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.
yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1458
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby yensoy » 17 Apr 2019 06:46

Of course we want to build everything we need, but the fact is that there is a list of priorities. This is because the DRDO/Indian MIC has neither the managerial, technical or financial resources to support the entire pyramid of needs. Keep in mind that scale of production matters, and unless there is an export mindset we will not have the scales which will make some projects succeed. Export is a different ballgame altogether - marketing, snazzy brochures, training packages, logistics chains, refinement of best practices, interoperability with other systems, on-site and remote monitoring and diagnostics etc, even small items like ergonomics and localized training materials are important.

We may get there someday, but as of today where we can only pick a limited number of areas to directly enter, we have to prioritize. A (basically) civilian 2-engine turboprop is commodity and adds no strategic value to our R&D base.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2133
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 17 Apr 2019 09:10

Couldn't agree with you more Chola. We can bring in private players and perk their interest through manufacture of such easy aircraft. India must look at mastering not only the complex bit also the mundane easy techs and mass produce these.

Let the creative manufacturing juices flow.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7808
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Mort Walker » 17 Apr 2019 09:18

Zynda wrote:Karan, have Phalcon radars gone any sort of upgrade since its induction in to IAF? Further, does Israel itself offer any newer versions of the radar? Was not able to find any info on open sources about upgrades.

I remember reading that Saab's GlobalEye is based on GaN AESA modules and hence is able to offer up to 150% increase in performance over Erieyes sets.

The 2 Phalcon radars which India intends to order, are they of the same versions as existing ones?


The Elta EL/W-2090 is more than capable and any upgrades will happen without public notice. DRDO needs to move along with its AEW&CS program. It doesn't matter which platform they choose, but they have to make progress. The key here will be clutter suppression and low velocity detection - it will take significant signal processing hardware and software development.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18398
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 17 Apr 2019 09:25

Zynda wrote:Karan, have Phalcon radars gone any sort of upgrade since its induction in to IAF? Further, does Israel itself offer any newer versions of the radar? Was not able to find any info on open sources about upgrades.

I remember reading that Saab's GlobalEye is based on GaN AESA modules and hence is able to offer up to 150% increase in performance over Erieyes sets.

The 2 Phalcon radars which India intends to order, are they of the same versions as existing ones?


Both of these aircraft were to have upgraded hardware and software.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3720
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby hnair » 17 Apr 2019 10:12

Some thoughts:

A lot of folks here are still considering the AEWC as an airborne radar picket! That would be called just AEW. AEW’s mission of long range search and low level scan can be cost effectively split between massively powerful ground based TH kind of radars and aerostat mounted radars for a country of India’s size. But such a split infrastructure(ground plus aerostat) means battle management can be done only in a static air space bubble around these assets. Basically a defensive picket.

That is what pakis were doing with their eriye. A slow moving turboprop is fine for this role because it doesn’t have to fly far or fast. Nor it needs to fly higher at altitude, because the AD mission has powerful ground based radars to do the job of volume search. And for pakis it is cheap to operate.

But India needs AEWC, not AEW

AEWC in the truest sense is an offensive platform that should be able to move along with the aerial battle, ideally over hostile places where there is no existing battle management or volume search by a ground based infra. Basically shift the bubble to where action should be. This opens up the options for aerial battle managers a lot, as enemy has to second guess a lot more of the directions from where actions can happen.

In earlier decades this needed computing resources which meant huge planes and those that can’t afford them, used smaller AEW craft to download the radar picture to ground and process. Extra fuel and even spare crew for anything smaller than a 707 was an issue due to the space being taken up by computing racks.

But that has changed and hence the shift to smaller regional airliners/ biz jet crafts, extra tanks, faster speeds, better crew comforts etc

IAF, due to its Tibet responsibility, probably wants a bit more in addition to primary mission of taking along the battle bubble deep into Tibet airspace: increase the physical range of the combat craft it must manage. Hence the strange request to combine AEWC and aerial refueler mission

The massive A330 is still the best bet if you want a craft of that vast capability over Tibet. As also gulfstream or embrear bizjets for bringing the party to paki air space, due to dash speed and higher altitude. Turboprops like C295 make sense only if IAF wants a radar picket for low cost or long duration border patrol at leisurely speeds

Hope they complete the original six Embrear order and maybe excercise one extra option as aerial test bed role for DRDO

