Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 03 Mar 2019 10:49

There is another desi project which should get impetus now, IMHO. The aerostats and airships being developed by ADRDE.

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1081
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby jaysimha » 21 Mar 2019 13:03

The Incredible Journey of Indian AWACS

K Ramchand
S Krishnasamy
BR Srikanth

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/monogr ... /AWACS.pdf
Last edited by jaysimha on 21 Mar 2019 15:45, edited 2 times in total.

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3415
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby suryag » 21 Mar 2019 14:10

where do we buy this doc ?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4602
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 10 Apr 2019 00:16

Given the urgent need for AEW&C and AWACS for the IAF, does it make sense that DRDO is retaining the 3rd Netra platform with themselves? At lease eventually the IAF needs that third Netra to be delivered to it to allow for at least 1 Netra to be available 24/7.

Even that is grossly inadequate. Never quite understood why the IAF didn't go with at least 3 more Netras to give themselves some more breathing space before the AWACS India program delivered something.


India renews indigenous AWACS efforts

Recent skirmishes with neighboring Pakistan have resulted in India’s military focus returning to a delayed program for an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS). The Indian Air Force (IAF) strike on a Pakistani terrorist training camp at Balakot in February included 12 Mirage 2000s supported by a fleet of other warplanes, including India’s two home-grown Netra (eyes) AEW&CS (airborne early warning and control system) aircraft that are based on an Embraer EMB-145 platform.

India’s $300 million deal for three Brazilian-built EMB-145s in 2008 was part of a Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) program to scale up the IAF’s capabilities. The Embraer platform deal included structural changes and integration of Indian radars on the aircraft, and a logistics package of training, technical support, spare parts and ground support equipment from the Brazilian OEM.

..

The third EMB-145 platform has been retained by DRDO “for upgrades,” M.S Easwaran, director of the Centre for Airborne Systems told AIN.


....

Six next-generation longer-endurance AWACS aircraft based on the Airbus A330 platform were proposed years ago and received approval and clearance in principle. They are awaiting a final nod from the ministry of defense. Larger and offering a higher operating altitude than the EMB-145s, the first two A330 platforms are part of the first phase of the program and will be fitted with an indigenous radar. Based on negotiations related to the first two A330s, four additional A330s are in the pipeline. Easwaran said work on “critical technology for the A330 AWACS had started,” and he hopes “it will be cleared in a few months.”

..

While the requirement is for at least two more, the Il-76 platform’s reliability and spares are posing a problem. DRDO’s Airbus C295-based AEW&C concept remains in the initial planning stages and has not been formally proposed to the government.


Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 10 Apr 2019 02:18

The IAF didn't care thinking they were getting 2 more Phalcons, and those 2 Phalcons have been stuck forever at Ministry of Finance. I'll bet now post Balakot, IAF starts looking afresh at the 3rd AEW&CS with DRDO and asks for it to be handed over.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 10 Apr 2019 03:55

I think it is time to add 5 more EMB type over everything else.

+ It is a good commercial platform so high uptimes.
+ DRDO has experience with it.
+ It has a jet engine, getting to station and escaping surveillance orbit and taking evasive maneuvers is faster.
+ Higher cruise speed of 833 vs 485 kmph between ej145 and c295.
+ Higher service ceiling of 37k ft vs 30k ft of C295 (farther you can see)
+ Only costs 100 million a plane with mods, so 5 plane order is relatively easy to order.

DRDO can hand over the third platform and keep one for itself from the new batch. It needs to validate a lot of stuff on these for continuous improvements.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1639
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Sid » 10 Apr 2019 04:06

Cybaru wrote:I think it is time to add 5 more EMB type over everything else.

+ It is a good commercial platform so high uptimes.
+ DRDO has experience with it.
+ It has a jet engine, getting to station and escaping surveillance orbit and taking evasive maneuvers is faster.
+ Higher cruise speed of 833 vs 485 kmph between ej145 and c295.
+ Higher service ceiling of 37k ft vs 30k ft of C295 (farther you can see)

DRDO can hand over the third platform and keep one for itself from the new batch. It needs to validate a lot of stuff on these for continuous improvements.


