idea how long they will live, assume another 15 years?

So, in another 10 years IAF will certainly have 7+5=12 frames.

We know that the IAF has spares problems, with IAF saying Russia is the problem and Russians saying IAF is the problem - that is not good relations for sure and has been there for some time.

Then, I, for one, am not convinced that the IL/A frame is a viable one. Granted photos and models look very, very nice and there is progress on the IL476 front, but ....................... Something is wrong with that picture.

_____________________

On the flip side, in the IAF, transports have gone Western. So too tankers. Now there is a decent chance that the AWACS too will go Western. Wonder why? (I do not have an answer for it.)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Apr 2014 07:39

>> Unless the IAF and/or DRDO insist on having a dome on top

the CABS tender clearly says dome. perhaps we do not have the northrop grumann level of tech for the huge T-shaped balance beam and will 4 smaller beams inside the dome. there is no work done on such huge 10m domes on 737 chassis...looks too big for 737 to me.

the FCS of commercial a/c are limited to 25' bank angles max for passenger comfort I think....for the P8 they changed the limit to around 45'. AWACS are not the type for evasive nimble moves....there is significant lag in throttle setting changes for heavy a/c ...controls far more sluggish... unlike fighters or the business jets. their engines are not meant for surging back and forth quickly...smoothness , reliability and economy are emphasized.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 Apr 2014 08:41

Singha wrote:>>
the FCS of commercial a/c are limited to 25' bank angles max for passenger comfort I think....for the P8 they changed the limit to around 45'.

AWACS are not the type for evasive nimble moves....there is significant lag in throttle setting changes for heavy a/c ...controls far more sluggish... unlike fighters or the business jets. their engines are not meant for surging back and forth quickly...smoothness , reliability and economy are emphasized.

Look at this, esp the last video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcLiAAVeYhk
http://theaviationist.com/tag/nato/page/5/

That is a lot of Gs that the plane pulls.

707 should be able to barrel roll if needed.
http://www.aviation-history.com/video/707roll.htm

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 Apr 2014 19:45

NRao,

If the B-52 frames gets to live till 2040 and the last ones produced in 1962, there is a lot that can be done for our Il-76 platform.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Apr 2014 20:15

What I have posted is info I have gathered over time from open source - NOT my position. CAS has stated that the IL-76s will be retired. Now, it is up to current/future CASs to change that directive (at a cost I would imagine). And, that is fine with me. (BTW, as stated, they *all* were recently upgraded - as in the past few years.)

Furthermore, you seem to totally neglect yet another angle. Why is it that the IAF *seems* to have abandoned Russian machines.

However, there is another angle that is missing in our discussions: spares (and perhaps even the support) situation. My read is that the relationship in this area has been estranged for some time now. Just that neither side has talked openly about it - so you will not find too many article alluding to the (bad?) situation. BUT, it exists. The most recent item of interest is the Russian amby's comment on the matter. As I stated it does not bode well. AND, I have gone past *any* Russian quotes that everything is OK. I just do not buy that - I do not know how bad it is, but I do know it exists. I am more inclined to buy what Indians say on this matter.

So, yer, like B-52 IAF can do a lot of things. BUT, the question is, are they willing. I, for one, just do not see any motivation in that direction. Heck, even the IL-476 was expected to solve all IAF transport problems. It was the Russians that scoped the IAF requirements, not the Americans. The Americans took the Russian report and made a sale - perhaps that too had a huge political angle, but if that is true, then all the more reason that the Russians are being sidelined.

And, again, I have no personal favorite on such matters.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 04 Apr 2014 23:54

NRao wrote:What I have posted is info I have gathered over time from open source - NOT my position. CAS has stated that the IL-76s will be retired.

Furthermore, you seem to totally neglect yet another angle. Why is it that the IAF *seems* to have abandoned Russian machines.

Oh I know and I appreciate you sharing. I am just laying out what is possible. I don't normally understand IAF's motivation. They seem to want shiny new things. I think it is possible to do more even on a limited budget. We don't have the strongest or the most robust economy and it would do well for us to remember that.

The spare issue will bite us even the Americans. See the issue of WLR. The seller controls the use one way or another, either through delaying of spares or through useless EULAs. The russians may not have their act together and that is a different story. If we are going to import at the rate we do, we need to project and catalog all short, critical parts and stock up inventory to allow for 2-3 months of war time reserves as part of the sale agreement.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 09 Apr 2014 18:19

India scans for new AWACS platform

New Delhi has issued a global tender for the supply of six aircraft that will serve as platforms for its ambitious Airborne Warning and Control System India (AWACS India) programme.