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 17 Apr 2019 11:13

now that you say it the A330 makes sense. it carries 90tons of fuel by design. it can lead half a squadron of fighters into the fight and top off any that need help on the way back.
on its own it has a vast range enough to fly london to sydney if empty. it can operate from bengaluru,kerala yet conduct operations near the straits of malacca or the red sea easily.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1841
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Kakarat » 17 Apr 2019 12:01

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1118397038654152704
In my view, AEW&CS & other EW-related solutions will find their way onto license produced C-295s sooner than later.


https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1118397685126459392
BTW, do keep in mind one thing, for the C-295 license production deal , Tata is not the prime because this is a 'buy and make ' project under DPP. Tata Advanced Systems Limited is the 'Indian Production Agency' while Airbus Spain is the lead.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2133
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 17 Apr 2019 12:03

hnair wrote:Some thoughts:

A.....

The massive A330 is still the best bet if you want a craft of that vast capability over Tibet. As also gulfstream or embrear bizjets for bringing the party to paki air space, due to dash speed and higher altitude. Turboprops like C295 make sense only if IAF wants a radar picket for low cost or long duration border patrol at leisurely speeds

Hope they complete the original six Embrear order and maybe excercise one extra option as aerial test bed role for DRDO

Why tonhanker for dream solutions only when the Netra provides AEWC? A330 based systems will take time to develop. Not wise to keep waiting!

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3726
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 17 Apr 2019 12:59

Order at least 3 more netras even if they are restricted for use on the low altitude regions. They'll free up the 5 phalcons to watch over Tibet.

It is frustrating to see this piecemeal ordering...3 of this and 3 of that. Ditto with shivaliks, Tejas, Astra. If it is a matter of keeping tech upgrades in the fleet, it is also important to get to baseline strength levels. I guess the Navy is doing this with the krivaks since there are souped cheaper. But they are now a 20 year old design.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6639
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby habal » 17 Apr 2019 13:04

netras can still be used for defensive role, and a330 or il76 based awacs can be used for offensive role. Netra can be forward deoloyed also, all in all it is a piece of beauty that can complement the larger awacs.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3306
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 17 Apr 2019 13:06

Cain Marko wrote:Order at least 3 more netras even if they are restricted for use on the low altitude regions. They'll free up the 5 phalcons to watch over Tibet.

It is frustrating to see this piecemeal ordering...3 of this and 3 of that. Ditto with shivaliks, Tejas, Astra. If it is a matter of keeping tech upgrades in the fleet, it is also important to get to baseline strength levels. I guess the Navy is doing this with the krivaks since there are souped cheaper. But they are now a 20 year old design.



the 3 piecemeal orders are due to long lead times for production in the indian facilities, by the time they are done most threats/situations would have evolved considerably. The smaller orders will enable to improvise over the next variant/generation.China has a huge supplier base and able to churn out in two digit numbers over a record time, india still doesnt.I know its still a chicken and egg situation ..for now.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3726
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cain Marko » 17 Apr 2019 13:20

^I don't buy that. The shivaliks are as modern as they get, why just order 3? And when the forces are getting frickin top heavy by the day, you need to make up numbers with some lighter dalroti stuff. Case in point is the Tejas. Why the hell couldn't there be an order for 125 mk1s? The bird is as good as the upgraded mirage or fulcrum in many respects and certainly head and shoulders above the bisons.

No, instead they want to give a pie in the sky order for 83 mk1a, which will take some time to develop. Then they promise another pie after the mk2 when that comes along. All the while whining about depleting force numbers. Wtf?

There should be a straight additional order of 80+ mk1s, get Hal lines humming @ 24pa. They can concurrently develop the mk1a and mk2. Order another 126+200 of these as available. 400 Tejas at the bottom of the fighter pyramid is the only way to make that 45 sqd force possible.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 300
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby MeshaVishwas » 27 May 2019 14:05

Image
8)

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1422
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 27 May 2019 14:37

Name change?

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3753
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 27 May 2019 16:59

kit wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Order at least 3 more netras even if they are restricted for use on the low altitude regions. They'll free up the 5 phalcons to watch over Tibet.

