Yeah, thats not a plus point, its because there is a need for more people on board and they can't afford to add another body to do the task. So the co-pilot is forced to take on extra responsibility. Kinda funny thats spun as a positive feature by a force that likes redundancy and 2 drivers per fighter aircraft to reduce crew load!brar_w wrote:JThis will let the copilot, a rarity among carrier-based planes, handle some mission tasks.
The C model was/is terrible.That's an interesting observation considering that we spent a full page talking about how the E-2D is on the verge of being replaced by a combination of Triton and CBARS (in addition to quite a few other totally Google'able false performance claims)...Yeah, thats not a plus point, its because there is a need for more people on board and they can't afford to add another body to do the task. So the co-pilot is forced to take on extra responsibility. Kinda funny thats spun as a positive feature by a force that likes redundancy and 2 drivers per fighter aircraft to reduce crew load!
I knew you would say that!brar_w wrote:That's an interesting observation considering that we spent a full page talking about how the E-2D is on the verge of being replaced by a combination of Triton and CBARS...Yeah, thats not a plus point, its because there is a need for more people on board and they can't afford to add another body to do the task. So the co-pilot is forced to take on extra responsibility. Kinda funny thats spun as a positive feature by a force that likes redundancy and 2 drivers per fighter aircraft to reduce crew load!
It would be interesting to chat to someone that has done both the C and the D
Thats why the specific tarp at C model! Thats also what happens when you try and do all processing on-board the aircraft. There isn't enough people or compute power on that tiny craft to do it. Offload it to the ground controller on the ship. Do it there. You can put more power and people at the same problem.The C model is irrelevant now that its no longer in production or on offer. With the D, I am yet to hear, or read about any issues pertaining to lack of processing. All indications seem to point to ample amount of access to processing allowing them to make the sensor design trades (it takes quite a significant amount of processing to go ahead with the UHF sensor as opposed to the next step up to an L band sensor which would have been far easier and NG could have modified the T/R elements from the MESA). Again, plenty of data available in open source but I am just about done digging up stuff to debunk..I knew you would say that!
Why and How would you modernize the rotating array? and what benefits (and at what cost) would you seek to get out of it. And here were were debating saving money on a CAT, while all this time wanting to complete design change a working weapons systemThat rotating radar adds too much complexity and weight (I am sure the hydraulics to rotate a large panel must not be trivial) can be modernized like what we did with the phalcon
. I also don't like the nose..just doesn't work for me. Lets change that too. 
. India is however not a UAE the last I checked..willing to pay for someone else's R&D.Its rather unfair to characterize a particular pov with such a statement especially given the last 2 pages of discussion. I don't think anyone here has advocated a super-carrier. CAT's have existed on carriers ranging from high 20K tons to nearly 100K tons. You don't need the extreme right side of that trade to make them work.Proponents of supercarrier approach are creating a situation where we have to buy add on E-2Ds, EMALs, SSNs, F-35s, rail guns, electric propulsion and gold standard hardware which will consume our capital budget. That may be indeed be desirable, but it can wait in 2040+ timeframe.
I have been saying why just the nose. Get rid of that craft altogether! Wanting something like this on our ship forces us down a path that may add billions to the cost. I think there is a difference between reworking a radar and designing a ship to add a heavier class of payload launch. One is probably in 10-100 million vs billion or a few billion on the other side esp given we don't even know what EMALS cost.brar_w wrote:Why and How would you modernize the rotating array? and what benefits (and at what cost) would you seek to get out of it. And here were were debating saving money on a CAT, while all this time wanting to complete design change a working weapons systemThat rotating radar adds too much complexity and weight (I am sure the hydraulics to rotate a large panel must not be trivial) can be modernized like what we did with the phalcon
+1Aditya G wrote:Why must IN get a land based AEW in form of E-2D or other american variants? Why not more Embraer AEW for example (assuming ofcourse it has the air to sea modes)? Lets order 4 more right away and ask IAF to allocate them for maritime tasks.