EMB had power supply issues, which was reported by CAG. This led to some delays, and re-engineering.

But if those issues were ironed out, it makes sense to have a fleet of common platforms from maintenance and training perspective.

IAF should finalize its An-32 replacement, and use it for AWAC/Maritime programs by producing them locally.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 10 Apr 2019 04:09

C295 would be wonderful for both MPA/Transport/EW and other needs. It could potentially replace both AVRO, Do228 (maritime) and AN-32 (decade out). It can even be used for AEW, but it would be preferable to get something more solid and faster - a commercial platform that has extremely high uptimes and higher energy production possibilities.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 10 Apr 2019 09:39

Its only in our defence procurement do we invest billions, produce cutting edge products and procure in single digits!

Like setting up a robotic manufacturing assembly line, making 2 Teslas and shutting the factory down, even though the product is a huge hit!

Someone should tweet to Nirmala Seetharaman. This is criminal.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 10 Apr 2019 11:17

License produce Kawasaki C-2 and use that for everything.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 10 Apr 2019 11:32

these are all flights of fancy. EMB145 is at low end of the size range. they have bigger a/c with very similar parts.
its time on national security grounds to repanel Embraer, using a G2G deal and get them to modify 6 more EMB170 or EMB190 and mount our balance beam radar there. the 170/190 have a conventional cargo hold where cabinets of electronics may be kept and much bigger engines to generate more power. if needed install a couple of turbine generators where the ERJ145 has its rear engines. it can be done.

A330 will never come unless our budget numbers increase much in a decade. this quixotic quest has to end.

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 10 Apr 2019 11:36

or being a balance beam we can even get 737 which mounts the northrop grumann mesa radar for the wedgetail system.
its power capacity will already be done and tested. we can mount our own radar and consoles on it.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7226
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 10 Apr 2019 11:47

E190 has the maximum range out of all of the E-jets (4537) km. Will give the best time on station.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 10 Apr 2019 11:55

Singha wrote:or being a balance beam we can even get 737 which mounts the northrop grumann mesa radar for the wedgetail system.
its power capacity will already be done and tested. we can mount our own radar and consoles on it.


Then use the same platform as the P8I. we already support it. At least some sort of commonality is maintained.

Best to order Ej145 which we already have. We don't have that much of an expeditionary force requirement. If we order more quantities, we can always relieve the crew with another spare platform and fresh crew. This way, neither crew nor platforms get overtaxed.

6 platforms for the western sector is overkill and can give us round the clock surveillance. These probably have 95% uptime.

A few more Aerostats and large surveillance ship off our Gujrat coast should give plenty of warning time.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 10 Apr 2019 12:42

the engines will be same for sure between wedgetail and P8 or we can ask for the same. boeing offers engine options.

6 x EMB145 to tide over the situation. duplicates for quick induction within 2 yrs

a few aerostat radars mounted on hills like mt abu , aravallis, vaishno devi

long term we should go with the 737 platform with a refueling probe than A330. lots moving to it for defence uses like P8, wedgetail...

A330 has zero defence users except MRTT. it made sense if we were buying lots of MRTT, but we are not !!

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1889
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Kakarat » 10 Apr 2019 13:10

Now that the commercial negotiations for C-295 are over and a contract is expected soon, I think it would be good to look at its AEW version of it. DRDO can make a 2 antenna rotating 360 version replacing the present elta radar or a new 3 antenna static version, either way the present design which is tested would require only minimum to no change. This would also satisfy the IAF requirement for a 360 coverage and help DRDO mature its system for the bigger A330 AWACS

Image

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Snehashis » 10 Apr 2019 14:40

More Embraer won't happen. Please read this :

Bribes from Brazil

The agreement, a copy of which is with India Today, painstakingly details how Embraer paid $5.76 million in 2009 to an Indian arms agent identified in the document only as 'Agent D'.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2638
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 10 Apr 2019 14:56

Other than the bribe issue, what we want is platform which can supply large power. Even for A330 DRDO chief was talking about an "extra engine" to supply power to the radar. Also long time on station, given that we will not have numbers like Khan.

