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.
Post Reply
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10033
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Mort Walker »

The time from RFP to RFQ may take years.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

SBajwa wrote:Question for experts

Will the Airbus 319 or 320 modified to have air to air fueling? (It exists in current Netra)

Since Airbus has much bigger range does it needs Air refueling?

They can modify it for AAR but that will be added cost. I assume if they add that modification than these will be equipped with a probe but that may not have a great ROI on a A320 given offload rates etc.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by kit »

basant wrote:So, given the additional drag thanks to the radar mods, it would be better to use A319. Or perhaps the additional room of A321s can be used for higher fuel and hence more range. Hmm...
The 321 is 146 feet long compared to the 319s 111 feet and twice the cargo space. the 321 can carry the longer ( and better?) balance beam radar config with more power and radiating elements., esp with GaN transistors. ( In contrast the 330 is 193 feet long and more than twice the MTOW of the 321) , the b-b config if it goes up on 321 would likely to be the largest in its category and the chapati config on a 330 would be similarly one of the biggest radars deployed
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18259
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 64290?s=20 ---> The six Air India A319 based Netra Mk-II AEW&C aircraft have also been cleared by the Cabinet Committee on Security. The 6 aircraft to be built by DRDO will further improve IAF's surveillance capabilities along the LAC and LoC.

Image
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by KSingh »

ManuJ wrote:Please read the news article in the original link.
The DRDO will now issue RFP seeking bids for modification for the six passenger aircraft. Since Airbus is the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), the firm is the frontrunner to bag the contract.
Ah I’m with you now.

Sadly seems like this project is still 3-4 years from a contract signature which means deliveries are not happening until late in the 2020s so the A330 AWACS(I) deliveries may not be until the 2040s

Really quite a depressing thought, the tech is there but these babus are truly sabotaging such efforts. Already IAF is short of AWACS/AEW&C as compared just to the PAF forget about PLAAF.

The more thing change, the more they stay the same. Next IAF will be asking to lease a AWACS...
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2911
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 64290?s=20 ---> The six Air India A319 based Netra Mk-II AEW&C aircraft have also been cleared by the Cabinet Committee on Security. The 6 aircraft to be built by DRDO will further improve IAF's surveillance capabilities along the LAC and LoC.

Image

That looks awesome. Multiple use cases both air and ground!
basant
BRFite
Posts: 894
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by basant »

Is the radar same size that of Netra's?
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

Do the pictures fly? They could have had 3 additional 145 based Netras.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18259
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

I just could not resist :lol:

Image
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2911
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

They could have had so many things Vivek! You don't have enough fingers and toes to count them all! :)
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by KSingh »

Vivek K wrote:Do the pictures fly? They could have had 3 additional 145 based Netras.
Yeah well just like with SO many defence deals in UPA era they couldn’t keep their greed from it so Embraer we’re blacklisted which effectively killed the NETRA (MK.1) at birth


Same reason Scorpenes to this day don’t have HWTs and why PM/NCA fly around in unsafe unprotected MI-17s whilst their state of the art replacements ( AW-101) sit and rot at Palam airbase
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10033
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Mort Walker »

basant wrote:Is the radar same size that of Netra's?
The NETRA EJ-145 AEW&C is based on the AAAU radar panel and the A319 is the AAAU MK-II which is different AESA panel. It is based on Gallium-Nitride (GaN) TR elements. More than likely it will also have significantly improved signal processing capability in its receiver. For that reason alone, it is best to move forward on the AAAU MK-II on the A319 at the earliest.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 894
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by basant »

That is nice. What I was wondering was if the sizes, not the internals and capabilities, are same. From the above picture it appeared to be smaller. Of course it is a given that with more power the range would improve.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10033
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Mort Walker »

basant wrote:That is nice. What I was wondering was if the sizes, not the internals and capabilities, are same. From the above picture it appeared to be smaller. Of course it is a given that with more power the range would improve.
Pictures can only tell part of the story. If you've developed a new TR panel, receiver, and signal processing capability, then you want to maximize it for significantly better probability of detection. A good analogy would be having a larger telescope vs. having more binoculars.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

Pratyush wrote:Air India should be having about 15 a 320 from the original Indian airlines connect from the late 80s.
There is the added complication of the intended sale of AI. How many of the A319's which the DRDO needs have been included in the list of assets to be sold? Remember there are two separate government ministeries involved here. I would be shocked if they have been working in conjunction and these issues already sorted out.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10033
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Mort Walker »

nachiket wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Air India should be having about 15 a 320 from the original Indian airlines connect from the late 80s.
There is the added complication of the intended sale of AI. How many of the A319's which the DRDO needs have been included in the list of assets to be sold? Remember there are two separate government ministeries involved here. I would be shocked if they have been working in conjunction and these issues already sorted out.
I don't think anyone is that incompetent. DRDO knows how many airframes they need if they are going to be contracted for retrofit. The big stumbling block is how soon is the RFQ going to go out and contract awarded. It may be better to justify a sole source contract to Airbus and get all the competitive bidding stuff out of the way.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