It is frustrating to see this piecemeal ordering...3 of this and 3 of that. Ditto with shivaliks, Tejas, Astra. If it is a matter of keeping tech upgrades in the fleet, it is also important to get to baseline strength levels. I guess the Navy is doing this with the krivaks since there are souped cheaper. But they are now a 20 year old design.



the 3 piecemeal orders are due to long lead times for production in the indian facilities, by the time they are done most threats/situations would have evolved considerably. The smaller orders will enable to improvise over the next variant/generation.China has a huge supplier base and able to churn out in two digit numbers over a record time, india still doesnt.I know its still a chicken and egg situation ..for now.


The long lead time are the result of low orders because these things are never industrialized and stay as hand-assembled lab projects.

I wish we had an homebuilt platform. This needing to negotiate and buy a ERJ-145 with price inflation amid charges of corruption also create extreme uncertainty. We created Netra and the upcoming AWACS projects to alleviate the problem we had with price gouging of the Phalcon.

We are barely in a better spot without an Indian made platform because what happened with the IL-76 can happen with any aircraft sold in small numbers. The manufacturer is not worried about raising prices to make things worthwhile for them since the downside is only the loss of a handful of aircraft.

Cheen are able to mass produce AEW (and ASW, SIGINT, MPA, etc.) because it builds cheap platforms since the 1970s in the Y-7/Y-8|Y-9. Every time they need a specialty aircraft they load new stuff into these work horses.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1841
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Kakarat » 27 May 2019 20:58

Thakur_B wrote:Name change?


I dont think they have changed the name of the aircraft

The Netra is part of No.200 Squadron "SKANDA"

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18398
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 27 May 2019 23:08

>>>Cheen are able to mass produce AEW (and ASW, SIGINT, MPA, etc.) because it builds cheap platforms since the 1970s in the Y-7/Y-8|Y-9. Every time they need a specialty aircraft they load new stuff into these work horses.

Which can't fly fast enough, or high enough, or do anything well in particular and are hence not used in conflict as the PAF promptly moved their Chinese AWACS away and inducted the Erieye.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3753
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 28 May 2019 00:25

Karan M wrote:>>>Cheen are able to mass produce AEW (and ASW, SIGINT, MPA, etc.) because it builds cheap platforms since the 1970s in the Y-7/Y-8|Y-9. Every time they need a specialty aircraft they load new stuff into these work horses.

Which can't fly fast enough, or high enough, or do anything well in particular and are hence not used in conflict as the PAF promptly moved their Chinese AWACS away and inducted the Erieye.


Karan ji, the fact the chini radars suck is not really a counter to my argument that it is better to have a locally produced platform, no? Put it this way, two dozen deficient KJ-500s are a lot better for them than just 3 deficient KJ-500s.

Put it another way, if we had made our own AN-32 or even the HS748 we would have far more than just three. Chinis lost three times as many lives in their chapati accident than we did in ours and but they still persevered with a Y-8 because it is theirs.

Maybe a desi An-32 or Avro might not fly as high or fast as the TFTA Embraer but having them in numbers is far better than having just three. The difference in speed and altitude can't make up for numbers in something like surveillance. Carrier AEW with limited speed and altitudes like the Hawkeye serve as the main airborne surveillance systems for more than a few nations.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18398
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 May 2019 02:00

Karan ji, the fact the chini radars suck is not really a counter to my argument that it is better to have a locally produced platform, no? Put it this way, two dozen deficient KJ-500s are a lot better for them than just 3 deficient KJ-500s.


Chini radars suck and their platforms add to the problem with their inability to fly high enough, fast enough.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati ... Cricket_19

See what happens when one side has technological superiority in a modern air war. The specific example noted by Air Marshal Dhanoa when responding to arguments like PRC one, on "buy a lot of halfways stuff, numbers will add up".

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3753
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 28 May 2019 08:18

Karan M wrote:
Karan ji, the fact the chini radars suck is not really a counter to my argument that it is better to have a locally produced platform, no? Put it this way, two dozen deficient KJ-500s are a lot better for them than just 3 deficient KJ-500s.


Chini radars suck and their platforms add to the problem with their inability to fly high enough, fast enough.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati ... Cricket_19

See what happens when one side has technological superiority in a modern air war. The specific example noted by Air Marshal Dhanoa when responding to arguments like PRC one, on "buy a lot of halfways stuff, numbers will add up".


^^^ Yes, I used the Bekaa Valley and Israel many times to point out to Filipov why we bother with Ruskie gear. Lol. The kill ratio with the F-15 and F-Solah ran riot to over 85 to zero against the Russkie iron at the time in the MiG-29/23/21. Stuff that we still use today coincidentally.

