Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 10039
- Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
- Location: The rings around Uranus.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
People keep forgetting that the IAF operates three full blown AWACS with the IAI EL/W-2090 on the IL-76. More than likely 2 more will come in the next 3 years.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
https://m.timesofindia.com/india/mod-ap ... 781335.cms
News reports saying Rs 10990Cr Awacs project with 360° coverage. It should be either chapati or larger Netra radar with tophat for 360° coverage.
News reports saying Rs 10990Cr Awacs project with 360° coverage. It should be either chapati or larger Netra radar with tophat for 360° coverage.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
People, it is not going to be A320. There are 4 of them with AI.
It is either A319, in that case it will be kitkat on the top. It is very small. We have 20 of them.
or
A321, which is almost as big as E3(707)/767, both of which have chapati on their head. We have 19 of them.
I do feel, there will no A330, if DRDO creates a 360 degree AWACS with A321.
It is either A319, in that case it will be kitkat on the top. It is very small. We have 20 of them.
or
A321, which is almost as big as E3(707)/767, both of which have chapati on their head. We have 19 of them.
I do feel, there will no A330, if DRDO creates a 360 degree AWACS with A321.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
What do you think explains the difference in the MTOW b/w these two platforms?nam wrote: A321, which is almost as big as E3(707)/767, both of which have chapati on their head. We have 19 of them.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
^^^
Narrow-body vs wide-body comparison? A330 would be suitable for such purposes.
Narrow-body vs wide-body comparison? A330 would be suitable for such purposes.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Just for reference sake
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 10039
- Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
- Location: The rings around Uranus.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
^^^Where is the Boeing 787?
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
If recall correctly, 787 is similar in size as 777 but is designed for short-haul. 777 is mainly for long-haul. BTW, they all have variants. So, it is hard to generalize.Mort Walker wrote:^^^Where is the Boeing 787?
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
MTOW is ofcourse not the same. I am pointing towards the space available on the fuselage to mountain a radome. C295 seem to have succeeded, so A321 is fairly doable.brar_w wrote: What do you think explains the difference in the MTOW b/w these two platforms?
Granted, it will not be capable as the one you can get on A330, but there will be a 360 degree solution. Much better than ERJ145, but less than A330.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
This assumes that space is/was the only limiting point. It may or may not be the case. After all you have rotary arrays even on the E-2 so technically there is nothing stopping one from adopting that configuration on the A-320. But of course the diameter, size and number of arrays and all the mission system would have to adapt to the platform with both weight, space and power in mind and other aircraft performance like range, and endurance. It’s just not as straightforward as comparing the width and length.nam wrote:MTOW is ofcourse not the same. I am pointing towards the space available on the fuselage to mountain a radome. C295 seem to have succeeded, so A321 is fairly doable.brar_w wrote: What do you think explains the difference in the MTOW b/w these two platforms?
Granted, it will not be capable as the one you can get on A330, but there will be a 360 degree solution. Much better than ERJ145, but less than A330.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Guys, what is this hand wringing about the size of the Chapati.
Ok it will not be as large as one that was planned for 330. But as long as it is comparable with the one on the E2 Hawkeye in size. It ought to be good enough.
So take it easy and pray to the god's that this gets delivered on time and on budget.
Once that is done. We can start whining about the numbers of orders placed and that we need more.
Ok it will not be as large as one that was planned for 330. But as long as it is comparable with the one on the E2 Hawkeye in size. It ought to be good enough.
So take it easy and pray to the god's that this gets delivered on time and on budget.
Once that is done. We can start whining about the numbers of orders placed and that we need more.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
If DAC has cleared that means DRDO- IAF has worked on this for years, they would done the requirement, A-321 is far better than a Saab 2000 or EMB 145.
The question is
1) When will the contract get signed
2) how long will it take Airbus to modify the Aircraft and return it to India
3) how DRDO will take to fit equipment and software
4) how long will the IAF take to induct it.
The question is
1) When will the contract get signed
2) how long will it take Airbus to modify the Aircraft and return it to India
3) how DRDO will take to fit equipment and software
4) how long will the IAF take to induct it.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Quite right the biggie A330 AWACS would have commonalities with its smaller sibling . I don't think DRDO/IAF is abandoning this massive project that once completed would the phalcon replacement and field even better capability and likely introduce certain new indigenous equipment as well.Aditya_V wrote:If DAC has cleared that means DRDO- IAF has worked on this for years, they would done the requirement, A-321 is far better than a Saab 2000 or EMB 145.
