Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Jan 2009 22:45

p_saggu wrote:How are the pakis going to pay for this?

rob peter and pay paul. sadly, both paul and peter are the khan money from anti-terrorism funds.

all i can say, if khan policies backfires , it is us that is the most affected. also, note only if a threat is seen, even the khans can sell things to us.

hence, only if pakistan is allowed to setup such a threat, it is possible for a democratic govts. to pass budget on such sophisticated AEWCs and ABMs.

the faster we induct our own ABMs, and AWACs, the better is our future in these fronts. watch those influenced babooze on budgeting for our programs.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 18 Jan 2009 22:49

The phalcon will serve as an airborne controller directing aircraft to their targets and have an overall battle field awareness.
I hope the armed forces use it in the role where its ability to have an overall battlefield awareness is distributed to the ground and naval forces in real time, in order to direct offensive and defensive moves from control centers on the ground, in real time too.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 18 Jan 2009 23:09

now that our enemy AWACS is also going to significant threat, How to neutralize AWACS?
Induct R-37 type missiles.
or Ground launched long range SAMs
or hit the AWACS when its parked in airbases.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 18 Jan 2009 23:11

Mort Walker wrote:
With the Phalcons, around 8 total by 2012. The IAF will have complete radar coverage over TSP. Anything that launches, civilian or military aircraft and missiles will be visible as plain as day. The next step is to setup a dedicated EW squadron to electronically jam TSP's military assets.

There is little point in building up an elaborate and expensive 24/7 movie of useless paki aviation. The objective should be to end the need for such lavish spending on the Western side and reserve that for the real worthies in the East. Hope that this rushed delivery is in order to do just that before it becomes far more difficult and expensive in the near future. Even the most supine and thick-headed moron in Delhi can see that now is the time.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 18 Jan 2009 23:13

Going after the enemy's AWACS is a waste of resources. The targets can be hit with Brahmos and Agni using conventional warheads.

TSP paid $1 billion for the SAAB 2000 AEW&C system from the Swedes. They originally wanted 6, but renegotiated the contract in 2007. The Chinese A-50 has decades to go.

George J · Post by **George J** » 18 Jan 2009 23:15

p_saggu wrote:The phalcon will serve as an airborne controller directing aircraft to their targets and have an overall battle field awareness......

EXACTLY. There seem to be an impression on the new and improved BRF that its some sort of airborne radar that will detect a/c taking off from country A etc. If that's all it did it would be ASP not an AWACS. The PHALCON and the CABS AEW (eventually) are going to be a airborne data center. The onboard AESA is just one piece of h/w that will collect data, it will have access to SEVERAL DATA SOURCES. Using some very advanced estrogen driven IT-Vity

the a/c will collect, analyze, prioritize and instruct any asset capable of exploiting the data.

This is where the rubber meets the road, with no standardized datalinks no airborne asset can fully utilize all the info that a Phalcon can pump out (which is why the datalinks on the MKI become irrelevant, it has to be something that works across the board). That's the hardware issues....like I said please keep an eye out for it in AI09.

Now the operational issue, that bit about analyzing and prioritizing and instructing has a huge human element. So now the IAF has to figure out if it needs a Sq.L, GC or higher in the Executive Chair on the aircraft and in AHQ.

Finally, since we have already sacrificed our cojones at the alter of travel advisories we are not going to have tea at RYK anytime soon and we need at least 3 Phalcons, common datalinks and airborne management experience to really deploy the AWACS maybe the next time the al-keedas kills a couple of 100 people in prime time we "might" be ready to actually use the AWACS.

sam_kamath · Post by **sam_kamath** » 18 Jan 2009 23:34

So is the new falcon why our dear friends are talking of co-operation or is it that there fiscal state has dived to a new low ... can any one confirm a report that there has been no commodities trading on the karachi stock exchange for a long time...
just want to know which is a bigger stick the falcon or the threat of economic blockade.

