Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 27 Jun 2016 04:47

So, are we saying that the Embraer 145 based AEW has been found to be not viable.

I was hoping for a dozen more of those to be ordered.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2016 05:20

Kakkaji wrote:So, are we saying that the Embraer 145 based AEW has been found to be not viable.

I was hoping for a dozen more of those to be ordered.

I was actually talking to someone yesterday who mentioned to me that the Embraer AEW is "doing well". I specifically asked him if the IAF had accepted it (not rejected it) and he said that the IAF had accepted it.

Could not talk much more but I really think that the IAF is having dil maange more moment. Embraer is good but IAF wants bigger. Why bigger" A lot of reasons have been posted re endurance/weight/power etc. Perhaps near 360 deg cover is sought. I think Embraer has 120 deg on each side and for 360 deg the radar would be too big and heavy for Embraer

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 27 Jun 2016 05:30

^
So, order both 'bigger' and 'smaller'.

The 'bigger' will take 10 years to build and test. In the meantime, deploy a dozen of the 'smaller' ones that are now tested and production-ready.

On this thread in BRF, we have been following the progress of the Emb-based AEW for the last 10 years. Dropping it now feels like a personal loss to me.

Some what similar to what happened to the Arjun and Nag.

At this rate, all our own R&D products are ending up being technology demonstrators only.

What a bummer.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2016 05:36

I may be wrong here but many SAAB Erieye and Embraer AEW type aircraft are used in small time ops like anti-smuggling/coast guard etc. They can be used for net centric war but probably lack (or are deficient) in some features - perhaps threat processing and prioritization of hundreds of threats rather than looking at just a few suspicious things in anti-smuggling ops. In other words there are AWACS aircraft, and then there are AWACS aircraft.

India's choice of Embraer may have been based on what DRDO felt they were capable of doing in terms of radar size power integration and processing capability. Having proven it on 3 Embraer sized aircraft they seem ready to go bigger. The big difference between Embraer and Il 76 AEW is the fact that the former was cooked in Israel, the latter is a largely desi dish even if it has "foreign vegetables" like tomatoes.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 27 Jun 2016 05:50

So, give the Emb AE&W to the BSF and Coast Guard. What is the use of all this R&D if you do not order a decent production run?

There are plenty of anti-insurgency and anti-smuggling needs along all our land and sea borders.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2016 06:05

Kakkaji wrote:^
So, order both 'bigger' and 'smaller'.

The 'bigger' will take 10 years to build and test. In the meantime, deploy a dozen of the 'smaller' ones that are now tested and production-ready.

It may not be as simple as that. The analogy may be more like across the Atlantic using 3 short ranged planes rather than 1 long range aircraft

Each AEW forms the core of a "system" that can integrate offensive and defensive air power over an entire war zone 500-600 km in diameter. It may be inefficient and ineffective to try and split that zone into multiple smaller parts.

A single aircraft that can track targets and coordinate friendly forces in an 500 km diameter circle covers 200,000 sq km for 12 hrs at a time
An aircraft with a 300 km circle covers 70,000 sq km for 6 hrs at a time and even 3 such aircraft may not be equally effective.

In desperate times two larger AWACS may give 24x7 cover while 8-10 smaller ones would be needed. Each and every one of these would need to be protected like the high value assets they are - like aircraft carriers and we cannot say "Oh we have so many, we can afford to lose one"

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2016 06:12

Kakkaji wrote:So, give the Emb AE&W to the BSF and Coast Guard. What is the use of all this R&D if you do not order a decent production run?

There are plenty of anti-insurgency and anti-smuggling needs along all our land and sea borders.

.

Not as simple as that. I think our Embraers have systems that coast guard does not need, There would be stations for processing threats in real time and passing encrypted information to fighters and ground based systems as well as satellite comms - all unnecessary for coast guard. A coast guard plane cannot serve as a AEW but the reverse may be possible but a waste of resources. Tata Nano and Ferrari can both run on race track but Ferrari makes more sense for race track and Nano for crowded city market access

I would like to question the expression "production run". With a new brand of toilet soap - a production run of 10 million would be useful. But with a system like an AWACS is more like a work of art or a unique new building - say Eiffel tower/Empire state. You don't have production runs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2016 06:21

Are Pakistani AEW aircraft equipped for processing of real time threats and serving as real CCC aircraft or are they simply souped up coast guard/border patrol aircraft sold by Sweden to wannabe nations who want a claim on AEW capability.