The question is
1) When will the contract get signed
2) how long will it take Airbus to modify the Aircraft and return it to India
3) how DRDO will take to fit equipment and software
4) how long will the IAF take to induct it.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
E 2 Hawkeye has a 7.3 m dia Radome. Airbus 321 should have a larger dia Radome.
Last edited by sankum on 20 Dec 2020 02:30, edited 2 times in total.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 10039
- Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
- Location: The rings around Uranus.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
The reason is effective antenna aperture area. You've reduced the number of T/R elements by squared because of width x height. The airframe is very important aside from weight and endurance issues.Pratyush wrote:Guys, what is this hand wringing about the size of the Chapati.
Ok it will not be as large as one that was planned for 330. But as long as it is comparable with the one on the E2 Hawkeye in size. It ought to be good enough.
So take it easy and pray to the god's that this gets delivered on time and on budget.
Once that is done. We can start whining about the numbers of orders placed and that we need more.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 10039
- Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
- Location: The rings around Uranus.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
The 787 is a long haul aircraft.Uttam wrote:If recall correctly, 787 is similar in size as 777 but is designed for short-haul. 777 is mainly for long-haul. BTW, they all have variants. So, it is hard to generalize.Mort Walker wrote:^^^Where is the Boeing 787?
The most common variant of the 777 is the 777-300. The most common variant of the 787 is the 787-9.
Code: Select all
Specifications 777-300 787-9
Length 242 ft 4 in (73.86 m) 206 ft 1 in (62.81 m)
Width 19 ft 3 in (5.86 m) 18 ft 11 in (5.77 m)
Height 60 ft 20 in (18.5 m) 55 ft 10 in (17.02 m)
Seats 368-396 290-406
Cruise Speed Mach 0.84 (482 kn; 892 km/h) Mach 0.85 (488 kn; 903 km/h)
Range 6,030 nmi (6,939 mi, 11,165 km) 7,635 nmi (8,786 mi, 14,140 km)
MTOW 775,000 lb / 351,533 kg 560,000 lb / 254,011 kg
Takeoff 10,000 ft (3,050 m) 9,300 ft (2,800 m)
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
C295 AEW has 6m dia rotodome.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
This thread has lost touch with reality - all the intellectual masturbation here should be clubbed with the MMRCA threads. Order 6 Netras - flog them for a decade by which time the next gen in the form of Indian AWACs will be ready. Or keep up with the IM!
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 10039
- Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
- Location: The rings around Uranus.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
How so? The existing NETRA design requires acquisition of ERJ-145.Vivek K wrote:This thread has lost touch with reality - all the intellectual masturbation here should be clubbed with the MMRCA threads. Order 6 Netras - flog them for a decade by which time the next gen in the form of Indian AWACs will be ready. Or keep up with the IM!
Some $1.4 billion has been approved by the MoD. It now awaits approval of the CCS. The aircraft are coming from AI fleet. The CABS has come far enough along for a significantly improved airborne surveillance platform beyond the NETRA design which is now nearly 10 years old. It would have been better for a larger airframe, but since the airplanes are already with another GoI entity, the project will move along relatively fast. I think this is a good development and indication of compromise.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Disagree - every DRDO project is famously late. ERJs can be had by de-blacklisting. And you cannot just erect mods to aircraft without analysis and flying verification. It will be 10 years and if they're very successful - 7 years before the 1st aircraft shows up. So for that period - next 7 years, IAF will be behind even the PAF in terms of this capability.
That is why this is great Intellectual Masturbation. The Netras can be prepared quickly. Everything else will have a long lead time. Now with your threat scenario becoming worse, doing nothing or hoping for early delivery is quite imprudent especially when there is a long track record of delays. But hey - IAF gets what IAF wants. And if they want to fall further behind, who am i to stop them!
That is why this is great Intellectual Masturbation. The Netras can be prepared quickly. Everything else will have a long lead time. Now with your threat scenario becoming worse, doing nothing or hoping for early delivery is quite imprudent especially when there is a long track record of delays. But hey - IAF gets what IAF wants. And if they want to fall further behind, who am i to stop them!
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 10039
- Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
- Location: The rings around Uranus.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
I disagree. This is not like the analogy of the LCA Tejas to the Rafale or Arjun MBT to the T-90.