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 19 Jan 2009 00:04

I think a message has been delivered to Pakistan that it will cease to exist if a major terror attack takes place on Continental US or Europe or in India. That is making them more pliable.
The Phalcon's arrival now and India holding out on offensive measures till now only seems to confirm the suspicions that the Pak Army bosses have had.

But don't underestimate their industirouness to try and spin out of this sticky situation. They've been here before several times. If they could walk out of a 911 (Which more and more looks like a ISI supported job - at the very least Hamid Gul and his blue eyed boys), they can walk out of almost anything.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 19 Jan 2009 00:33

George J wrote:
p_saggu wrote:The phalcon will serve as an airborne controller directing aircraft to their targets and have an overall battle field awareness......
EXACTLY. There seem to be an impression on the new and improved BRF that its some sort of airborne radar that will detect a/c taking off from country A etc. If that's all it did it would be ASP not an AWACS. The PHALCON and the CABS AEW (eventually) are going to be a airborne data center. The onboard AESA is just one piece of h/w that will collect data, it will have access to SEVERAL DATA SOURCES. Using some very advanced estrogen driven IT-Vity the a/c will collect, analyze, prioritize and instruct any asset capable of exploiting the data.

This is where the rubber meets the road, with no standardized datalinks no airborne asset can fully utilize all the info that a Phalcon can pump out (which is why the datalinks on the MKI become irrelevant, it has to be something that works across the board). That's the hardware issues....like I said please keep an eye out for it in AI09.

Now the operational issue, that bit about analyzing and prioritizing and instructing has a huge human element. So now the IAF has to figure out if it needs a Sq.L, GC or higher in the Executive Chair on the aircraft and in AHQ.

Finally, since we have already sacrificed our cojones at the alter of travel advisories we are not going to have tea at RYK anytime soon and we need at least 3 Phalcons, common datalinks and airborne management experience to really deploy the AWACS maybe the next time the al-keedas kills a couple of 100 people in prime time we "might" be ready to actually use the AWACS.

In peacetime operations, 2 or 3 Phalcons can fly within 100Km of the border and keep constant surveillance on most all of Pakistan - a country that is 300-400 Km wide. In other places around the world it wouldn't be practical. In such a situation it would indeed work as an ASP. The questions are, how expensive is this, is it worth it to keep crews trained (pilots & navigators, air traffic control officers/technicians, radar and ECM technicians), and finally does this practice fit in to the air defense network doctrine? During the cold war, the USAF and NATO AWACS kept constant surveillance over the great circle routes from Russia. The Soviets knew this and played lots of cat & mouse games over international waters.

If you add data links from satellite, ground based radar and other SIGINT, the Phalcon with its significant signal processing capability is a powerful platform.

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 23 Jan 2009 19:47

Mort Walker wrote:Going after the enemy's AWACS is a waste of resources. The targets can be hit with Brahmos and Agni using conventional warheads.

TSP paid $1 billion for the SAAB 2000 AEW&C system from the Swedes. They originally wanted 6, but renegotiated the contract in 2007. The Chinese A-50 has decades to go.

do you propose that brahmos has a air-air version as well,to hit airborne enemy targets ?, is it under dev. or already developed?
do we have an a-a version of a ny missile which could travel 200+kms?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Jan 2009 19:57

no dear, he is talking about hitting them on the ground.
endurance of paki saabs will be limited due to both low flight time and crew fatigue, even if AAR is used.

Mordechai Hod : "a jet aircraft is the deadliest weapon in existence -- in the sky. But on the ground, it is useless."
applies in general to all aircraft.

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 23 Jan 2009 20:00

p_saggu wrote:stick to the thread please

stick to the thread please

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 23 Jan 2009 20:17

namit k wrote:do you propose that brahmos has a air-air version as well,to hit airborne enemy targets ?

A-A Brahmos? What exactly are we trying to shoot down with this?

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 23 Jan 2009 20:22

In peacetime operations, 2 or 3 Phalcons can fly within 100Km of the border and keep constant surveillance on most all of Pakistan - a country that is 300-400 Km wide.

are you sure ?