The systems in a proper military AEW would be much more complex and require much more integration with other assets (fighters, ground forces etc). if that integration with other assets is not required one could simply induct a plane and say "We have AWACS". Pakistan seems to have done that. Or else we can simply have a plane with a Litening pod and voice comm and say we have AWACS. In fact India used this rudimentary AWACS like capability in the 1971 war.

What do we want? What do we need. What can we get by import? What can we get if we make it ourselves?

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 27 Jun 2016 07:36

What stops us from building 3 more Emb AWEC's and as and when our big daddy’s come on line, we sell these to Vietnam (or GOI uses a grant for this capability) to an ally situated right below the gonads of our favourite neighbour.

We could have plug and play modules , where by the asset when exported is dumbed down, In the interim train the Vietnam air force operators and promise to upgrade their Russian aircraft so that they can use the asset to its full potential.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Jun 2016 08:01

Are Pakistani AEW aircraft equipped for processing of real time threats and serving as real CCC aircraft or are they simply souped up coast guard/border patrol aircraft sold by Sweden to wannabe nations who want a claim on AEW capability.

Do not know details, but reports in general, since 2010 or so, say India is behind. I think the Israeli stuff is Top notch. So, I suspect they mean India needs larger numbers.

What stops us from building 3 more Emb AWEC's and as and when our big daddy’s come on line, we sell these to Vietnam ]

Well. DRDO has proposed exactly that, but not after Indian use. India was willing to JV with em to export that platform with Indian electronics. I suspect India has produced leading edge stuff. Which is why India wants to export AND move to a bigger platform for herself.

Support is what these Indians need, not play back from years ago.

Think bigger guys.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2016 08:17

NRao wrote:
Do not know details, but reports in general, since 2010 or so, say India is behind.

Seeing the general ignorance of what AEW does and how it is done I would be suspicious of media reports in general without details.

As far as my knowledge goes an AWACS needs to be the central hub of a network - which means that there have to be fighter aircrfat and SAM systems and ground based systems that are all interlinked and electronically compatible with the AEW. Ignoring the SAM systems and ground system, the only Pakistani aircraft that that I know of that might be compatible with such a scenario would be (newer/upgraded) F-16s and possibly JF 17s. The big issue here is that JF 17 come with come with some Chinese systems/possible Italian radar, and F-16s, American. What systems would SAAB have provided to enable seamless secure networking of F-16s and JF 17 with AWACS? has Pakistan invested in all the systems on the ground and tested them for compatibility? This takes time. And money.

On a personal note I have always been suspicious of the speed with which Pakistani claims of having a working AWACS appear. I am sure the AWACS works - but it is the integration and development of tactics of the whole system that actually makes it all work.This cannot be done in the time-lines announced in the media IMHO The aircraft alone is simply an asset sans integration

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2016 08:23

Eric Leiderman wrote:What stops us from building 3 more Emb AWEC's and as and when our big daddy’s come on line, we sell these to Vietnam (or GOI uses a grant for this capability) to an ally situated right below the gonads of our favourite neighbour.

We could have plug and play modules , where by the asset when exported is dumbed down, In the interim train the Vietnam air force operators and promise to upgrade their Russian aircraft so that they can use the asset to its full potential.

To my knowledge what one sells to someone as AWACS depends on the other's stupidity as well as his proneness to getting bribed.

Buying an AWACS is no use without a completely integrated system of ground radars, ground comm, aircraft that can communicate with both - to make a seamless network the way we access BRF from Schiphol and from Shatabdi toilet.

People who simply buy an AWACS and do not have the skills/wherewithal/money to make an integrated whole system can always be bribed to buy the aircraft and show off - scaring the crap out of neighbours. None of the things that I have said are fairy tales - they probably happen more often than we think. We tend to attribute dharmic goodness to sellers and noble patriotic intentions among buyers in the turd world.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Jun 2016 12:17

Kakkaji saar, the EMB AEW&C is a very capable system and plans throughout - confirmed ones - were to have 3, with 2 delivered to IAF and one with CABS as testbed. The only challenge with the EMB AEW&C is that while very useful today and tomorrow against PLAAF/PRC, its range will be reduced against LO/VLO threats. Hence, IMHO - IAF will want bulk of its AWACS fleet to be as long ranged as possible. 400km against small targets, and lower bands. We have had periodic reports of more AEW&C on order but those haven't been confirmed yet.

Our AEW&C have ground based mission systems which are integrated with IACCS.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Jun 2016 17:33

The huge IL-76 is more closer in size to the A-330, than the A-320.
The larger 330 possibly means more stations, and a larger crew resting area. Better cabin quietening.