The tender invites bids from airframers by 15 July for the “supply of suitable aircraft with necessary structural modifications, power and endurance adaptations”, along with “equipment installation/installation provisions for the AWACS India role”. The project will also include design and certification tasks, including the manufacture and installation of a 10m (33ft)-diameter antenna rotodome and supporting pylon.

The Bengaluru-based Centre for Airborne Systems (CABS) is leading the AWACS India programme, which received approval from the nation's Cabinet Committee on Security in February 2013. The effort is scheduled to be complete by 2020-2021.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Apr 2014 04:27

India's AEW Tender: Boeing's Next Battleground

Summary

India wants to buy 6 AEW&C aircraft for its Air Force.
Boeing currently dominates this market segment.
Airbus Group wants to enter this market segment too.
AEW aircraft have a 30+ year life span, generate a lot of revenue and are cash cows

India wants to buy 6 Airborne Early Warning & Control aircraft and the tender will be closed in July. Boeing (BA) is the only manufacturer that has a suitable aircraft 'on the shelve', but Airbus (OTCPK:EADSF) is lurking in the background again. Airbus might enter another market niche where Boeing traditionally is the leader.
India's Modernization Program

India has a yearly defense budget of $46B and holds the 8th position of largest defense budgets in the world. Since a lot of aircraft and helicopters in their inventory are older, a modernization program has started to upgrade existing air assets and acquire new types.

This program will probably offer the largest foreign military export opportunities for U.S. and European aerospace companies in this decade.

As part of this program India is working on developing its own aerospace industry. India's Defence Procurement Procedure has the following 'preferred categorization':

Buy (Indian)
Buy & Make (Indian)
Make (Indian)
Buy & Make
Buy (Global)

Incomplete article, since it requires sign-in.

Hari Sud · Post by **Hari Sud** » 26 Apr 2014 05:27

I suggest they buy nothing for the time being. They have to learn to fly better whatever they got. They just dumped to the ground a brand new C-130J costing $300 million. They lack proficiency in maintenance, flying and ordering spare parts etc. In shorting there is a huge deficiency in managing the Air force. For years MIG-21 had these accidents. Every time then the aircraft or spare parts or training or proficiency in flying was blamed. Every time the aircrafts fell to the ground one or the other factor was blamed without introspecting that general management of the whole air arm is shoddy.

Import a few AEW&C, God forbade if these also fell to the ground, the losses would be greater. Hence it is imperative that rush to buy abroad or locally be put on hold. Air Force has to learn to manage its assets better. Let me remind you that ten years back a prototype of AEW&C fell to ground with all the electronics engineers responsible to develop it, were killed. That was a major setback. My point here that over years, the Air Force slowly and slowly are chipping away the public trust in them.

Hence it is better to go back to the drawing board and start building an Air Force with more competent Air Marshals and Vice Marshals and other senior management.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 26 Apr 2014 15:11

^^^^
The accident rate of the IAF is at a historical low. It is stupid to question the competence of the IAF leadership based on the tragic C-130J accident, when the full facts are yet to emerge.

rohankumaon · Post by **rohankumaon** » 26 Apr 2014 16:02

eklavya wrote:^^^^
The accident rate of the IAF is at a historical low. It is stupid to question the competence of the IAF leadership based on the tragic C-130J accident, when the full facts are yet to emerg

+1 - The mission profile of low flying C130 inserting troops will be very different from high flying AEW&C....

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 Apr 2014 13:11

Hari Sud wrote:I suggest they buy nothing for the time being. They have to learn to fly better whatever they got. They just dumped to the ground a brand new C-130J costing $300 million. They lack proficiency in maintenance, flying and ordering spare parts etc. In shorting there is a huge deficiency in managing the Air force. For years MIG-21 had these accidents. Every time then the aircraft or spare parts or training or proficiency in flying was blamed. Every time the aircrafts fell to the ground one or the other factor was blamed without introspecting that general management of the whole air arm is shoddy.

Import a few AEW&C, God forbade if these also fell to the ground, the losses would be greater. Hence it is imperative that rush to buy abroad or locally be put on hold. Air Force has to learn to manage its assets better. Let me remind you that ten years back a prototype of AEW&C fell to ground with all the electronics engineers responsible to develop it, were killed. That was a major setback. My point here that over years, the Air Force slowly and slowly are chipping away the public trust in them.

Hence it is better to go back to the drawing board and start building an Air Force with more competent Air Marshals and Vice Marshals and other senior management.

Havn't read a more churlish and TFTA comment like this for some time.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 28 Apr 2014 09:43

Havn't read a more churlish and TFTA comment like this for some time.

Why? You maynot agree with it but you have to accept that in the past 2 decades we have been crashing planes, sinking ships, screwing up the Safety of our soldiers and the whole time blaming everything but the system that employs them. Even any criticism of the Armed Forces in this regard (training / maintenance) is at best cursory lip service.