Why, because we need AWACS to track Pak Ballistic Missile & CM launch! We need power to manage clutter while tracking low flying CM.

This requirement cannot be met with EMB or propeller flight. Instead of Phalcons on IL76, we should just put the remaining 2 on A330 and 6 more desi radars.

This will give economy of scale instead of 2 with Golden bill.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby negi » 10 Apr 2019 23:25

I would have never said this but since we already have the C17s might as well get few more for Phalcon + , unit cost is in same ballpark as A330 , its more rugged and we already fly it . We anyways cannot build anything in similar league in finite time. It also goes well with a nation that wants to defend all the time , if we have decided to defend at least follow Japan's queue.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7226
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 11 Apr 2019 00:07

C-17's are out of production unfortunately. IAF would have liked more for basic transport duties too. But we took too long for a repeat order and by then Boeing had sold the last ones produced.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1815
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby srin » 11 Apr 2019 00:34

My guess is that it takes a lot of effort to modify the airframe and do the flight testing for the airframe.

So, we're left with only the below choices:
- EMB-145. I wish we get more of these, but given the bribe allegations, it is pretty improbable.
- A330. Will happen, just not soon enough
- C295. Will happen if we finally acquire it, but deal isn't signed yet. And I'm not sure how long it'll take to qualify
- IL-78. Instead of putting an Israeli chappati on it, you get more IL-78 and put our own desi version. No one has suggested it, but maybe the IAF thinks there are too many maintenance issues around IL-78.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 12 Apr 2019 05:19

How does one find out what the uptimes for a platform like C295 are? Can they meet uptimes of EMB-145?

During peacetime, if and only if the uptimes are similar, then the C295 will do, as we patrol on our own territory. It does have however have a much lower ceiling and the energy needs for the AEW from those engines are unknown. A slightly more uprated engine PW150A (like the one in the new AN-132) may make more sense. But then engine swapping isn't an easy ordeal.

Otherwise best to have Embraer pay some penalty 4*bribes and rebid for 4-5 more planes and explore other partnership with India on future work.

The upside of going with C-295 is that perhaps India can order as many AEW (6-10) platforms as it likes if it is locally producing the planes. It will also be cheaper to operate.

Procurement cost - 50 million. (known). !@#% the last bid was for 30 million.
Modification cost - 15 million. (estimate)

So if we need 6 planes in air all the time and the uptime is roughly 60-70% it might make sense to purpose 10/11 airframes for it.

These will have lower survivability rates due to lower speeds, than planes equipped with jet engines for sure.
Last edited by Cybaru on 12 Apr 2019 06:53, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 12 Apr 2019 06:28

Another two comparable options to ERJ-145 could be the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardie ... y_variants

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G650

TYPE ------ ERJ 145 ------ BGE 6500 ------ G650
MTOW ------ 24K kgs ------ 45K kgs ------ 47K kgs
LENGTH ------ 29.87m ------ 30.3m ------ 30.41m

CEILING ------ 37k ft ------ 51k ft ------ 51k ft

CRUISE ------ 0.8 mach ------ 0.9 mach ------ 0.9/0.925 mach

RANGE ------ 3700kms ------ 12223 kms ------ 13890 kms

MaxFuel ------ 13.4K lb ------45K lb ------ 48.2k lb
PAYLOAD ------ 13K lb ------ 5.7k lb ------ 6.5K lb

TOT-PAYLOAD-- 26.4k lb ---- 50.7k lb ------ 54.7K lb


The Bombardier and the Gulfstream carry lots of fuel. Will need to reduce fuel for payload but should be totally doable and Bombardier already has done custom work for Saab to fit Antennae on top. Infact either of those two options look better than ERJ-145 when the specs are compared IMO. Surprised we didn't go with them in the first place. Order 6 of gulfstream and be done. We are going to get 4 of the gulfstreams for the ISTAR programme. So might as well keep it common.