Secondly, even if we do have aircraft based AEW, venturing into SCS for ops is not likely. That will have to be done by our submarines.
Proponents of supercarrier approach are creating a situation where we have to buy add on E-2Ds, EMALs, SSNs, F-35s, rail guns, electric propulsion and gold standard hardware which will consume our capital budget. That may be indeed be desirable, but it can wait in 2040+ timeframe.
What we should aim for is sea control over IOR which will need numbers. Build numerous Vikrant CVs with LCA based airwings and helicopter based AEW supported by a sizeable AEW and LRMR fleet operating from Lakshwadeep, A&N, Mainland, Mauritius, Oman and Seychelles bases. Let our AIP equipped SSKs prowl in all choke points. Not to forget Su-30MKIs with that big ass brahmos missile. Heron and Heron TPs can provide targetting data via SATCOM to shore, surface and subsurface Nirbhay-N firing units.
Really..Billions? I guess you went with the most expensive option - Nuclear+EMALS/AAG.Wanting something like this on our ship forces us down a path that may add billions to the cost.
Yup, rework the radar but don't exercise the CATOBAR option and have no ship to launch the heavily modified E-2D from but LAND.I think there is a difference between reworking a radar and designing a ship to add a heavier class of payload launch.
$10-$100 Million? How did you come up with that?One is probably in 10-100 million vs billion or a few billion on the other side esp given we don't even know what EMALS cost.
Or may add only tens to hundreds of millions ($) if the lower end of the design trade is chosen?Wanting something like this on our ship forces us down a path that may add billions to the cost.
isn't that the size that many are speculating for the IAC-2? CAT or no CAT? The Charles De Gaulle is a sub 40,000 ton AC, and has operated 3 E-2's vs the USN's standard deployment of 4 E-2C's (and now 5 E-2D's).If we go for a smaller AC, how many E-2s do you think it can base? In truth you are looking at a super carrier option or at least 65000 ton
Here's one with multiple fighter types and 2 E-2's on deck
I called the US Navy headquarters for a quote. They ballparked it for me!brar_w wrote:$10-$100 Million? How did you come up with that?One is probably in 10-100 million vs billion or a few billion on the other side esp given we don't even know what EMALS cost.
Multiple issues:Cybaru wrote:+1Aditya G wrote:Why must IN get a land based AEW in form of E-2D or other american variants? Why not more Embraer AEW for example (assuming ofcourse it has the air to sea modes)? Lets order 4 more right away and ask IAF to allocate them for maritime tasks.
Secondly, even if we do have aircraft based AEW, venturing into SCS for ops is not likely. That will have to be done by our submarines.
Proponents of supercarrier approach are creating a situation where we have to buy add on E-2Ds, EMALs, SSNs, F-35s, rail guns, electric propulsion and gold standard hardware which will consume our capital budget. That may be indeed be desirable, but it can wait in 2040+ timeframe.
What we should aim for is sea control over IOR which will need numbers. Build numerous Vikrant CVs with LCA based airwings and helicopter based AEW supported by a sizeable AEW and LRMR fleet operating from Lakshwadeep, A&N, Mainland, Mauritius, Oman and Seychelles bases. Let our AIP equipped SSKs prowl in all choke points. Not to forget Su-30MKIs with that big ass brahmos missile. Heron and Heron TPs can provide targetting data via SATCOM to shore, surface and subsurface Nirbhay-N firing units.
I didn't need the US navy guys for that one... brar_w wrote:You don't need a 100K carrier to launch E-2's. The french do so from a 42K carrier, and the brits could have done so on the QE's had they gone in for Steam CAT's, or EMALS which the US DOD study deemed as doable even without the nuclear option (although with very tight margins).Just that E2 based AEW may not be the answer for us. We need to look at what tactical use cases we have and figure out if we really need to make 100K boats just so that we can launch E2-Ds as that capability in a better form might be available from a land based asset.