So should we junk our Russkie heavy force using the Bekaa Valley example? Nope, the numbers we have ensure an overwhelming advantage over the Pakis and chinis (operating out of Tibet.) Western arms is overwhelming but only when flown by Westerners not pakis.

Now back to point, just because the chinis have nothing but chitty radars to put on their local mass produced platforms doesn't mean having a locally made platform in numbers is a bad thing.

The US and Russia overwhelmed a Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht in Europe who were technically far more advanced (Me-262 jets, Tiger tanks, etc.) with sheer numbers of "just good enough" equipment during WWII.

I guarantee you that 12 Netras flying in even home grown Avros would be better for the IAF than just three on Embraers.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18398
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 May 2019 09:29

You are again missing the point.

The Russian A team was not used at Bekaa valley, no integrated grids of A50s, S300s, Buks, backed up by Su30s, MiG31s and MiG29s for point defence. So making it Russian vs western is flawed...

What it does show is that technology advantages matter. The Russian B team kit deployed by Syria was behind the western, homegrown kit deployed by Israel, hence contributed to lopsided kill ratios. They didnt send their latest Buks, but retained the older SA6s, which were already compromised since 1973.

If you want to overwhelm with numbers, you will have a pyrrhic victory until and unless your dominance is overwhelming elsewhere.

Your German example isnt accurate either. Late model Russian tanks were actually superior to the German ones. US Army artillery numbers, organization, logistics were superb and overwhelmingly dominant over Germany. American pilots weren't raw either, trained by combat veterans rotated back.

In the case you make right now, those 12 Netras unless they are on a platform that flies high enough, fast enough like the Embraer, will not see as far as todays Netra, cannot reach fast enough or even escape. They are at best defensive pickets. IAF wants battle management systems to take the fight to the opponent not play defense in it's own territory. For that we have umpteen GBAD radars.

Understand this, and the disadvantages in air warfare of playing with a marginal deck as your losses wont be marginal.

The 4th generation full energy maneuverable F16s, F15s armed with all aspect Sidewinders, AI radars slaughtered the MiG21, 23 fleet of the Syrians armed with front aspect missiles and dependent on GCI.

This is the point the IAF correctly makes about why its fighter , weapons edge, sensor edge needs to be as potent as possible and they cant rely on numbers alone. Strike fleet can be managed much better via upgrades.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2071
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 28 May 2019 15:55

but quantity has a quality of its own...

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18398
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 May 2019 16:01

Provided you are willing to bear losses. In air war, not just planes, but pilots. My point is you need some minimum threshold level of capability when going up against opponents. If you buy inferior equipment en masse, and want to drown your opponent in numbers, you should be willing to bear the casualties. Even, the Syrians gave up after a 85:1 (how true that is, is a different story given Israeli propaganda) exchange ratio.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2071
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby manjgu » 28 May 2019 16:13

i think the point chola is making ...our airborne electronics / radars / software etc which is currently on embraer are v good... ideally we should have had embraer /netra.., but in its absence other options ( of other a/c ) should have been /be explored. Did IAF find itself short of Netra during current standoff ( i dont know) but in case of full blown conflict, it will not suffice, there numbers will matter. i even dont know if a Avro can take the radar/electronics part of netra?

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5037
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karthik S » 28 May 2019 16:43

Karan M wrote:Provided you are willing to bear losses. In air war, not just planes, but pilots. My point is you need some minimum threshold level of capability when going up against opponents. If you buy inferior equipment en masse, and want to drown your opponent in numbers, you should be willing to bear the casualties. Even, the Syrians gave up after a 85:1 (how true that is, is a different story given Israeli propaganda) exchange ratio.


Karan sir, as side point, Soviets did end up winning eastern theater even after losing maximum number of people. German were killing 8 Soviets for each Soviet killing one German. If forever reason one side is willing to take up losses and has overwhelming numbers, it has good chance to win a war. Will cheen enter into that suicide war is another matter. Usually defending countries do, aggressors after big losses cut and run.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3753
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 28 May 2019 16:51

Karan M wrote:You are again missing the point.

The Russian A team was not used at Bekaa valley, no integrated grids of A50s, S300s, Buks, backed up by Su30s, MiG31s and MiG29s for point defence. So making it Russian vs western is flawed...


We have no idea what was or is the Russian A Team. Never saw it operate. Even with the Russians themselves, never mind those using their exports or "monkey" variants.