The airframe aerodynamic analysis, weights & balance, and airframe modification are to be done by Airbus. The radar, communications, and ESM-EW are to be done by 5 different labs within DRDO. With the Centre for Airborne Systems (CABS) responsible for integration. Not just the IAF, but the entire Indian military establishment has had over 10 years of airborne surveillance system experience. We now have an indigenous system which has been thought out, given the current threat from the PLAAF, PLAN and PLA, a more comprehensive airborne surveillance system is needed. It will most likely be done very well because there are NO foreign alternatives which have the capability. Unlike any other weapon system be it small arms to ships, submarines, tanks, helicopters and fixed wing aircraft - there are no foreign agents trying to sell the IAF complete systems for an AEW system. All other foreign systems are inferior to the EL/W-2090 which the IAF and DRDO labs have done much integration on.
The EL/W-2090 was most likely used, along with a single NETRA, in Feb. 2019. There are three EL/W-2090 and three NETRA. At least one if not two EL/W-2090 are coming in the next 4-5 years. The current NETRA platform on the ERJ-145 is insufficient. The concentration must be on a full blown AWACS, or as close to it, which is what is coming with the A319/320/321.
The PAF SAAB Erieye variants have very serious limitations to them, but that's all which is available to them until the US gifts them airborne surveillance systems in the next few years.
The airframe aerodynamic analysis, weights & balance, and airframe modification are to be done by Airbus. The radar, communications, and ESM-EW are to be done by 5 different labs within DRDO. With the Centre for Airborne Systems (CABS) responsible for integration. Not just the IAF, but the entire Indian military establishment has had over 10 years of airborne surveillance system experience. We now have an indigenous system which has been thought out, given the current threat from the PLAAF, PLAN and PLA, a more comprehensive airborne surveillance system is needed. It will most likely be done very well because there are NO foreign alternatives which have the capability. Unlike any other weapon system be it small arms to ships, submarines, tanks, helicopters and fixed wing aircraft - there are no foreign agents trying to sell the IAF complete systems for an AEW system. All other foreign systems are inferior to the EL/W-2090 which the IAF and DRDO labs have done much integration on.
The EL/W-2090 was most likely used, along with a single NETRA, in Feb. 2019. There are three EL/W-2090 and three NETRA. At least one if not two EL/W-2090 are coming in the next 4-5 years. The current NETRA platform on the ERJ-145 is insufficient. The concentration must be on a full blown AWACS, or as close to it, which is what is coming with the A319/320/321.
The PAF SAAB Erieye variants have very serious limitations to them, but that's all which is available to them until the US gifts them airborne surveillance systems in the next few years.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Actually it is and it borders on the criminal.Mort Walker wrote:I disagree. This is not like the analogy of the LCA Tejas to the Rafale or Arjun MBT to the T-90.
Yes the IAF has IL-76 mounted AWACs that we feel are superior to the SAAB systems (10 nos) that PAF has plus the approx 30 that PLAAF has of various capabilities. And the PLAAF continues to manufacture additional numbers.
Sounds easier in theory than in practice. Even the DRDO estimates 4-7 years for these to give results. What is your estimate for the first one to enter service?The airframe aerodynamic analysis, weights & balance, and airframe modification are to be done by Airbus. The radar, communications, and ESM-EW are to be done by 5 different labs within DRDO. With the Centre for Airborne Systems (CABS) responsible for integration.
I think if you put a timeline to the first of these appearing on the scene, you may be able to see the point. I wouldn't take one engagement (where PAF's lowly Erieyes had better time on station than the Netras but the Netras emerged better), as the precursor for an all out theater management in war time.Not just the IAF, but the entire Indian military establishment has had over 10 years of airborne surveillance system experience. We now have an indigenous system which has been thought out, given the current threat from the PLAAF, PLAN and PLA, a....All other foreign systems are inferior to the EL/W-2090 which the IAF and DRDO labs have done much integration on.
The EL/W-2090 was most likely used, along with a single NETRA, in Feb. 2019. There are three EL/W-2090 and three NETRA. At least one if not two EL/W-2090 are coming in the next 4-5 years. The current NETRA platform on the ERJ-145 is insufficient. The concentration must be on a full blown AWACS, or as close to it, which is what is coming with the A319/320/321.
So have you factored in uptimes of IL-76s and ERJs and border lengths and number of aircraft to track - attacking and defending? If the current 2 Netras (+1 with DRDO) and 3 Phalcons (plus 2 on order) have 60-70% uptime - how many are available?