The problem with Helo based AEW isn't ONLY the lack of sensor capability, but also the lack of reach and the ability to pivot along with the carrier air-wing as they switch from defensive to offensive.
If 100 km - 150km is the number to beat...than you can maybe try out some other approaches to get significantly better performance. The V-22 is a great platform to try something like that out since it has the payload capacity, higher ceiling, SwAP surplus, speed and range. But even it, will be grossly inferior to the E-2D.Can that extra 100-150 kms be made up with a land based asset or some other method? Is this the only organic way to solve that problem?
http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSin ... 2.gif.html
Relying on constant orbits, from land just puts a bigger target on those bases that these things operate from, and severely constraints the flexibility, and deployability of the carrier - things you buy the carrier for in the first place. If the threat was less severe you can get away but the current threat has long range bombers, long range cruise missiles, stealth fighters in development, AEGIS like ships, and will have a fleet of carriers of its own.
I guess you must have been confused since I was speaking in the context of a V-22 comparison to a traditional helo based AEW. The E-2D obviously has a ceiling into the 30K feet range.I think you mentioned that V-22 had higher ceiling than the E-2D!
^ The part immediately above the portion you quoted. All of the V-22 benefits mentioned there are in comparison to a helo based solution and not the E-2D.The problem with Helo based AEW isn't ONLY the lack of sensor capability, but also the lack of reach and the ability to pivot along with the carrier air-wing as they switch from defensive to offensive
But even it, will be grossly inferior to the E-2D - [In most of these metrics]
The IAC-2 design is complete? (or else why the re-design?)redesigning a ship to take on cats or emals to put an under rated platform isn't the most ideal in my opinion.
Is that true? Wasp class carriers cost 750 million vs 11 to 13.5 billion for ford cost. ( may not be the best comparison )NRao wrote: 3) Build more Vikrant CV: As a thumb rule: Each such smaller CV costs about 75% of a large CV and provides about a third of the power. So, Vikrant I + II + III will cost 2.25 times a Vishal (at the lower end) and be as effective as one Vishal in power projection. "Small" CV does not mean it is much cheaper - the cost factor is NOT linear
Khalsa wrote:brar
any useful discussion anywhere ( links / references) about the V-22 AWACS especially vs E2 on our forums.
if not ...
could you enrich our understanding of which is the right fit for Vikrant and Vishaal and what your take is on the matter.
V-22 AWACS was just a fanboy proposal, although mounting traditional Helo based AEW sensors have been suggested for the aircraft as the US Marines look to continue that program post delivery completion. They also have a need for AEW on their flattops that don't have a CAT but are unlikely to be able to afford anything fancy (besides a RORO kit).any useful discussion anywhere ( links / references) about the V-22 AWACS especially vs E2 on our forums.
if not ...
WASP isn't a carrier. Ford is a nuclear powered carrier with a very very high design life, 100k displacement, and a ton of cutting edge technology that is in development, or advanced testing.Wasp class carriers cost 750 million vs 11 to 13.5 billion for ford cost. ( may not be the best comparison )
What about cost of operations of small vs big ships?
Thats a totally wrong comparison (Both comparing the Nimitz to a Wasp, or a Nimitz vs Wasp comparison to a more capable carrier vs less capable carrier comparison). What is included in that annual cost? Does it include manpower cost? If what is included is relevant, it would only be so if someone is asking the IN to buy the Ford Class carrier, with its associated air-wing. Whats the daily cost to operate the CDG? Of course without manpower cost, unless someone projects that Indian sailors are to be soon paid in USD or Euros based on EU and US PPP. (Its my time to ask questionsIt's 7 million a day for ford class of ships or 2.5 billion a year multiplied by 60 years and inflation. I couldn't find any number for the wasp class.
How often could we afford to operate our older ships Vikrant/Viraat every year over the years? If you are going to have three or four carriers, how many can we afford to keep in the water for how long of operations?