In other places around the world it wouldn't be practical. In such a situation it would indeed work as an ASP. The questions are, how expensive is this, is it worth it to keep crews trained (pilots & navigators, air traffic control officers/technicians, radar and ECM technicians), and finally does this practice fit in to the air defense network doctrine?

Iaf knows whats expensive what to do with that,before it asked for awacs

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 23 Jan 2009 20:32

Rahul M wrote:no dear, he is talking about hitting them on the ground.
endurance of paki saabs will be limited due to both low flight time and crew fatigue, even if AAR is used.

Mordechai Hod : "a jet aircraft is the deadliest weapon in existence -- in the sky. But on the ground, it is useless."
applies in general to all aircraft.

endurance of IL-78/76 was always on question

the best way to monitor whole western border 24x7 is by a series of aerostats and other static systems,
dont know why people are even suggesting 24x7 monitoring by awacs, it is radically out of any option, no airforce will do that

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Jan 2009 22:24

namit k wrote:endurance of IL-78/76 was always on question
......

no, because of AAR and being a spacious larger a/c with a proportionately larger crew, crew fatigue will be lower.

Nandan D · Post by **Nandan D** » 23 Jan 2009 22:39

the best way to monitor whole western border 24x7 is by a series of aerostats and other static systems,
dont know why people are even suggesting 24x7 monitoring by awacs, it is radically out of any option, no airforce will do that

Flying the AWACS 24/7 is exactly what the IAF will need to do during a conflict.
I would guess that's why all the endurance issues are being brought up. Not for peacetime.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 24 Jan 2009 00:22

Nandan D wrote:Flying the AWACS 24/7 is exactly what the IAF will need to do during a conflict.

It is not just one aircraft which flies 24x7. Usually they are replaced after a fixed period of time with a fresh aircraft and crew. There is some amount of overlap provided.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 24 Jan 2009 07:32

Ground based radar and aerostats are effective and do form an air defense. The disadvantage is that they are fixed sources of radiation and can be targeted physically or jammed, provided the enemy has resources dedicated to it, but will not have the look down capability of an AWACS nor the radar range. An AWACS can fly a pattern (orbit if you will) that can triangulate on a jamming source in a listen only mode and correlate it with other SIGINT given its massive signal processing capability.

During periods of heightened alert at least one Phalcon for 12 hours will monitor the SW coast off shore oil platforms and shore based refineries against attack. Two more Phalcons can monitor the rest of India's western border flying 12 hour missions. This means you'll need at least 6 Phalcons for adequate western air defence. Another will be ground based for h/w & s/w maintenance and to train radar & comms specialists and then another for spares or redundancy. This is hypothetically how the IAF is planning at least 8 this way.

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 25 Jan 2009 19:11

Mort Walker wrote:Ground based radar and aerostats are effective and do form an air defense. The disadvantage is that they are fixed sources of radiation and can be targeted physically or jammed, provided the enemy has resources dedicated to it, but will not have the look down capability of an AWACS nor the radar range. An AWACS can fly a pattern (orbit if you will) that can triangulate on a jamming source in a listen only mode and correlate it with other SIGINT given its massive signal processing capability.

During periods of heightened alert at least one Phalcon for 12 hours will monitor the SW coast off shore oil platforms and shore based refineries against attack. Two more Phalcons can monitor the rest of India's western border flying 12 hour missions. This means you'll need at least 6 Phalcons for adequate western air defence. Another will be ground based for h/w & s/w maintenance and to train radar & comms specialists and then another for spares or redundancy. This is hypothetically how the IAF is planning at least 8 this way.

phalcons or any airborne awacs are not invincble, they can be easily targeted by a group of strikers, then there is a need of a dedicated group of jets for its security.
and suppose one awac jet gets down then whole configuration disturbs and time slot issues arise.
airborne awacs are definitely needed 24x7 in wars but in normal times only aerostats are siuted which i said that all air forces may opt for

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 25 Jan 2009 19:32

namit k wrote:endurance of IL-78/76 was always on question

Says who?... You ?