This is what Indians have harped on forever - the Chinese produce crappy aircraft, and so on - and they used their poor quality products to build a productive Industry that is capable of supporting their vision. All the while IAF kept losing Migs without the ability to add to its fleet, did not support the LCA and is now lusting for the gold plated Rafales. Taking every existing project as a technology demonstrator and then looking to produce the next generation that may be better is where we remain - for Arjun, LCA and Netra. So tell me the difference again?The PAF SAAB Erieye variants have very serious limitations to them, but that's all which is available to them until the US gifts them airborne surveillance systems in the next few years.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
The two A330 Awacs proposal was $700 m i.e, $350m / unit while present 6 A320 aew proposal is for $1.5b i.e, $250m/ unit.
It is highly unlikely that two additional IL 76 AWACS will be brought for $1.5b.
IAF has projected requirement of 5 additional Netras which can be bought for $600m @$120m/unit as stop gap until DRDO 6 A320 Aew &c arrives.
It is highly unlikely that two additional IL 76 AWACS will be brought for $1.5b.
IAF has projected requirement of 5 additional Netras which can be bought for $600m @$120m/unit as stop gap until DRDO 6 A320 Aew &c arrives.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
@Vivek ji, I think everyone agrees that we should have had more than two Netras but politically that's a dead end with Embraer blacklisted.
So that agreed upon, the chapati project is not a brand new one that suddenly sprung up to replace Netra after the Embraer fiasco. If the A321 is 360 then it has to be based on the system worked on for the A330. DRDO had not worked on a Wedgetail solution.
So if it is the chapati then the lineage goes back further than the A330. It began with the Avro project. I believe it is good sign because whether it is the balance beam from Netra or the chapati from the A330 discourse, we have a way forward now with 6 more. Before we were stuck at two with the impasse which though frustrating is still reality.
So that agreed upon, the chapati project is not a brand new one that suddenly sprung up to replace Netra after the Embraer fiasco. If the A321 is 360 then it has to be based on the system worked on for the A330. DRDO had not worked on a Wedgetail solution.
So if it is the chapati then the lineage goes back further than the A330. It began with the Avro project. I believe it is good sign because whether it is the balance beam from Netra or the chapati from the A330 discourse, we have a way forward now with 6 more. Before we were stuck at two with the impasse which though frustrating is still reality.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 10039
- Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
- Location: The rings around Uranus.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
The use of the word 'chapati' is demeaning to what the radome contains which are the actual T/R elements of an AESA radar. A lot of work goes into making a radome, integrating it electronically and is a critical technology.
https://www.iai.co.il/drupal/sites/defa ... ochure.pdf
It is the IAI EL/W-2090 which the IAF chose the IL-76 platform. In 2003, the decision was taken to use IL-76 airframe as it was sanction proof. The work into IL-76 integration has been done and is too expensive and time consuming to put this radar system on another aircraft. This isn't a matter of feelings but actual radar performance. This is one instance where numbers won't make a lick of difference because these are NOT combat aircraft, they are surveillance aircraft. Don't forget the Indian military establishment operates the not just the NETRA and IAI EL/W-2090. It also has experience with the P-8I and now the MQ-9.Yes the IAF has IL-76 mounted AWACs that we feel are superior to the SAAB systems (10 nos) that PAF has plus the approx 30 that PLAAF has of various capabilities. And the PLAAF continues to manufacture additional numbers.
https://www.iai.co.il/drupal/sites/defa ... ochure.pdf
The NETRA wasn't the only airborne surveillance platform which was involved in battle management. There was at least one EL/W-2090 system operating which we know little about in Feb. 2019. In all likelihood, the NETRA was probably data linked to the EL/W-2090 which has more sensitive multi-band radar capability and advanced sat-com links.I think if you put a timeline to the first of these appearing on the scene, you may be able to see the point. I wouldn't take one engagement (where PAF's lowly Erieyes had better time on station than the Netras but the Netras emerged better), as the precursor for an all out theater management in war time.
The long lead time is getting the extensive airframe work done by Airbus on the A321 which will take 5 years. Availability of all the current platforms are higher than 70% as these are not combat aircraft, they are surveillance aircraft. Six more NETRAs on the ERJ-145, if approved today, will take 4-5 years before they're put into operation at a cost of $700 million. The current sanctioned project for $1.4 billion isn't starting from scratch. The IA, IAF, IN and DRDO labs have significant work done with various radar systems and their integration of both imported and domestic systems. I would suggest you take a look at what they've done in the last 10 years and given the budgets they have, it has been good solid work. It is along the lines of the production of DRDO's missile program, which is another program that doesn't have significant foreign sales pressure.Sounds easier in theory than in practice. Even the DRDO estimates 4-7 years for these to give results. What is your estimate for the first one to enter service?