A few F-16s gave the Pukes bragging rights over a Soviet superpower along the Afghan border. If a paki equivalent had shot down even an Amreeki helo they probably would have lost planes by the scores. Yet the Soviets took little action in the Afghan case. Because the kind of advantage the Amreekis or Amreeki armed Israelis had over Arabs never materialized when the Russians themselves were using their weapons.

There were never any one-sided slaughter involving two non-Western powers. Didn't happen between Iran-Iraq and it didn't happen between Pakiland and India.

The fact we ended up with a MiG-21 on a F-16 shows me the IAF knows that the kind of superiority exhibited by Bekaa Valley cannot happen here and numbers do count. The Israelis or Amreekis never ended up in a situation where they faced a SU-30 in a F-5. The Bekaa Valley/Gulf War kind of dominance is unique and had only been exhibited by the Americans and American-armed Israelis.

But Russian weapons do work. We saw it in Korea and Vietnam. In both cases, it is effective when used in numbers. In Vietnam, the VC never won a single military engagement with the US on the ground never mind the air. But the Vietnamese won the war with Russian weapons because they were willing trade lives to imflict pain in the US. The final score was 2,000,000 Viet dead to 55,000 Americans but they reclaimed their country.

Anyhoo, with force multipliers like AEW, I am of the opinion that the few miles of altitude and the few miles per hour in performance between an Embraer versus an Antonov or Avro will be more than compensated by the persistence of many more systems in the air and around the clock coverage that you simply can't do with three.
Last edited by chola on 28 May 2019 16:57, edited 1 time in total.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11140
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 28 May 2019 16:53

Karthik S wrote:
Karan M wrote:Provided you are willing to bear losses. In air war, not just planes, but pilots. My point is you need some minimum threshold level of capability when going up against opponents. If you buy inferior equipment en masse, and want to drown your opponent in numbers, you should be willing to bear the casualties. Even, the Syrians gave up after a 85:1 (how true that is, is a different story given Israeli propaganda) exchange ratio.


Karan sir, as side point, Soviets did end up winning eastern theater even after losing maximum number of people. German were killing 8 Soviets for each Soviet killing one German. If forever reason one side is willing to take up losses and has overwhelming numbers, it has good chance to win a war. Will cheen enter into that suicide war is another matter. Usually defending countries do, aggressors after big losses cut and run.


That is again propaganda, Red army lost 5.2 million in combat plus 3.5 million POW's mostly deliberately killed by Germans, the Wermacht lost 4 million men on the eastern front plus thier allies Finns , Hungarians , Romanians etc all lost another 800K men on the Eastern front , plus another 2 million German Pow's died after the war. Hardly the 8:1 ration claimed by German propaganda.

Yes Germans managed to get another 20 million Civilians but that cant be counted as victories

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18398
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 May 2019 16:59

Karthik S wrote:
Karan M wrote:Provided you are willing to bear losses. In air war, not just planes, but pilots. My point is you need some minimum threshold level of capability when going up against opponents. If you buy inferior equipment en masse, and want to drown your opponent in numbers, you should be willing to bear the casualties. Even, the Syrians gave up after a 85:1 (how true that is, is a different story given Israeli propaganda) exchange ratio.


Karan sir, as side point, Soviets did end up winning eastern theater even after losing maximum number of people. German were killing 8 Soviets for each Soviet killing one German. If forever reason one side is willing to take up losses and has overwhelming numbers, it has good chance to win a war. Will cheen enter into that suicide war is another matter. Usually defending countries do, aggressors after big losses cut and run.


Again, these are pilots we are talking about. There are no million planes, or two million pilots to staff them.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5037
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karthik S » 28 May 2019 17:05

Karan M wrote:
Karthik S wrote:
Karan sir, as side point, Soviets did end up winning eastern theater even after losing maximum number of people. German were killing 8 Soviets for each Soviet killing one German. If forever reason one side is willing to take up losses and has overwhelming numbers, it has good chance to win a war. Will cheen enter into that suicide war is another matter. Usually defending countries do, aggressors after big losses cut and run.


Again, these are pilots we are talking about. There are no million planes, or two million pilots to staff them.


We are talking ratios not absolute numbers. Point is maintaining high ratio has its advantages.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18398
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 May 2019 17:20

chola wrote:
Karan M wrote:You are again missing the point.