Mort Walker wrote: I don't think anyone is that incompetent. DRDO knows how many airframes they need if they are going to be contracted for retrofit. The big stumbling block is how soon is the RFQ going to go out and contract awarded. It may be better to justify a sole source contract to Airbus and get all the competitive bidding stuff out of the way.
Sirjee this is the government and bureaucracy we are talking about. The DRDO chief can't just call up the Minister of Civil Aviation and tell him to leave out X number of airframes from the AI sale. There would be a huge number of officials involved from IAF, DRDO and MoD and lots of complex processes to go through to determine how many airframes the IAF needs, how many they will be allowed to procure at one time based on financial restrictions, whether DRDO needs one or more for their own testing, figuring out all the formalities and filing all paperwork in triplicate before this request even reaches the Civil Aviation ministry who till then will have no idea any such thing is being talked about. By this time the AI sale details may already be finalized and any changes might be difficult if not impossible and involve the potential buyers as well. Plus MCA officials must be under stress to complete AI sale process quickly since it has already been delayed and this is the govt.'s last shot. Too many places where things can go wrong.
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 879
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Haridas »

nachiket wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Air India should be having about 15 a 320 from the original Indian airlines connect from the late 80s.
There is the added complication of the intended sale of AI. How many of the A319's which the DRDO needs have been included in the list of assets to be sold? Remember there are two separate government ministeries involved here. I would be shocked if they have been working in conjunction and these issues already sorted out.
AI sale will certainly be a fire sale at dime for a dollar valuation. IOW a globally priced 5 yrs old A320 will be sold at 80% discount to AI buyer.

Non issue. A320neo is the golden standard for commercial aviation. The older A320 4.9 yr old frames of AI can be cherry picked for defense use.

Currently 6 for IAF and 1 for DRDO.

IMHO
3 more be allocated for Navy version for surveillance .
One more to GTRE for engine testing.
3 older A320 (at 30% residual life) be used for space for fleet longitivity
sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by sankum »

Image

Image

Images posted by Indranil in his twitter thread. According to him front facing aesa radar moved from nose to top front larger dome for tracking air to air threat.

My guess is that it should be rotating to give 360 degree coverage for fighter size target upto 300 km. Sufficient space is there in radome or minimum can be slewed back and front to give back coverage also instead of rotating to duplicate the main antenna function.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Cain Marko »

^ wow. What will they use the nose space for I wonder?
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

messing with the nose per Indranil may compromise structural integrity
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by arvin »

^^^Interesting. With this arrangement both the radars will have significant overlap areas.
So the nose will remain as it is with only the glidescope and localiser.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

Profile of Netra dictates that it sides will be against the enemy (i.e. it will fly in 8 pattern). The front radar will only come into play while ingressing to the target area or for a short while when turning around. If you see, the top, forward looking radar will be limited to look up (cannot do look down as aircraft body will obstruct). In effect Netra covers 270 + 45 degrees. It cannot look back. So when it is leaving a conflict area and another netra is not there to cover it, it cannot perform any surveillance. It could be bad, if it decides to leave because enemy planes are chasing it, it will run blind then. But that happening is a very remote possibility. It will be at least 100-200 Km within Indian airspace with escorts.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2911
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Cybaru »

I don't think the front top radar will be 360 degree one. Maybe 10-15 degrees on both sides to cover any gaps in front if at all. This will also allow a bigger set vs making one that is 360 degree in rotation. If they wanted to add so much complexity they would have gone with chapati rather than beam + 360 rotator.

10-15 degree on both sides makes things simpler, less interference and easier to maintain if rotator breaks. Given its ASEA radar, it might just be static.

It will always fly in Indian airspace for majority of its life. 300 degree coverage is plenty!
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18259
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/IAFSu30mki/status/8 ... 25060?s=20 ---> Active Antenna Array Unit of DRDO Netra AEWCS,160 TRM modules, IFF, ECSM, Q-band SATCOM link, C-band LoS, 240 degree coverage, MAW, RWR, SPS.

Image
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by k prasad »

Cybaru wrote:I don't think the front top radar will be 360 degree one. Maybe 10-15 degrees on both sides to cover any gaps in front if at all. This will also allow a bigger set vs making one that is 360 degree in rotation. If they wanted to add so much complexity they would have gone with chapati rather than beam + 360 rotator.