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 28 Apr 2014 11:21

^^^^^^^
The post to which Indranil responded is not just churlish, its moronic. Indians should first learn to fly the TFTA C-130....heh

Coming to your assertions about the accidents with Indian armed forces in the last 2 decades, could you enlighten us with the data on how they fare with other countries and what standard our armed forces get trained to and the state of the maintenance?

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 28 Apr 2014 12:00

I suppose training/practicing accidents don't happen in other air forces

You may want to check this out

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 28 Apr 2014 14:20

@sattili / Chitkara

I am not comparing the Indian Armed Forces to anybody else. I am comparing us to ourselves. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck....

But i agree I know nothing and i defer to your deep understanding of the Indian Armed Forces and also your Deep Knowledge of every other armed forces on the Planet as well.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Apr 2014 14:59

Sarcasm is an admission that you merely have an opinion and not necessarily an accurate one that you can justify.

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 28 Apr 2014 15:48

^^^^^
Thanks Karan.

rkhanna wrote:I am not comparing the Indian Armed Forces to anybody else. I am comparing us to ourselves. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck....

comparing Indian Armed Forces of today to what they were 2 decades back is even more weird logic. Just to give you a snippet:

Code: Select all

 IAF attrition rates in the 1990s are half of they were in the 1960s and 1970s.

For more information, read excellent analysis on BRF itself http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... rupak.html
Accidents may be more but accident rates are lower, one don't need to be a genius to find out why.

But i agree I know nothing and i defer to your deep understanding of the Indian Armed Forces and also your Deep Knowledge of every other armed forces on the Planet as well.

One don't need to have "deep knowledge". Apply more commonsense and less condescending attitude, you will easily find information. For example checkout the wiki link posted by Chitraka in earlier post.

In general, the Lockheed C-130 Hercules is a highly reliable aircraft: the Royal Air Force (RAF) recorded an accident rate of about one aircraft loss per 250,000 flying hours over the last forty years, making it one of the safest aircraft they operate. United States Air Force Hercules (A/B/E-models), as of 1989, had an overall attrition rate of 5 percent as compared to 1 to 2 percent for commercial airliners in the U.S., according to the NTSB, 10 percent for B-52 bombers, and 20 percent for fighters (F-4, F-111), trainers (T-37, T-38), and helicopters (H-3)

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 28 Apr 2014 17:59

Sarcasm is an admission that you merely have an opinion and not necessarily an accurate one that you can justify

Sorry but there is some justification. Look at the number of damaged or Sunk naval vessels, look at the number of pilots killed in training and also the Ammo depo accidents from a few years ago etc. The list goes on.

IAF attrition rates in the 1990s are half of they were in the 1960s and 1970s.

I meant the Indian Defence Institutions need a whole of self reflecting comparing what we Wish to be to what we actually are. NOt comparing the 60s to the 90s. If that is your yardstick for improvement then so be it.

One don't need to have "deep knowledge". Apply more common-sense and less condescending attitude, you will easily find information. For example checkout the wiki link posted by Chitraka in earlier post.

None of what i am talking about is about the C-130J incident. Its about a cumulative of ALL incidents.

But since you have brought it up. How Many operators of the C-130J (brand new gen of plane and sub sytems) have crashed their plane within months of acquiring them. How many were maintenance issues and pilot error. But honestly that is not even the issue. If these C-130's were practising SOF insertion / flying their accident rates WILL be higher as they are doing far more dangerous flying.

However, your opinion is yours and mine is mine so lets just agree to disagree.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Apr 2014 19:31

rkhanna wrote:
Sorry but there is some justification. Look at the number of damaged or Sunk naval vessels, look at the number of pilots killed in training and also the Ammo depo accidents from a few years ago etc. The list goes on.

Context matters. If you field a fleet of 1960s era MiG-21s and ask the IAF to support intensive war, what do you think will happen when fighters designed for point interception are used intensively as multirole fighters, that too by rookies whom the IAF can't put through an AJT regimen as there were no AJTs..

Even your ammo depot accidents prove the point. Where exactly were the financial outlays available for creating mass ammunition storage facilities across India?
Where are the fleet of modern conventional subs so the IN doesn't have to flog aging Kilos? Why did the MOD sit on the files for additional battery packs?

Net, if you want a safe, first world military with limited peacetime attrition, give them the equipment and financial support to overhaul their equipment and deploy safely.

Unfortunately, India is a country where a bunch of crooks ran it (and its economy) into the ground for 60 years under the guise of this -ism, that -ism, and votebank politics. The Indian Armed forces have also suffered in the bargain even as their requirements rise ever upwards.

Not that they are perfect, they really need to learn how to work better with local industry rather than hankering for imports, but its equally true they have been let down by the MOD.