Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 26 Feb 2015 14:18

Is the navy ordering any AEW's?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Feb 2015 16:17

Singha, the guy on the right (camo) seems to be letting loose some pindi channa judging by the expression

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Feb 2015 16:23

Cybaru wrote:Is the navy ordering any AEW's?

the EMB145 could be an ideal soln given its much lower cost vs the phalcons. probably just a matter of time before they buy their own fleet of AEW and a few land based refuelers.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 26 Feb 2015 16:41

Singha wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Is the navy ordering any AEW's?
the EMB145 could be an ideal soln given its much lower cost vs the phalcons. probably just a matter of time before they buy their own fleet of AEW and a few land based refuelers.

Considering its the navy we are talking about, I wouldn't be surprised if they did too. Perhaps might even order a handful of the current AEWs to make the program an economic success in addition to a technological one.

It will certainly improve things over the Ka-31 style AEWs they have right now. The darn things can barely stay aloft, let alone allow for independent ops.

Ka-31 AEW: defensive fleet operations.
EMB-145 style AEW: offensive and independent operations. Plus free of IAF dependency in times of crisis. With only three to five AEWs/AWACS available, the IAF will not have any to spare for the navy at all when the shit hits the fan.

-Vivek

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 26 Feb 2015 16:48

Yours truly was trying to find a place in Bengaluru on google maps and of course could not stay away from the shores of Bellandur lake.

Lookie what I found:

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Feb 2015 17:11

The Navy was interested in asking for the Osprey with an AWACS dish on it

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 26 Feb 2015 17:15

Karan M wrote:The Navy was interested in asking for the Osprey with an AWACS dish on it

Sounds like the kind of ballsy attitude the Navy would take, doesn't it?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 26 Feb 2015 17:59

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Karan M wrote:The Navy was interested in asking for the Osprey with an AWACS dish on it

Sounds like the kind of ballsy attitude the Navy would take, doesn't it?

With all the developments costs already paid for, it would be very canny of IN to sneak in with 2-3 of CABS AEW. Though the platform choice could be same as MRMR finalist.

Ospreys have a disadvantage: cabin is not pressurised. But it could be a great option for IN to deploy in AEW and tanker roles.

But I'm inclined to think that MQ-8C might be a great option if IN want to deploy a unified AEW, scout and communication hub on all it's frigates and destroyers.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Feb 2015 18:06

Karan M wrote:The cramped setup and the stooping stuff (Errieye) is not conducive for long ops for sure.. there is literally no space to even stand comfortably. Console space, I dunno whether the extra screens add up.. because the modern MFDs allow mutiple pics together & sensor fusion means you need fewer consoles rather than mixing and matching between a bunch. E3 is also straightforward (http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uONlxVi7sPc/maxresdefault.jpg)
The ZDK-03 is a good spacious layout (PAF) and is a virtual copy of the Erieye Interior (definitely PAF ask) but the basic platform is not as comprehensive as our AEW&CS, no mention of ESM, Comint etc arrays.

E-7 has 6 and 4 setup for a total of 10. Interestingly I remember asking a Boeing person what they would do if they were to get the E-7 green light for the USAF (which the USAF may still consider with plenty of upgrades) and he said that there really isn't a demand for more than 10 stations even with growth planned in although they have run the numbers on getting it to 12.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 27 Feb 2015 01:27

That layout seems very productive to sharing and working together. Easy for one operator to go and look at another persons screen. The galley and rest area seem pretty nice as well.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 27 Feb 2015 02:45

^^^Navy EMB 145s. Would it not make more sense to buy E2Ds instead of the EMBs? This way, they could also be deployed from INS Vishal when it comes?

Just asking... I don't have any particular POV on this.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 27 Feb 2015 02:59

That is atleast 15 years away. why wait, they can start training with it today.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 27 Feb 2015 03:00

The legacy E-3 console layout looks different. Pic below of NATO E-3.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 27 Feb 2015 03:04

Cybaru wrote:That is atleast 15 years away. why wait, they can start training with it today.

You would need an avionics, radar and integration test facility to do that.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 27 Feb 2015 03:07

If the Navy has to use CABS AEW, wouldn't its radar need sea-specific modes? Does the AESA already support it?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 27 Feb 2015 03:13

Prem Kumar wrote:If the Navy has to use CABS AEW, wouldn't its radar need sea-specific modes? Does the AESA already support it?

It can use the same radar, but the clutter maps and filtering would have to be different. This could be done by different software for the signal processor. Maybe a different methodology of processing the raw data after the A/D conversion would require more computing horsepower. It would be better to simply upgrade all of the CABS AEW for maritime capable operations in terms of radar performance and signal processing. Then just use different software builds to manage the clutter filtering.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 27 Feb 2015 04:02

Actually, workstations oriented along the longitudinal axis of the flight are always preferred. In side-facing workstations, operators have to physically lean sideways to counter the plane's orientation during climbs, dives and banks. This puts enormous physical stress on the operators where flights often last 7-8 hours. Fatigue-related injuries such as neck and back injuries are very commonly reported.