10-15 degree on both sides makes things simpler, less interference and easier to maintain if rotator breaks. Given its ASEA radar, it might just be static.

It will always fly in Indian airspace for majority of its life. 300 degree coverage is plenty!
The real question, as you hinted, Cybaruji, is what's the optimal coverage solution given the operational needs that will be faced by Netra. Beamforming typically allows +/-60 degrees so we can easily get to 240 degrees coverage with two parallel arrays, a little bit more with losses and resolution drop / ambiguities.

But if the aircraft is operating inland, either on the western border (Guj to J&K), or the northern border (HP to WB), we're looking at long straight paths parallel to the border with 180 deg turns, so the sectors of interest are largely covered. In fact, arguably, only one side-facing aperture would be required at a given time.

In contrast, whilst helpful, 360 coverage is important in specific operational situations. For example, in the Ladakh or NE areas where on-station time is spent in maneuvering-restrictive airspace with multiple threat axes, or in surveillance over open oceans (IOR, Andaman Sea, South China Sea, etc). Air Forces that opt for 360 coverage solutions typically operate in such environments (Australia, Russia, SoKo, Turkey, and yes, India) or in global deployments (US, UK, France, NATO).

We have space for both options, but more importantly, given the large area of ops, we need a LOT of them, which can operate for low(er) cost. Netra mk1 fits this requirement well. Creating a 360 degree surveillnce AWACS requires a larger aircraft, higher costs (both Capex & operational), significant aerodynamic penalty, and maintenance requirements due to the same. A system with lower maintenance footprint with some performance tradeoffs can be advantageous overall, especially when working with overlapping sensors.

If we can get atleast 10-15 more AWACS, we can do with 6-10 of them being full-360 coverage and the rest being low-cost limited angle surveillance capable. A fleet of 20 AWACS will be pretty damn good, assuming a 60% service rate, we'll have 12 available at any given time. We are at 5 (3 phalcon + 2 Netra) available now, and 8 planned (2 phalcons on order + 6 Netra-360), so we're on our way there.

The beam raster for the wedgetail is quite interesting btw. Note the wider beams in the frontal and aft sectors due to smaller array sizes and at the edges of the port and starboard sectors (Source):

Image
pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by pushkar.bhat »

Just saw a interesting video which indicated that the US Air Force Combat Command may replace the A-3 Sentry (AKA CHAPATI Carrier) with the A-7 WedgeTail. Seems that the scientists know that the CHAPPATI may not be delivering any substantial benefits over the KITKAT.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

pushkar.bhat wrote: Seems that the scientists know that the CHAPPATI may not be delivering any substantial benefits over the KITKAT.
That is an absurd conclusion to draw. The rotadome, or a fixed circular array has many benefits and several negatives as well depending on the application. The disadvantages are around size, weight and impact on platform performance. It forces you to go to a larger widebody platform. If that is not an issue (for example you are working on a 330/767/777 platforms) then it is the simplest and highly effective configuration to integrate. The Tophat array configuration was selected for this project because it was aerodynamically the most efficient (for a given performance) and yet still offered 360 degree coverage which was not negotiable since airborne MTI capability plays a crucial role in homeland defense of the US against cruise missile strikes for which maintaining constant track custody is paramount (and because ground based radars offer a suboptimal way of dealing with low flying cruise missiles in their "cruise phase" of flight. A rotadome would have adversely impacted radar size and aircraft endurance, while a balance beam would not have met coverage needs. This end firing tophat allows the E-7 to get the desired performance, and required time on station despite utilizing the 737 as the host platform. They had to invent this configuration as no one had such an array before Northrop developed the MESA on the Australian wedgetail (the radar configuration was initially funded by the US Air Force before it became a company project for Australia).
pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by pushkar.bhat »

@Brar_w any aircraft design is a compromise. While a Top-hat has its inherent benefits it also imposes penalties. What I meant was that if the Top-hat design does not deliver benefits outweighing the costs then we may see many more nations follow suite with a similar design. I fundamentally don't disagree with the points you made. However, as a designer operator if a wedge tail/ balanced beam design can deliver a platform that is cheaper to acquire and maintain then I will prefer that over the Top-hat despite the designs benefits it delivers.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

pushkar.bhat wrote:@Brar_w any aircraft design is a compromise.
This is a very generalized thing to say. Get into specifics if you have any specific points. Take the constraints on the designers, notably wanting to design a long range AMTI sensor with 360 degrees coverage that would fit on a 737 platform yet could still compete with larger offerings in terms of performance and platform endurance. Then work to a solution. Within those parameters the top hat array is pretty much the best they could have developed. At the time the radar and platform were being developed the next comparable competitive system as a widebody with a huge circular array (Falcon with an airbus widebody) that wasn't scalable down to business jet or even NB levels. It was a hard journey given no one had previously pursued this array design and they avoided the simple approach of using a smaller rotadome (like the E-2) or a balance beam design would not meet coverage requirements.
pushkar.bhat wrote:However, as a designer operator if a wedge tail/ balanced beam design can deliver a platform that is cheaper to acquire and maintain then I will prefer that over the Top-hat despite the designs benefits it delivers.
The end firing top hat array design and a balance beam array are two different designs not the same. The former is integrated into the airframe and incorporates three arrays while a balance beam is mounted on top of the airframe and includes two side facing arrays.