--- Looks like there is a never ending line new-age Oracles here, these days?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 25 Jan 2009 20:34

Tilak wrote: --- Looks like there is a never ending line new-age Oracles here, these days?

tell me about it !

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 25 Jan 2009 22:14

namit k wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:Ground based radar and aerostats are effective and do form an air defense. The disadvantage is that they are fixed sources of radiation and can be targeted physically or jammed, provided the enemy has resources dedicated to it, but will not have the look down capability of an AWACS nor the radar range. An AWACS can fly a pattern (orbit if you will) that can triangulate on a jamming source in a listen only mode and correlate it with other SIGINT given its massive signal processing capability.

During periods of heightened alert at least one Phalcon for 12 hours will monitor the SW coast off shore oil platforms and shore based refineries against attack. Two more Phalcons can monitor the rest of India's western border flying 12 hour missions. This means you'll need at least 6 Phalcons for adequate western air defence. Another will be ground based for h/w & s/w maintenance and to train radar & comms specialists and then another for spares or redundancy. This is hypothetically how the IAF is planning at least 8 this way.
phalcons or any airborne awacs are not invincble, they can be easily targeted by a group of strikers, then there is a need of a dedicated group of jets for its security.
and suppose one awac jet gets down then whole configuration disturbs and time slot issues arise.
airborne awacs are definitely needed 24x7 in wars but in normal times only aerostats are siuted which i said that all air forces may opt for

I don't think you understand.

1. Nobody said AWACS are invincible, but they don't fly in the enemy's combat radius. The enemy has limited resources and if they want to send a strike group after an AWACS, the strike group would be intercepted and most likely shot down. Its a bad planning in the use of combat a/c as they can't be used for something else. The Phalcon has a range of 400 Km for detection, this is probably a conservative estimate and most likely it has over the horizon capability by scattering off the ionosphere. Most likely it can't do low velocity detection after 400 Km. It comes down to how good its signal processing s/w is and to what resolution the moving clutter maps are.

2. In periods of heightened alert, you would fly AWACS for monitoring where you would normally use several a/c for a surveillance mission, but with the advantage of better and earlier detection of enemy a/c. The AWACS becomes a potent force multiplier.

3. Aerostats have a purpose and can be effective, but they are in relatively fixed positions within the combat radius of enemy a/c that can be targeted with anti-radiation missiles. They don't have the range of coverage necessary and generally their radar is inferior for detection.

4. The question is, do you fly one or more AWACS 24x7 during peacetime? The answer is yes in order to train your crews.

sum · Post by **sum** » 25 Jan 2009 23:23

As per latest grapevine (and realistic schedules), when is the DRDO AWACs scheduled to hit the sky given that the deal for the EMB-145s has also been inked?

Omar · Post by **Omar** » 07 Mar 2009 09:35

DRDO's Dec 2008 Tech Focus article on the CABS AEW&CS:

http://www.drdo.org/pub/techfocus/2008/dec08.pdf

Omar · Post by **Omar** » 07 Mar 2009 09:53

Distilling some pearls of wisdom from the article posted above:

Two radiating planar arrays assembled back-to-back and mounted on top of the fuselage in the AAAU will provide 120° (being extended up to 150°) coverage on either side of the aircraft.

Wind tunnel experiments [w/the AAAU integrated to fuselage] have been carried out on low- and high-speed models of the AEW&C at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) and the National Aerospace Laboratories(NAL), both at Bangalore.

The automated test equipment developed for testing the TRMM...has drastically reduced the test time from 2 days to just 3 h besides
bringing in both efficiency and consistency in the test results. Being a new technology, DRDO has taken this up for a patent.

Another HS-748 or a Dornier-228 aircraft will be allotted shortly by IAF to CABS to accommodate the flight efforts required for the
development of various units of the subsystems of the AEW&C system.