The Russian A team was not used at Bekaa valley, no integrated grids of A50s, S300s, Buks, backed up by Su30s, MiG31s and MiG29s for point defence. So making it Russian vs western is flawed...


We have no idea what was or is the Russian A Team. Never saw it operate. Even with the Russians themselves, never mind those using their exports or "monkey" variants.


We actually do, because the Russians went broke and we got it. The Su30 MKI is pretty much the 90s era Su35 repackaged into the two seat Su30K airframe. It works and is lethal. Parts of that A team are now out for export and the world loves it, and the US still doesnt want it facing their unmatchable kit. Why?! Because it is expensive to counter, and when fielded by a skilled opponent can still deliver a surprise. Look up Balkan air campaign against Serbs. Propaganda apart, a complete eyewash in taking out Serb ground assets. This when Serbs had thoroughly obsolete equipment.

few F-16s gave the Pukes bragging rights over a Soviet superpower along the Afghan border. If a paki equivalent had shot down even an Amreeki helo they probably would have lost planes by the scores. Yet the Soviets took little action in the Afghan case. Because the kind of advantage the Amreekis or Amreeki armed Israelis had over Arabs never materialized when the Russians themselves were using their weapons.


The Russians didn't care enough to go to war with Pakistan over a couple of planes, when they were routinely bombing into pakistan.

Did the US go to war with Russia or China over their support for North Vietnam or North Korea? When they lost planes, pilots to Russian, Chinese troops or assets?


There were never any one-sided slaughter involving two non-Western powers. Didn't happen between Iran-Iraq and it didn't happen between Pakiland and India.

The fact we ended up with a MiG-21 on a F-16 shows me the IAF knows that the kind of superiority exhibited by Bekaa Valley cannot happen here and numbers do count. The Israelis or Amreekis never ended up in a situation where they faced a SU-30 in a F-5. The Bekaa Valley/Gulf War kind of dominance is unique and had only been exhibited by the Americans and American-armed Israelis.


Fact we sent a Bison to face a F16 shows our disastrous procurement mess. We were lucky our pilot had the edge in skill, and we came out the better.

What is this obsession with Americans or Israelis as if they are a master race? Anyone with technology, skills can deliver lopsided results.

This is what the IAF states repeatedly. They dont consider the PAF to be incompetent idiots. And they mention Bekaa valley as an example of technology, not the people involved.

But Russian weapons do work. We saw it in Korea and Vietnam. In both cases, it is effective when used in numbers.


Abhi, fired a single R73E.

In Vietnam, the VC never won a single military engagement with the US on the ground never mind the air.


It would be tough for the VC to win a fight in the air because they didnt have an AF. The north vietnamese who did, sure shot down a bunch of American planes.

Everyone's heard of the great Robin Olds and OP Bolo. How many have heard of this, from Wiki

VPAF flew their interceptors with superb guidance from ground controllers, who positioned the MiGs in perfect ambush battle stations. The MIGs made fast and devastating attacks against US formations from several directions (usually the MiG-17s performed head-on attacks and the MiG-21s attacked from the rear). After shooting down a few American planes and forcing some of the F-105s to drop their bombs prematurely, the MiGs did not wait for retaliation, but disengaged rapidly. This "guerrilla warfare in the air" proved very successful. In December 1966 the MiG-21 pilots of the 921st FR downed 14 F-105s without any losses.[4]



But the Vietnamese won the war with Russian weapons because they were willing trade lives to imflict pain in the US. The final score was 2,000,000 Viet dead to 55,000 Americans but they reclaimed their country.


A lot of mix and match here. The Vietnamese never received Russia's best and brightest kit. They received just enough to bleed the Americans. Doing more would have crossed the line, and the Russians didnt want that. Second, consider the relative cost. Vietnam kicked a superpower out, reunited its country. The casualty figures you mention, inflated or not pale in front of the fact the North Vietnamese ran a successful insurgent campaign in South Vietnam, while North Vietnam only saw the occasional bombing campaign because the Americans couldnt even fight an insurgency let alone invade the North.

Anyhoo, with force multipliers like AEW, I am of the opinion that the few miles of altitude and the few miles per hour in performance between an Embraer versus an Antonov or Avro will be more than compensated by the persistence of many more systems in the air and around the clock coverage that you simply can't do with three.


But, your beliefs are not shared by the IAF who cite the Bekaa valley example repeatedly to explain why they insist for the best kit.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18398
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 May 2019 17:23

Karthik S wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Again, these are pilots we are talking about. There are no million planes, or two million pilots to staff them.