So yes, in this case the top hat configuration was the clear best choice because of the benefits it offered. However, if they were starting from scratch and designing with a 767 or a 777 in mind, then they would not have bothered with inventing a completely new, untried and high risk array design but rather stuck with what they knew best which was a rotadome but in an ESA sense with 3 or four panels. The platform choice, radar performance, and endurance needs forced them to take a clean sheet approach as opposed to re-purposing more mature array designs. The downside was risk, cost, technical complexity and the delays in missed milestones that it took to get the radar to perform to spec as that required 3-4 years of additional work.

So it is a mistake to generalize and say that one solution is better than another. The rotoadome is an incredibly useful way of mounting a single large rotating array, or multiple smaller fixed ESAs. But that occurs at the expense of drag, weight, power, and cooling margins. A balance beam is the simplest way develop an AEW sensor and is one of the cheapest because of needing fewer arrays and can be repurposed and scaled the easiest. Yet it suffers from a lack of 360 degree coverage. You chose an option that works best and if neither work for your need you either re-evaluate your requirements, or go out and invent something new that hasn't been tried in the past.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18259
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Which aircraft is shown below?

https://twitter.com/Varun55484761/statu ... 48737?s=20 ---> DRDO's ISTAR. Will provide near real time surveillance & targeting data. It will simultaneously connect with the airborne network, ground-based network and the command & control network. It will have AESA SAR, ELINT, COMINT, EO IR, Self Protection Suite, Beyond Line of Sight and U/VHF links.

Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18259
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Thanks Brar. Greatly appreciated.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18259
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/alpha_defense/statu ... 14177?s=20 ---> CABS to start the flying training on A-319 aircraft. The flying training on Airbus A319 aircraft will involve training of CABS / IAF nominated three (03) no. of pilots and five (05) no. of engineers / officers who are engaged in the flight operation activities.

https://twitter.com/alpha_defense/statu ... 94881?s=20 ---> The training shall include the following modules;

A. Ground Class of 03 Weeks for 02 batches (for a total of 08 officials including 03 IAF pilots, 02 IAF engineers and 03 DRDO officers).

B. Emergency Evacuation Drill for 01 Day (for 08 officials including 03 IAF pilots, 02 IAF engineers and 03 DRDO officers).

C. Full Flight Simulator Training (with instructor) of 44 Hours with briefing and De-briefing of each session (for 03 pilots).

D. Flying Training on A319 aircraft comprising of 06 Takeoffs and Landings (for 03 Pilots).
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18259
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... ndHEQ8SfZA ---> DRDO's 360 degree AWACS dome structure, manufactured by Coimbatore based Lakshmi Machine Works (LMW).

Image
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10033
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Mort Walker »

The sub picture helps, but are there any dimensions? Roughly guessing, each panel looks slightly smaller than 2m height and 6m width. They may be able to pull 50 dB gain from each panel at C band, which would be amazing as it is a multiplication factor 100,000.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7807
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Anujan »

Wow! This is a nice lesson on building up industrial and manufacturing capacity.

For those who do not know, LMW makes a major chunk of the textile machinery in India........and Pakistan (I kid you not, the vaunted textile Industry of Pakistan imports Indian textile machinery through dubai look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nSPedX4sUo )

Good to see them use their know-how for defense production.

https://www.lmwatc.com/

They seemed to be making ~36 crore revenue a year now from defense manufacture. Just 1% of their total business but a good start.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

Very few businesses can survive 100% on Defense, not Boeing or many other companies . Civilian capability is linked to defense capability.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

It depends on the business model, the country you are in (and do business in) and the competitive landscape. Here in the US, both Lockheed and Northrop are pretty much (say for the very small % of Sikorsky commercial) pure play defense/security/government-business firms and do (and are doing) very well.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10033
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Post by Mort Walker »

^^^Thats correct. Even companies like Boeing are segregated between defense and civilian divisions, with completely separate business units, due to security concerns, laws, regulations such as ITAR certification.

Civilian capability comes out of military capability.
Post Reply