CABS has its own Lightning Test Facility for designing and testing lightning protection schemes and ensures lightning-worthiness of the aircraft.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 07 Mar 2009 09:59

sum wrote:As per latest grapevine (and realistic schedules), when is the DRDO AWACs scheduled to hit the sky given that the deal for the EMB-145s has also been inked?

the brazil co wa saying the first aircraft will be delivered by 2011, So integration of radar can begin by then.

Omar · Post by **Omar** » 07 Mar 2009 10:18

the brazil co wa saying the first aircraft will be delivered by 2011, So integration of radar can begin by then.

The radar isn't going to be flight tested for the first time on the Emb-145. It is likely to occur earlier on a separate testbed aircraft like the Do-228 or HS 748. So when Embraer delivers the aircraft and CABS installs the AESA radar, the prototype should be working more or less as envisioned.

sum · Post by **sum** » 07 Mar 2009 10:42

ajay_ijn wrote:
sum wrote:As per latest grapevine (and realistic schedules), when is the DRDO AWACs scheduled to hit the sky given that the deal for the EMB-145s has also been inked?
the brazil co wa saying the first aircraft will be delivered by 2011, So integration of radar can begin by then.

From what i had gathered by my chat with the CABS persons at AI-09, we will have a integrated AWACs ready by 2011. The EMB-145 will arrive with all modifications done(and integration having kick-started in Brazil itself) and only minor integration work will need to be done.

Maybe, K Prasad guru can corroborate?

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 07 Mar 2009 13:41

sum wrote:
ajay_ijn wrote: the brazil co wa saying the first aircraft will be delivered by 2011, So integration of radar can begin by then.
From what i had gathered by my chat with the CABS persons at AI-09, we will have a integrated AWACs ready by 2011. The EMB-145 will arrive with all modifications done(and integration having kick-started in Brazil itself) and only minor integration work will need to be done.

Maybe, K Prasad guru can corroborate?

You are right Sum... Embrear will have to test the EMb-145 they are giving us due to the fact that extensive aerodynamic changes are being made, far more than on their own AWACS... the wind tunnel testing is going on, and full scale testing will probably begin in a few months...

the full scale radome and all other components will be integrated in Brazil, and will be completed in around 1-1/2 years. Flight testing and certification will then be carried our, and the final AWACs aircraft will arrive here circa early 2011 or so... fully ready, like the Phalcons. Some delays may also have to be factored in.

Note that there is an extensive amount of engineering and modifications to be made - the Embraer guys were saying that this project will be a challenge, but not one that they can't handle.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 07 Mar 2009 15:50

i dunt understand, how can we send the radar and other sensitive equipment to brazil. Did Israel everything to Russia or whichever country producing IL-76 for integration?

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 07 Mar 2009 17:01

ajay_ijn wrote:i dunt understand, how can we send the radar and other sensitive equipment to brazil. Did Israel everything to Russia or whichever country producing IL-76 for integration?

Radome and other components = structural components + weights simulating the presence of radar equipment (no electronics)

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 15 Mar 2009 05:35

Pentagon to build $400 million spy blimp

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Mar 2009 05:46

Would'nt be a sitting duck for any A2A missile? Let say, it comes into Indian Airspace or for any country that matter (china would not hesitate to just shoot it down at sight or on radar). Is there a height limitations in boundaries like on/in sea (intl boundaries)

kobe · Post by **kobe** » 15 Mar 2009 07:11

it does not need to be in their "airspace", just like AWACs in indian airspace can tracks planes taking off from any airport in paki-satan. blimps in taiwan airspace can track most ships & subs in south china sea and any missiles or airplanes taking off from the southern china.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 15 Mar 2009 08:03

Considering its obvious disadvantage in terms of protection against missiles and the cost involved, these would just glorifies Aerostats. They can be used during war time against asymmetric threats who do not have an advanced SAM system.