We are talking ratios not absolute numbers. Point is maintaining high ratio has its advantages.


No, we are not. We are talking absolute numbers here. 85 planes lost in the Bekaa valley engagement. 600 odd fighters held by the IAF. Do the math.

What is this flag waving over maintaining high numbers? Do you think it would be cheaper to maintain 1000 MiG21s vs 200 Su30s, and what of the human costs involved when you lose those aircraft AND lose the battle?

It's not WW2 anymore.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18398
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 May 2019 17:33

Since people wont take a hint to understand what IAF believes, and what is driving its procurement strategy but keep yackety yacking:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.tribunei ... 758716/amp

Speaking at a seminar ‘Aerospace Power in the 2040s: Impact of Technology’, he said air power is more sensitive to technology than the other forces.

He cited the Israel-Syria conflict of 1982 referred to as the Bekaa Valley clash saying Israel operating fourth-generation fighter jets had downed Syria’s third-generation planes.
......
Arguing his point, the IAF chief said, “The PAF often says that it had lost fewer planes than the IAF in the 1971 Indo-Pak war. You (Pak) lost half of your country.”

Almost in the same vein, the German Air Force of World War II could not say that it had won the war, he said.

He said technology affected the IAF the most. Purchase of air-borne radars and intelligence gathering platforms would have to be fast-tracked, he said. “In such short skirmishes we cannot bring out numbers to bare (bear), hence the need for more surveillance platforms,” he added.
.....

This is the IAF POV. Us debating about mass human wave tactics is pointless.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3720
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby hnair » 28 May 2019 18:21

Karan M, I think it was the yak-herder who pointed out that since WW2, the planes have evolved from hardy field-maintainable pulleys and cable based control systems to electro-mechanical servos that are controlled by sensitive optic fibers of a highly complex and specialist nature. Not to mention the vast data-rivers that flow between the meager number of crafts, satellites and ground. Which means fewer planes will take more effort to maintain and keep fighting fit. And needs a tremendous number of technicals to keep it combat worthy. But the difference is that a handful of planes can scan vast swathes of area, reach there fast and engage the enemy craft at equally vast distances when compared to a Mauser-cannon or a Browning toting fleet of 1000s.

So WW2 time superiority in numbers or even Afghan war numbers wont matter. A generational shift from world-war era fighting was the First Gulf War. From that point on, electronics, networking and computing is what provides the dominance, not airframes. And higher the airframe number, exponentially greater the manpower needed to make a major percentage of those airframes as combat ready.

We cant roll back this genie and go back to low-tech but in vast numbers, nor the chinese. Chinese can primer up as many airframes as they can, but the fact is they are not divulging how many of them can be kept airworthy. And the other countries that know, are publicly skeptical of the combat ready numbers.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18398
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 28 May 2019 18:41

Yes exactly.

I am afraid luddites don't understand what you are pointing out. They keep saying "if we buy 100 of this simpler plane, it can overwhelm your opponent".

Yes, at what cost?

On day 1, you lose 40 planes.
Day 2, 50.
Do we think there will be a day 3?

The entire game is around reducing attrition/combat sorties. Higher attrition rate = loss of the fight.

The entire technology chain has been advancing ruthlessly. This is the reason LCA at FOC has to have BVR missiles & Su-30 has to get new AAMs merely because in *1* use case, early 2010's era AMRAAMs outranged late 90's era R-77s.

We are constantly running. And so are our opponents.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 300
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby MeshaVishwas » 29 May 2019 11:12

Post Balakot, Indian Air Force zeroes in on key vulnerability-Dinakar Peri

The Netra Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system.

Faces shortage of crucial Airborne Warning & Control System
Drawing lessons from the Balakot air strike, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has identified a shortage of Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft to provide round-the-clock surveillance as a major deficiency, IAF officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The air strike and the aerial engagement that followed in February were discussed in detail at the recent Air Force Commanders’ conference.

Resource optimisation

“The biggest lesson of February 27 was the need to have a core of high-end fighters for short skirmishes,” a senior IAF official said.
:eek:

“If we had the technological advantage, we could have imposed costs on the adversary,” the official asserted, adding, “We need to undertake resource optimisation.”