Compare that to the top mach speed of C295 of 0.45, it is a no brainer to order something with jet engines that can keep up with fighters during war.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 12 Apr 2019 08:07

Reengine those 748 and recreate a modern Airavat.

Those airframes will get utilized and the product will be cheap.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 12 Apr 2019 08:33

Not for AEW. We don't necessarily need cheap, but something that adds a lot of value to reduce the fog of the battlefield, and can survive if it ventures into hostile airspace.

bhavani
BRFite
Posts: 438
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby bhavani » 12 Apr 2019 09:12

Singha wrote:these are all flights of fancy. EMB145 is at low end of the size range. they have bigger a/c with very similar parts.
its time on national security grounds to repanel Embraer, using a G2G deal and get them to modify 6 more EMB170 or EMB190 and mount our balance beam radar there. the 170/190 have a conventional cargo hold where cabinets of electronics may be kept and much bigger engines to generate more power. if needed install a couple of turbine generators where the ERJ145 has its rear engines. it can be done.

A330 will never come unless our budget numbers increase much in a decade. this quixotic quest has to end.



I agree we should go for a few more Netra or just upgraded versions of netra based on currentt platform. Why are we trying to have a real zoo of aircrafts. we never seem to standardize.

Also some of our purchases dont make sense, like the uber expensive C-17's while we lacked a good 4+ Air superiority fighter with reliable equivalent to AMRAAM and the army did not have even 100 Self propelled artillery. Do we really need C-17's

We should learn something from Massa. Euro companies developed multiple 155mm Self propelled models like Phz-2000 much massa just kept on upgrading M-109 and has deployed 1000's of them, not 100 of them and 100 of Phz-2000 and 100 of Korean models.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 12 Apr 2019 09:16

To ensure we don't end up with a zoo, our procurement policy has to stop buying 2-3 at a time. Project out all your needs, and add all those aircrafts in one order and not leave an option for follow on and all.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 12 Apr 2019 09:21

God willing, if Namo comes back to power, Nirmala Sitharaman can say "screw you" to the Embraer bribe allegations and purchase 6 more Netras. In parallel, they can go after the Congressis who took the bribes. No reason to punish the IAF for Sonia's corruption.

Flight testing, certification, our paranoia about zero accidents will mean that newer AWACS will come 10 years from now, best case. Enemy won't sit on his Musharraf till then.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 12 Apr 2019 09:26

I think after looking at options, we should convert the 6 A330 to 12 G650 platforms. They are far more versatile and will work wonders for us. We already have 5 large AEWs. We need something cheap and efficient with extremely high uptimes for day to day use and support the big guys when the war breaks out. 12 G650 will be enough for every scenario + 2 EMB-145. For the price of 3 A330, we will get roughly 12 G650s and they will roughly have about 14 hours of endurance.

These can accommodate up to 5/6 side by side consoles and have 6 rest seats as well. Plenty of range and power. A width of 8.6 ft and a height of 6.5 ft and length of 46 ft.

Plus we are already breaking out ground surveillance and getting 4 ISTARs for that task on the gulfstream platform

BGE 6000 image from saab globalEYE-side by side seating.Image


Cutaway cross section of the bigger BGE and Gulfstream650 will be like thisImage

More pics of the new globaleye if you guys care of looking at Bombardier platform and saab's experience with it.
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2018/03/04/globaleye-airborne-early-warning-and-control-aewc-aircraft/

Curious - why is their radar only 300 kgs and ours close to 1600 kgs?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 12 Apr 2019 11:14

Cybaru wrote:Not for AEW. We don't necessarily need cheap, but something that adds a lot of value to reduce the fog of the battlefield, and can survive if it ventures into hostile airspace.