Unless this system is loaded with active missile cancellation and some offensive weapons/lasers etc, their scope is limited to areas out of reach of enemy SAMs and aircrafts.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 15 Mar 2009 09:41

George J wrote:
p_saggu wrote:The phalcon will serve as an airborne controller directing aircraft to their targets and have an overall battle field awareness......
EXACTLY. There seem to be an impression on the new and improved BRF that its some sort of airborne radar that will detect a/c taking off from country A etc. If that's all it did it would be ASP not an AWACS. The PHALCON and the CABS AEW (eventually) are going to be a airborne data center. The onboard AESA is just one piece of h/w that will collect data, it will have access to SEVERAL DATA SOURCES. Using some very advanced estrogen driven IT-Vity the a/c will collect, analyze, prioritize and instruct any asset capable of exploiting the data.

This is where the rubber meets the road, with no standardized datalinks no airborne asset can fully utilize all the info that a Phalcon can pump out (which is why the datalinks on the MKI become irrelevant, it has to be something that works across the board). That's the hardware issues....like I said please keep an eye out for it in AI09.

Now the operational issue, that bit about analyzing and prioritizing and instructing has a huge human element. So now the IAF has to figure out if it needs a Sq.L, GC or higher in the Executive Chair on the aircraft and in AHQ.

Finally, since we have already sacrificed our cojones at the alter of travel advisories we are not going to have tea at RYK anytime soon and we need at least 3 Phalcons, common datalinks and airborne management experience to really deploy the AWACS maybe the next time the al-keedas kills a couple of 100 people in prime time we "might" be ready to actually use the AWACS.

George J: You said my piece of mind.
Little bird sang in my ears many years ago how pathtic the IAF situation is and PHALCON was already being built at that time. This "naa-cheez" tried forewarning this issue to em, but obviously much water has flown down Ganga river, IAF is blissfully at peace, awaiting deliverance by fighter jockeys.

Why bother with radar-shadaar. RF waves can't meet the force of cold lead from MKI's guns. With officers posted out of responsibility every 4 years at Vayu Bhawan, who has the mission, balls and brains to make IAF's combat network system architecture, much less a network that will be able to talk to Gernails (sic) and Colonels of Indian Army on ground.

Just do as the Roman's do. Get pay, make babies and chase girls, that is good life. War fighting, leave that to politicians, and there will be no war. Then why bother sharpening the axe?

I say idiots tread where angles fear.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 15 Mar 2009 10:02

These 2 TR modules tell a story:

Gallery >> Aero India 2009 >> P. Kartik Kumar >> LRDE - TR Modules Brochure

L Band TR module effective Transmit power/ module: 2000 watts (net 35 dBW, including 10 dB processing gain), receiver Noise Figure of 3.5dB is pretty decent. So interesting radar performance can be obtained by using these pieces.

The S band TR module is also interesting: Pls ignore the typo error in "Overall TX gain fo 53 dB" that is impossible. That typo should have read 35 dB. (inverse of 53 dB).

Now pls tell me again how many TR element will be in Indian AEW ? multiply that with 2000 watts to get transmitted power, then multiply with antenna gain to get EIRP and from the 3.5dB receiver Noise Figure, see the LoS range that it can see.

Engineer/Vishwakarma can see it, but can a fighter pilot burra-sahib see it? You know the answer.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Mar 2009 20:11

Arun_S wrote:Just do as the Roman's do. Get pay, make babies and chase girls, that is good life. War fighting, leave that to politicians, and there will be no war. Then why bother sharpening the axe?

Arun you have hit the nail , thats the sorry state of affairs unfortunately , Cool folks are happy to display their skills at Nellis and get the wah wah , the travel and perks.

Leave the War fighting to the politicians and they can go to extreme length to make sure that their Delhi Durbar life style is not affected , even if it means aam Hindustani bear the major brunt and pain.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 15 Mar 2009 23:28

DARPA document on the blimp - Integrated Sensor Is the Structure