).So we have gone from a cost of a carrier per day, to the cost of the entire group, its associated air wing, and including the entire manpower cost of the carrier. Now that we have clarified this we can move over and look at how much each one of the 6700 sailors in the USN gets in terms of salaries and benefits and compare that to an IN sailor (in USD). Of course the IN isn't interested in the Wasp, and the Wasp isn't a carrier, built for a carrier like mission, or tasked with such..therefore rendering any comparison between its operations and that of a CVN completely useless.Carrier strike groups are expensive to buy and to operate. Factoring in the total life-cycle costs of an associated carrier air wing, five surface combatants and one fast-attack submarine, plus the nearly 6,700 men and women to crew them, it costs about $6.5 million per day to operate each strike group.
Post 2030 there are many potential alternatives. So, IF India were to accept the task of leading the SCS littoral nations, then that would contribute to the greatest deviation from what we experience today. No matter what the Phase II expects around Africa, Antarctica and all the way to Alaska - that is the area of interest projected by the IN. 9 months, perhaps not. But perhaps yes, potential is there. That is the challenge - how does one project out to 2080. And, there is no way that a carrier can be modified to accept revolutionary changes - SJump to steam to EMALS.Singha wrote:also bear in mind indian carriers will not until 2030+ have the 9 month deployment cycles of the american carriers. they will have shorter missions and spend more time dockside, so opex will be lower whatever be the power plant or technology.
same goes for any of IN ships...we do not spend as much time at sea in one go as a USN ship due to nature of our patrol areas.
Why? Esp. When the drdo aew is already available and the awacs, right around the corner?Karan M wrote:^^ I most certainly would!
I quoted Tellis in another thread. There is clearly a motivated attempt by Khan and its shills to force, coerce, coax India into buying overpriced gear which it does not need.Singha wrote:also bear in mind indian carriers will not until 2030+ have the 9 month deployment cycles of the american carriers. they will have shorter missions and spend more time dockside, so opex will be lower whatever be the power plant or technology.
same goes for any of IN ships...we do not spend as much time at sea in one go as a USN ship due to nature of our patrol areas.
You do realize that none of the sensor solution you mention would provide any sort of AEW capability in the long range surveillance sense?Advantages also include -
STOBAR capability,
cheap,
very high flight ceiling meaning better OTH coverage,
high endurance, esp. if equipped with EFTs, and AAR capable
possibility of side arrays
possibility of rear coverage although not heavily needed since we are talking of two planes airborne flying behind each other at
possibility of L band coverage via t/r modules on the wings ala pakfa and Su-35
The above possibilities are not "paper" capabilities but have been demonstrated to some extent with the flanker (except the side arrays). By the time we are looking at operationalizing a 65-100K ton carrier, there should be a lot of improvement in TRM capability with the proliferation of GaN modules - a lot of the past limitations in power output and coverage might be addressed.
So the Indian flankers can get side arrays? And how will they add tot he radar coverage in terms of range? Finally, whats the range/payload penalty of the flanker taking off of from a IAC-1?possibility of side arrays
You will still run into physics.possibility of L band coverage via t/r modules on the wings ala pakfa and Su-35
GaN is not a magic bullet and won't give a fire control radar setup magical long range surveillance AEW capability. There are qualities which make a particular material and a particular radar setup suitable for a particular task. You unfortunately, cannot take the longest range of an FCR, superimpose it in the 360 and claim 360 degrees surveillance capability on an AEW orbit. Unfortunately, it does not work that way. Even with dedicated AEW's, with their dedicated sensor choices, you still have very heavy processing, different modes and a mix of all electronic, or mechanical and electronic scanning to meet the performance requirements in a dynamic environment, where multiple mission needs compete for resources (frequency choices, IFF choices, processing choices, and computing capability..and of course workstations and people to control and manage that). You can't tilt the requirements towards one aspect (as is done for a fighter) and then claim a legitimate AEW capability, in the 360 degree no less, with any deal of sincerity.By the time we are looking at operationalizing a 65-100K ton carrier, there should be a lot of improvement in TRM capability with the proliferation of GaN modules
The radar frequency chosen lends itself better to very long range surveillance mission with obviously the challenge in processing that took years to hammer out. There is a reason why on the E-2D they stuck with a UHF ESA and why Northrop paid Lockheed nearly half a billion USD to develop tit instead of an L Band AESA, that northrop (and Lockheed) itself has been producing for various applications for some time now that they could have repackaged for this particular application. Mission requirements (low RCS cruise missiles, and aircraft plus very Long Range for stand against incoming sea skimmers) drove them there. Similarly, for land launched, Raytheon ( which incidentally also was a Lockheed team member and worked on the E-2D antenna) was driven towards a VHF (AESA) airborne radar for a similar mission (anti low flying -low RCS cruise missile defense). You can choose a higher frequency of course, but mission requirements (and other design requirements) and what within these get priorities drives these towards a certain direction.the EMB145 has a antenna with some 15 feet length and probably lot more power to radiate.