I agree that saving money is not the primary criterion. But don't understand how a C295 or modified business jet is more survivable.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 12 Apr 2019 11:21

Indranil wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Not for AEW. We don't necessarily need cheap, but something that adds a lot of value to reduce the fog of the battlefield, and can survive if it ventures into hostile airspace.

I agree that saving money is not the primary criterion. But don't understand how a C295 or modified business jet is more survivable.


Business jet is far more survivable. It can fly higher out of sam reach (over 30-35k altitude) and can take evasive maneuvers at twice the speed of something like C295. Would you agree that a platform flying at 51K feet and can do .9 mach has a higher chance of escaping and staying out of harm's way in the first place vs something at 30k feet and .45 mach?

IMO C295 has the same survival risk profile as the AVRO. Nothing different. I don't think I ever said c295 had higher survival profile, in fact, I stated that it has a lower chance of survival compared to something that can fly higher and faster. At least that is what I hoped I said in my above posts.
Last edited by Cybaru on 12 Apr 2019 11:24, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 12 Apr 2019 11:23

None of that make it out of reach of SAMs or AAMs. A plane capable of of doing 2G turns is mince meat for AAM. The only protection is the protection suite which would be the same on either platforms.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 12 Apr 2019 11:26

Indranil wrote:None of that make it out of reach of SAMs or AAMs. A plane capable of of doing 2G turns is mince meat for AAM. The only protection is the protection suite which would be the same on either platforms.


In my opinion, ceiling matters quite a bit for reducing the risk of SAM hits. AAM is a different matter and I advocate asset protection by providing top cover to all High-value assets. Even with AAM, depending on far the shot was taken from, a jet plane has a higher chance of survival than a prop. You can disagree if you like.

And if you really think that both are equally vulnerable and can't escape AAM, then that's another reason not to put 50/60 souls on a A330 and take it to the border without protection.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 12 Apr 2019 11:33

Which SAM can reach 10 km but not 15 km altitude?

You would have much better arguments if you say a turbofan based aircraft has much lower time to altitude and response time.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 12 Apr 2019 11:37

Indranil wrote:Which SAM can reach 10 km but not 15 km altitude?


Depends on where SAM is, type and how much time it gives the crew to respond.

Indranil wrote:You would have much better arguments if you say a turbofan based aircraft has much lower time to altitude and response time.


Ok. You know what I am trying to say.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Apr 2019 01:13

Do you have a quote or link for this? Very significant find.

nam wrote:Other than the bribe issue, what we want is platform which can supply large power. Even for A330 DRDO chief was talking about an "extra engine" to supply power to the radar. Also long time on station, given that we will not have numbers like Khan.

Why, because we need AWACS to track Pak Ballistic Missile & CM launch! We need power to manage clutter while tracking low flying CM.

This requirement cannot be met with EMB or propeller flight. Instead of Phalcons on IL76, we should just put the remaining 2 on A330 and 6 more desi radars.

This will give economy of scale instead of 2 with Golden bill.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 02:12

The most I have found is 4 engines of the 707 awacs producing about 1 MW - 250 kW per engine. The smaller G650 engines can produce about 240kW and a large twin-engine (A32X/A33X) plane can produce up to 500 kW quite easily.

We will just have to have better onboard processing hardware to discriminate in the clutter better or and add more APU's if that is feasible. Maybe hang 2 RAT pods outside https://atgi.us/products-and-services/airborne-pod-systems/#.XLD8rutKhhE

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Apr 2019 03:04

Reason being if these are real HPRs, we are VLO safe.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2483
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 03:25

Karan M wrote:Reason being if these are real HPRs, we are VLO safe.


I have no clue what you are saying. :oops:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18661
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Apr 2019 03:34

High power radars making the AWACs capable of taking on future stealth threats.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kakarat, manjgu and 53 guests