Therefore, some AWACs have swiveling seats so that the operators can face forwards when the plane is climbing/diving. But they can't work when the chairs don't face the workstations. Therefore, whenever an AWAC has forward-facing workstations, it is always advertised.

P.S. I also vaguely remember reading somewhere that being oriented along the line of flight helps many people from feeling air-sick.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Feb 2015 04:25

Cybaru wrote:That is atleast 15 years away. why wait, they can start training with it today.

That would have be the case only if the IN decides to go for either a steam or an EM cat for its future carrier. I am not sure if that is 100% decided yet, but I agree if the intentions are to operate Advanced Hawkeye like platform from a carrier one day, it makes some sense to incorporate it and begin developing tactics and training early on. Japan just signed on for some E-2D's for land use but I don't think any analyst is willing to rule out a carrier for them in the next 2 decades..For land base maritime use a larger UHF AN/APY-9 on a C-130J would have also made some sense and the USN should have looked at this given the Pacific Pivot, especially if it expects greater interoperability among it and the allies in the region. Lockheed did propose the C-130J/30 for the RAAF but it lost out to a more capable Boeing/NG proposal.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 27 Feb 2015 05:15

Mort Walker wrote:
Cybaru wrote:That is atleast 15 years away. why wait, they can start training with it today.
You would need an avionics, radar and integration test facility to do that.

MW. Don't follow.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 27 Feb 2015 05:17

Mort Walker wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:If the Navy has to use CABS AEW, wouldn't its radar need sea-specific modes? Does the AESA already support it?
It can use the same radar, but the clutter maps and filtering would have to be different. This could be done by different software for the signal processor. Maybe a different methodology of processing the raw data after the A/D conversion would require more computing horsepower. It would be better to simply upgrade all of the CABS AEW for maritime capable operations in terms of radar performance and signal processing. Then just use different software builds to manage the clutter filtering.

True! I would think that majority of it would be a different software build for the same radar. Dealing with clutter and filtering is always a issue. I would think they could keep everything else common except for some extra computing perhaps.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 27 Feb 2015 06:47

Cybaru wrote: MW. Don't follow.

Training for any airborne surveillance radar takes years. Having a "test rig" that has a full blown radar, avionics and communications would serve not just crews, but most software testing. From successful training and testing at a test facility you can quickly move to flight training and testing.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Feb 2015 07:20

imo the EMB145 represents the least cost and easy approach to get themselves some 3-4 planes which will be a huge improvement over the KA31. work on airborne sea search modes to some extent was already done for the SV2k and VX2k radar projects.

the Osprey is like having a pet elephant instead of a rajapalyam. given its vast bulk it might not even fit in our ships and needs some special treatment of the deck to avoid melting it away......it has a big bulk for what little it does. safed haathi to me.

the CH53K is a better option if at all they want a big long range platform for whatever reason.

plus it would be the kind of cheeky TSP style tactical move to leave a less nimble large adversary (IAF) red faced

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 27 Feb 2015 10:00

MW,

Ah yes, agree, YEARS and YEARS. Navy better start now and they won't care for a little white noise here and there. I am sure they can tune for now to keep it above horizon and not look for slower moving targets (like helicopters). Won't that fix the issue?

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 28 Feb 2015 22:24

The Navy already has a AEW thanks to IL-38s and P-8Is. Guess Tu-142s and Do-228s may also have some capability.

IMHO: Tankers and AWACS should remain with IAF.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Feb 2015 22:29

Er the p8i and il38 have low power navigation radars and nowhere any aew
. The only aew are ka31 helis with limited endurance numbers and ceiling.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 01 Mar 2015 06:24

Search youtube and look at the IN KA-31 AEW walk around video. The 'miniscule' single operator screen size summarizes everything to know about the platform. We need to send it to DRDO and refit the platform with some goodies from our desi AWACS.

Need for AEW&C platforms operating off naval ships is kind of a stretch of our wish list and limited budgets. Better to realise the shape of Indian peninsula and our unsinkable island chains to order more of land based 'Naval' AEW&C platforms. More of Desi ERJ will serve us good in my opinion (don't like larger jets as they give away fleet position).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Mar 2015 06:29

nik wrote:Search youtube and look at the IN KA-31 AEW walk around video. The 'miniscule' single operator screen size summarizes everything to know about the platform. We need to send it to DRDO and refit the platform with some goodies from our desi AWACS.

Need for AEW&C platforms operating off naval ships is kind of a stretch of our wish list and limited budgets. Better to realise the shape of Indian peninsula and our unsinkable island chains to order more of land based 'Naval' AEW&C platforms. More of Desi ERJ will serve us good in my opinion (don't like larger jets as they give away fleet position).

One important mission of ship/carrier or even land based AEW is to listen to emissions passively rather than broadcasting its location and indirectly alerting the adversary to a potential fleet location. Expect naval AEW aircraft to emit a lot less compared to their counterparts thereby preserving the biggest advantage of either a carrier or the fleet at large. ESM suites are as important as the radar system and this especially true when operating in support of naval fleets.

btw a nice graphic of the E-2 stations..Total of 3

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 01 Mar 2015 06:47

The Indian Navy's P-8I and IL-38 are ASW/AEW platforms. The sensor suite is directed more toward naval warfare applications and less airborne ECM/ECCM. It doesn't have as large antenna/transmitter for powerful RF transmission or low level signal reception, when compared to a dedicated AEW&C or AWACS.