A fighter based FCR enabled AEW orbit cant really be called AEW capability..but as I said earlier, I am happy to play alongif the task force is 1000km out, you can do the math of keeping 2 flankers over it 24x7, you'd need a refueler to use them properly, and planes in transit to and fro from land base to keep things up ... and multiple refuelers....its simply not viable vs a simple organic KA31AEW solution even.
But one question still remains unanswered : Can a modified Flanker, with a FCR like performing 360 radar and a centerline SAR pod, plus some weapons (I would assume) or fuel tanks (have been suggested) take off from the IAC-1 and if so, whats the TOS like say 300 km from the carrier given the maximum fuel state with which it can indeed take off?
Which carrier would the E-2D have taken off from? Besides, the option of organic E-2D (or something similar) isn't the only benefit of a CATOBAR. We aren't talking about the Vik or the IAC-1 but a new carrier that hasn't been fully designed yet, that they are exploring various capability enhancement options on ( such as - no redesign, simple increase in displacement, > displacement + Other capability enhancements etc etc_)IN did evaluate and rejected E2D based on benefit vs cost(space on the carrier/money/technological leap) it promised
And how much will those complete re-designs, and completely new UAV cost?If helping AC is the task why not use US-2I amphibian along with desi aewacs radars to me that would be better suited to our requirements and or an UAV based AEWAC launched from AC. E-2D For IN ain't gonna happen as they say in massa land.
Not carrier but land , Naval Air Basesbrar_w wrote:Which carrier would the E-2D have taken off from?IN did evaluate and rejected E2D based on benefit vs cost(space on the carrier/money/technological leap) it promised
That's a completely differnet calculus as I have mentioned. You have to factor in the performance limitations when a land based aircraft must be rushed to a Carrier group, or in defense of other ships that may be far off..It isn't the same thing as an organic AEW taking off along with the strike fighters and performing persistent defensive duties for the fleet from a lot closer. If the USN had a STOBAR carrier and wanted to provide land based AEW to support it in a limited fashion, they would probably also design it a lot differently, at a different price point with different capability in support of that mission. I expect any land based E-2D operators will choose it because of its AEGIS and NIFC-CA integration above anything else since other options are available that offer better capacity if you are primarily interested in a pocket AWACS and those capabilities are extremely expensive to put into an existing AEW application (despite complete redesign, and new system startup projects that pop up during our discussions - some nations can't afford the scale and resource commitment required to build a custom platform for a unique requirement).Not carrier but land , Naval Air Bases
Not sure. I do recall, years ago, IN did eval the E-2C (NOT the D variant) and that was proposed to be a land based asset and the IN then had punted.krishna_krishna wrote:IN did evaluate and rejected E2D based on benefit vs cost(space on the carrier/money/technological leap) it promised. To me humble DRDO AEWACS is in a better shape now and needs more funding by the forces.
If helping AC is the task why not use US-2I amphibian along with desi aewacs radars to me that would be better suited to our requirements and or an UAV based AEWAC launched from AC. E-2D For IN ain't gonna happen as they say in massa land.