The IAF which is acutely afflicted with brochuritis, and used to western maal is "Accepting" of the Emb AEW&C and will actually fund the A-330s actually speaks a lot for CABS and DRDO's efforts.

Pakistan has these huge 1970s-80s style ground based control centers to direct aircraft to targets. A lot of their aircraft - the Mirages & F-7s didn't have radars on them in the past. Their Swedish Eyieye AEW aircraft are small and two of them attained shahadat at the hands of the TTP, leaving then with ?3 left. These AEWs most likely feed info to these ground based control centers via datalinks.
Maybe the F-16s can directly network with these AEWs.

They also operate four Chinese ZDK-03 AEWs which can be seen in GE images in Karachi and these may possibly link with the JF-17 bandars.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 28 Jun 2016 18:11

shiv wrote:
Gyan wrote:When we are gaming the scenarios about SAMs and AAMs shooting down AWACS we must take into consideration that long range average speed of SAM/AAM missiles is Mach 1.5 while AWACS can fly at 0.8 Mach. The missile range will also decrease if AWACS maneuvers even in a limited manner.
I am no avionics whiz. but active "detection range" is dependent on the power that the radar can push out, all else being equal.

An aircraft with a radar that has a detection range of 350 km can safely be used to look 200 km into enemy airspace staying 150 km inside safe airspace. This does not ensure absolute safety from all missile threats, but it certainly makes threats to have to work harder to get the AWACS. An enemy radar that is shining a light 150 km into India to target an AWACS needs to be put out permanently and soon.

Naturally a detection range of say 200 km would change the dynamics in a different way and for safety of the AEW and efficacy it may have to stay 75-100 km inside while "looking" an equal distance into enemy territory.

The point I was trying to make was that if a SAM and or AAM has theoretical max aerodynamic range of 200-400km then the "effective" range may be halved when fired against a Self Aware moving target like A330 AWACS. At the said "halved" range the Aircraft firing the AAM or battery firing the SAM will have to come adequately close to deep seated / protected AWACS platform to be neutralized. Also with the advent of low flying cruise missiles on Indian continent we will need to protect even the friendly space much better. Also AWACS would give better warning of Ballistic Missiles in ascent phase.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 28 Jun 2016 18:54

For once supporting the IAF, it seems as per some CAG reports that certain components of Embraer AEW were still being installed/tested in 2015, therefore rather than going for another batch of Embraer, IAF decided to go whole hog and order Airbus 330. I think this decision can be supported on basis of operational necessity and we don't have any indigenous platform in any case of any relevant size, so why not A330. I think Embraer costs USD 100 Million and provided half the endurance with fraction of payload of A330. Lastly A330 may be able to detect Ballistic Missiles in ascent almost 800-1200 km away which would be beyond the capability of Embraer based AEW.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jun 2016 19:16

Gagan wrote:The huge IL-76 is more closer in size to the A-330, than the A-320.
The larger 330 possibly means more stations, and a larger crew resting area. Better cabin quietening.

The IAF which is acutely afflicted with brochuritis, and used to western maal is "Accepting" of the Emb AEW&C and will actually fund the A-330s actually speaks a lot for CABS and DRDO's efforts.

Pakistan has these huge 1970s-80s style ground based control centers to direct aircraft to targets. A lot of their aircraft - the Mirages & F-7s didn't have radars on them in the past. Their Swedish Eyieye AEW aircraft are small and two of them attained shahadat at the hands of the TTP, leaving then with ?3 left. These AEWs most likely feed info to these ground based control centers via datalinks.
Maybe the F-16s can directly network with these AEWs.

They also operate four Chinese ZDK-03 AEWs which can be seen in GE images in Karachi and these may possibly link with the JF-17 bandars.

I saw a discussion on a Paki forum that involved a "Karan" (now banned) asking Pakis about their AEW. Pakis were talking about "Link 16" in the F-16s. And then some guy has written about "German radio" on JF 17 with a sneery reference that it is "not Chinese" as if that will somehow communicate with the AEW.

But fundamentally the Erieye brochure says that the plane is Link 16 compatible - Looks like Link 16 compatible hardware needs to be installed on every item that needs to communicate with the AEW. Older F-16s did not have that. Do newer ones automatically get that? What is the US role in allowing hardware (or a protocol?) used by US and NATO to be widely installed on teh ground and in non US aircraft?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Jun 2016 19:50

The 4 antennas on the A-330 in a square/diamond configuration, as opposed to the 3 triangle configuration on the IL-76 Phalcons might mean that more radar power may be directed at a particular point. Now a lot of areas will be covered by 2 antennae.
This may mean more range, better detection.