As far as operator displays are concerned. Modern air traffic control display consoles often have the problem of providing too much information where the operator can make mistakes. Designing the ergonomics and "user friendliness" of such a display system for a trained operator is complex as more training and experienced operators are usually very skilled personnel. Once they are trained and are proficient, should these people move on to green pastures, are hard to replace. Therefore, any display console design must take in to account the average training for a typical crew. There is a lot of good information which can be provided, but can the operator use it in a timely manner?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Mar 2015 07:20

Aditya G wrote:The Navy already has a AEW thanks to IL-38s and P-8Is. Guess Tu-142s and Do-228s may also have some capability.

IMHO: Tankers and AWACS should remain with IAF.

The P-8's are very very different from a full fledged airborne E-2D type platforms. The USN's Increment 2 enhancement with the Advanced Aerial Sensor also concentrates on MTI modes and littoral and land-based targeting (SAR and ISAR) so they are similar to (actually much more advanced) the JSTARS then the AWACS.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 01 Mar 2015 15:24

There is no doubt that maritime recon aircraft cannot match a dedicated AEW/AWACS aircraft in absolute capability.

Nevertheless, I do think that in context of naval use-case, they will suffice. And in situations the range, coverage or sensor quality is lacking, then the Air Force can be called in. We should not cite inter service politics (though it does exist) to make a case of AEW induction by the Navy.

The Navy's primary C&C and theatre battle management platform are ships such as the Vikramaditya and Kolkata. Unlike war over land, these sensor laden platforms are mobile and are positioned where they are required. They are self sufficient in detecting, classifying, tracking and engaging hostile targets. Ka-31 helps these ships see further away. Note that this helicopter is launched from the ship itself.

Unlike USN, we are not going to see 100s of fighters launched from own ships and neither the opposition will be very large. Whats the point of having an advanced shore based AEW when there will be only 10 tracks in the sky? Hence we can make do with lesser capability which is found on the MR fleet.

The Embraer platform will be land based - so why must the Navy operate it? When the day comes our carriers need AEW capability while operating far from home (south vietnam sea

) then we should look into E-2 or its analogues which can be launched from the aircraft carrier.

=====

http://www.forceindia.net/onthespot2_Su ... heSea.aspx

The P-8I features state-of-the-art Raytheon APY-10 maritime surveillance radars. The first international version of this radar was delivered to Boeing in February this year for installation on the P-8I. Based on requirements stated by the IN, the radar has special features such as an air-to-air mode and allowing detection of airborne and seaborne threats.

http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=62

Besides their primary ASW role, the Il-38s also act as Command Posts used for the homing of strike aircraft. Tu-142Ms also have a similar role.

vipins · Post by **vipins** » 01 Mar 2015 17:28

LSTAR by DRDO
link

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Mar 2015 18:21

The AN/APY-10 is a nose mounted setup. Although it may have air to air modes, its purpose is different.

kit · Post by **kit** » 01 Mar 2015 21:04

vipins wrote:LSTAR by DRDO
link

is this a further development of the swordfish derivative of greenpine or a totally new development ??

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 01 Mar 2015 21:21

kit wrote:
vipins wrote:LSTAR by DRDO
link
is this a further development of the swordfish derivative of greenpine or a totally new development ??

It's the AEW&C radar.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 01 Mar 2015 21:33

Reading some posts above on a naval AEW&CS aircraft, how about looking at the ShinMaywa US-2 amphibians as a platform? Big enough for 6-8 operator stations at least, 10-hour endurance, can land alongside our ships instead of on them.
On a related note, could the US-2s also be used as MRTTs for naval use?

member_28640 · Post by **member_28640** » 01 Mar 2015 22:25

vardhank wrote:Reading some posts above on a naval AEW&CS aircraft, how about looking at the ShinMaywa US-2 amphibians as a platform? Big enough for 6-8 operator stations at least, 10-hour endurance, can land alongside our ships instead of on them.
On a related note, could the US-2s also be used as MRTTs for naval use?

Firstly the US 2 s are very expensive and wouldn't do a significantly better jobs than shore based assets repurporsed for the same, even refurbishing the us 2 would be more expensive (for both roles) so if I may offer my 2 c. I don'tthink that this will come to pass.

kit · Post by **kit** » 01 Mar 2015 23:23

The US 2 is a strategic buy ! ..fledgling step to a bigger military engagement

kit · Post by **kit** » 01 Mar 2015 23:25

Thank you ☺@ Sagar !

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 01 Mar 2015 23:54

And the japanese don't want to allow any offensive weapon capability on them.
The japs too are taking hesitant baby steps with military exports from their WW2 hangover.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 02 Mar 2015 00:56

Gagan wrote:And the japs don't want to allow any offensive weapon capability on them.
The japs too are taking hesitant baby steps with military exports from their WW2 hangover.

Things are changing.