For that, the IAF is banking on the soon-to-be-inducted Rafale fighters, the tender currently under way for a new fighter aircraft and the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) MK-2 that is being developed, even as upgrades to the existing platforms make up for the shortages in the interim. “We also need to get better propaganda weapons,” the official said, without elaborating.
:?:
Remedial measures

While aircraft induction is a long-term measure, in the short term, the IAF has identified AWACS, Software Defined Radios (SDR) and close-in weapons systems as immediate requirements. The process for their procurement is already in advanced stages.

“We did not feel that we need anything new,” the official said, adding that everything had been thought of. “The process is on, that has to be hastened.”

Advantage Pakistan

Pakistan currently has an advantage as they have more AWACS. “They have seven AWACS and could keep one on our side at all times,” the official said.

In contrast, the IAF operates three Israeli Phalcon AWACS and two indigenous Netra Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). Also, the platforms are not available all the time.

The IAF is now set to take the third Netra system (mounted on Embraer aircraft) from the DRDO, the official said.

Separately, a proposal for two more Phalcon AWACS has been in the works for a long time. It is now “pending final approval of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).”

A deal for SDRs has been signed with Elbit Systems of Israel and the process for close-in weapons is at the technical evaluating stage.

https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/post-balakot-indian-air-force-zeroes-in-on-key-vulnerability/article27280753.ece

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18398
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 29 May 2019 11:19

In short, they are using the Feb27th incident to push the Govermint for everything that was delayed and already on their roadmap. :lol:

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3753
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 29 May 2019 16:15

Karan M wrote:
Arguing his point, the IAF chief said, “The PAF often says that it had lost fewer planes than the IAF in the 1971 Indo-Pak war. You (Pak) lost half of your country.”

Almost in the same vein, the German Air Force of World War II could not say that it had won the war, he said.

He said technology affected the IAF the most. Purchase of air-borne radars and intelligence gathering platforms would have to be fast-tracked, he said. “In such short skirmishes we cannot bring out numbers to bare (bear), hence the need for more surveillance platforms,” he added.


But Saar! This proves my point more than yours!

Pakis lost the war though we lost more planes.

The IAF says we lack surveillance platforms. Three Netras is not enough.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3753
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 29 May 2019 16:21

MeshaVishwas wrote:Post Balakot, Indian Air Force zeroes in on key vulnerability-Dinakar Peri

The Netra Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system.

Faces shortage of crucial Airborne Warning & Control System



Three Netras on some imported Embraers is not simply enough. We need a domestic platform for our electronics gear and not just for AEW but SIGINT, ASW, MPA, propaganda work, etc. too.

Depending on imported gear for numbers is hopeless, IMO.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18398
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 29 May 2019 17:55

chola wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Arguing his point, the IAF chief said, “The PAF often says that it had lost fewer planes than the IAF in the 1971 Indo-Pak war. You (Pak) lost half of your country.”

Almost in the same vein, the German Air Force of World War II could not say that it had won the war, he said.

He said technology affected the IAF the most. Purchase of air-borne radars and intelligence gathering platforms would have to be fast-tracked, he said. “In such short skirmishes we cannot bring out numbers to bare (bear), hence the need for more surveillance platforms,” he added.


But Saar! This proves my point more than yours!

Pakis lost the war though we lost more planes.

The IAF says we lack surveillance platforms. Three Netras is not enough.



The loss of more IAF planes was not due to Pak tech superiority - it was because we flew more A2G missions.

In the German case, their technological superiority was not overwhelming and due to Hitler's meddling, often arrived too late (Me.262 was sought to be made into a bomber for instance). In many cases, the allies had the edge - bombing sights, radar etc.

They aren't ordering more Netra's beyond the first 3. They have 2 more Phalcons on order (5 total), and will then wait for the AWACS India project.

We can crib all we want, but they have made up their mind.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18398
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 29 May 2019 17:56

chola wrote:
MeshaVishwas wrote:Post Balakot, Indian Air Force zeroes in on key vulnerability-Dinakar Peri




Three Netras on some imported Embraers is not simply enough. We need a domestic platform for our electronics gear and not just for AEW but SIGINT, ASW, MPA, propaganda work, etc. too.

Depending on imported gear for numbers is hopeless, IMO.


The C-295 will be supposedly used to hoist around an X-Band AESA for the IN/CG requirement of a surveillance platform.

At least we get an airborne X-Band radar into play (back up to Uttam) and more X-band TRM modules in production.

Image

Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupamd, Kakarat, Kersi and 28 guests