What software magic DRDO can come up with is left to imagination.

Will the big AWACS have a JSTARS like capability?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 17 Aug 2016 05:04

Gagan wrote:DRDO's radar for the indian AESA AWACS was supposed to be square shaped, not triangular like in the IL-76 Phalcons.

/ \
\ /

as opposed to

| \
| /

Perhaps the Israelis don't give us the range we need, or the algorithms that the IAF seeks, or that an imported system is simply too expensive and the upgrades even more so - surely all of the above.

The antenna design is influenced by the density of the AESA T/R modules, beam shape and pattern. One of the biggest problems in AESA design is one of getting a very tightly focussed beam to produce the best RF power densities. In the DRDO design it was once stated they wanted L, S, and C band capability. So that too will influence AESA design.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 17 Aug 2016 05:25

In addition to all the comments above, I have a gut feeling that having more panels and therefore more tracking beams in total, assuming an equal number of simultaneously trackable targets per panel in either configuration, will allow the 4-panel configuration to track more targets simultaneously.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 17 Aug 2016 07:10

^^^Or the same target using multiple frequencies. Target detection is less of a problem, but accurate low velocities are when the Doppler shift is minimal.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Aug 2016 08:38

we will never have enough $$ for a fleet of 20 A330 which is the minimum needed to cover our country 360' at 24x7 in wartime.

Embraers were supposed to be cheaper gap fillers and targeted solutions and should be built and used as such to make the numbers up.

malushahi · Post by **malushahi** » 17 Aug 2016 09:43

Mort Walker wrote:^^^Or the same target using multiple frequencies. Target detection is less of a problem, but accurate low velocities are when the Doppler shift is minimal.

+1.

ragupta · Post by **ragupta** » 17 Aug 2016 19:09

Instead of going for expensive platforms like A330. India should try more common platform like 737, this type is readily available. Air India would have many, they are available cheaply in the second hand market, it has varying range with the latest having range beyond 10000 Km.
once you integrate to common platform, it would be easy to get the same capability on the newer version of the same model. 737 is not going anywhere. There is no need to always for top of the line platform. As long as capability is there, it can do the work. There is a need to start thinking about using all kinds of jugaad to stretch your Rupee longer.

Embraer also has bigger 170/175/190/195 model, would prefer Embraer setting shop in India and producing KC-390 along with regional jet.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 17 Aug 2016 19:57

^^^

The A330 meets the load and range capacity of the DRDO design based on mission requirements. The Boeing 767 would have been the alternative but not the 737.

A used airframe is not necessarily cheaper. Remember an AWACS has the weight of the radome and high voltage generation for high power RF. Airframes have a certain lifetime to them and there is a cost in keeping them refurbished and maintained. There is also considerable down time to do this as well. USAF does this with the E-3 because the cost comes out of their operational budget as opposed to buying new airframes from the acquisition budget which gets tied up in politics. It also has dozens of AWACS. Further USAF can do it cheaper as they have the infrastructure in place with their logistics bases. In India we have civilian airlines that may or may not have such airframe and engine overhaul capability.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 17 Aug 2016 20:04

Singha wrote:we will never have enough $$ for a fleet of 20 A330 which is the minimum needed to cover our country 360' at 24x7 in wartime.

Embraers were supposed to be cheaper gap fillers and targeted solutions and should be built and used as such to make the numbers up.

Six of the A330 platform would be the minimum IMO. Each will have far more capacity than the embraer.

Bheeshma · Post by **Bheeshma** » 17 Aug 2016 22:08

Wouldn't it become a zoo with Il-76/Emraer and A-330? Anyway the A-330 deal is cancelled and may go to IL-76

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 17 Aug 2016 22:14

^^Can you link the story about the A330 platform for the AWACS being cancelled?

If so it's bad news as DRDO's design is based on that platform. This would be a big setback in terms of time.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Aug 2016 05:53

I believe the A330 MRTT tanker deal is cancelled , nothing is known about the awacs.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 18 Aug 2016 07:59

^^^That's ok since the IAF already has experience with the IL-76 and it may be cheaper to go that way and Boeing is making hundreds of KC-46 767 tankers for USAF and other air forces, so it may be very price competitive and extremely reliable compared to Russian junk.

The A330 based design is very important for the DRDO designers and much time would be lost going to another platform.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 18 Aug 2016 11:45

I don't think they have started on the A330 design. I am not sure what would be lost.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 18 Aug 2016 20:30

^^^weights and balances.

It would be the radome loading and associated AESA panels. This would dictate the type of radar coverage and modes needed. Given engine and fuels capabilities, loading would have to be commensurate for the mission. An AWACS is very heavy.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Aug 2016 05:23

Yeah, but nothing is lost. I am sure they didn't make a prototype for the next gen radome yet without getting the aircraft. IMO the tanker deal is canceled. AEW stuff would not be linked to it. IAF isn't know for commonality, they may still procure A330 for AEW. We need more numbers not larger platforms. You can do a 4 panel radom on a A321neo lr platform as well.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 19 Aug 2016 06:55

Nothing is lost except time.

In this instance the A-330 AWACS will have multimode capability provided by a powerful transmission system. It will be a platform similar to the P-8 and E-8 combined capable of detecting and tracking slow moving targets amidst high clutter. You won't be able to provide the power and multiple frequency generation on a smaller platform. There are only a couple of choices here the A330 or B767/777 platforms for this sort of capability.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Aug 2016 08:35

That's a huge assumption Mort, that the bigger platform may have more electrical power to spare. These planes are tightly coupled with the power plants for max operating efficiencies. Every pinch of mechanical energy is extracted for efficiencies or the airline community will kill ya. Even assuming you are right, an APU, like on phalcon can bring parity for available power, but I am not sure your assumption is correct. Anyways, we are probably on polar opposite sides of this argument. Are you saying you equip this aircraft with an underbelly radar and over the top radar at the same time?

I would prefer more mediumish-large platforms over extra large platforms.

Patterns: The pattern when you fly an E-8 type mission vs AEW are different. (Narrow battle on ground like Kargil, which includes identifying slow moving vehicles, isolating buildings, SAM sites, bridges etc / Versus a wide area air search in the western sector to track, isolate and bump off intruders). The distance traveled and the orbit maintained in both are very different. Think about this for a bit.

Personnel: Different SOPs will force different training for different kind of dedicated crews. (One will need to learn to interact with ground based units and other with air borne units)

Training/Protocols: The forces you interact with will be different (IA vs IAF) so will the identification, launch, execution, munition choice, verification methods for ground and air based units. One will connect to ground based forward command centers, heli based units, airborne units that provide CAS and the other will connect with embedded AA planes providing top cover to the HVAA.

Requirement: Your operating procedures will be different and the time they are required on station for different battles would be different and for different purposes, some longer and some shorter.

IMO they are different aircraft for different battles. Forget just buying the biggest thing you can get your hands on and gold plating it. Each has its own place and purpose.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 19 Aug 2016 09:56

I think you misunderstand. For high RF power densities you need to generate lots of high voltage. This high voltage does not come directly from the aircraft generators or APUs. Rather it comes from a floating high voltage system specifically designed for the radar. The high voltage were talking about is over 100KV.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Aug 2016 10:38

Mort, it is possible that I may need to look at the power systems for radars again. But my other concerns are still there on why a medium class specialized system towards AEW is required and not a large swiss army knife attempt at loading everything and the hair cutting salon and spa in it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Aug 2016 10:53

our RAW has got a few of these
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... tream-g280

I think it might be cheaper to use these for ground surveilance along with HALE UAV and devote the AWACS purely for a2a.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Aug 2016 12:27

Agreed Singha, the G550 would be a better platform for E-8 kind of work.

Mort, the floating power supply draws energy from somewhere correct and its not generating the energy, so why are we talking about it? Boss point mere uppar se gayan. What is its source of energy? Generally you have one or two generators on the engine and similarly two on the APU. Normally you would mount a slightly larger engine allowing the generators to make about 0.5 to 1 MW of electrical production for AEW roles (E-3 Sentry has about 1MW). They do that on the EMB145/P8I as well. It's not that different and you don't need a super large platform to do that. If EMB145 can produce enough energy to scan upwards of 400+ kms then almost any platform can do it.

Here is whats on the P8I for reference.

"Each engine is equipped with a 180KVA engine driven generator. Combined with the 90KVA commercial APU, this provides 450KVA of power. P-8 possesses significant growth capacity for equipment with excess onboard power and cooling capacity." from https://www.sofmag.com/the-p-8a-poseidon/

And that's just one generator per engine. You can add another one as well if need be to produce about 360 KVA from one engine and get bigger generator and APU combo thats installed in the rear going almost as close to 1 MW if need be. That's more power than you ever need man.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Aug 2016 12:47

Mort are you talking about this? High Voltage Power Supply Product ID: GE-6K2-PS? http://www.espey.com/markets/airborne.php