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
^^^ Walker ji, chapati had been the moniker we used for the mounted radome disk since time immemorial on BR. It is more a term of endearment than anything else. That said, I understand your sentiment.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
With the 6 A321s to France, is the MRTT dead? It seems unlikely the smaller aircraft can multi-role as a tanker.
Also I recall the IAF entertaining a French proposal for 6 A330s for MRTT but with emphasis on tanker. Would we still go for those as tankers? Though it seems very expensive now in light of the A321 news. What would be our tankers then?
Also I recall the IAF entertaining a French proposal for 6 A330s for MRTT but with emphasis on tanker. Would we still go for those as tankers? Though it seems very expensive now in light of the A321 news. What would be our tankers then?
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5353
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Don't belittle the humble chapati saar. If we can call the mki, rambha and the f18, a rhino, chapati should be a lot more palatable.Mort Walker wrote:The use of the word 'chapati' is demeaning to what the radome contains which are the actual T/R elements of an AESA radar. A lot of work goes into making a radome, integrating it electronicall
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Chola saar I actually think we will see some traction on this French proposal for 6 a330s from second hand market. Currently there is even a precedent being set for this. The French AF has received a second a330-200 part of a fleet of 3 (2 second hand and 1 new). They also have option and intend to convert the 2 into Phenix MRTTs. Apparently FAF will buy further a330s as well.chola wrote:With the 6 A321s to France, is the MRTT dead? It seems unlikely the smaller aircraft can multi-role as a tanker.
Also I recall the IAF entertaining a French proposal for 6 A330s for MRTT but with emphasis on tanker. Would we still go for those as tankers? Though it seems very expensive now in light of the A321 news. What would be our tankers then?
It could well be that the money saved choosing the a321 combined with second hand a330s may just make the bean counters happy.
On anothet note the RUAF has ordered 10 IL78M tankers sporting nee ps90a76 engines, brand new avionics with a optical turret ala mx15 under the nose and such. Personally I will always prefer the a330 onlee.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
There must be 100s of A330 lying grounded in the world now. If we cannot get it from the French, we can buy some and ask Airbus to convert it in to a tanker.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Mort, IIRC, in the 1990s, the Flying chapati was the affectionate term used internally by the folks who worked on the CABS’ Avro AEW before it crashed tragically. It was picked by public after news articles about the nickname came out. It is neither derogatory nor demeaning
I think the term used for LCA’s MMR test bed on Avro was “Pinnochio”, but doesn’t mean the radar is a liar with a mijjile-nose hybrid.
FWIW, I always thought it looked like a “Flying Idli”, and the Hawkeye radome is more chapathi like.
I think the term used for LCA’s MMR test bed on Avro was “Pinnochio”, but doesn’t mean the radar is a liar with a mijjile-nose hybrid.
FWIW, I always thought it looked like a “Flying Idli”, and the Hawkeye radome is more chapathi like.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 10039
- Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
- Location: The rings around Uranus.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
The HS748 Avro ASP was not an AESA radar, but a slotted planar array with a narrow beam which had very low azimuthal side lobes (probably < 50dB). It really wasn't a true 3D scanning surveillance radar capable of generating a narrow pencil type beam. It was a mostly a passive device that relied on transmitter and waveguide rotary joint where the entire radome moved in azimuth. Mechanically complicated. This was 1999, more than 21 years ago and today we have radome which houses a true AESA radar with T/R elements. DRDO learned this over two decades by having access to the IAI EL/W-2090 and integrating it. Going with the smaller A321 airframe will reduce the radome size and number of elements, but it will have significantly more capability than the NETRAs with the beam type configuration. Looking at the available press releases, the AESA elements and radome are ready for implementation.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 461
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
- Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
- Contact:
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Uttam wrote:If recall correctly, 787 is similar in size as 777 but is designed for short-haul. 777 is mainly for long-haul. BTW, they all have variants. So, it is hard to generalize.Mort Walker wrote:^^^Where is the Boeing 787?
B 787 is of the same size as A330 and is smaller than 777. It also matches 777 ER in range.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
What will IAF do with Air India's A-320s?
By Ajai Shukla
In a display of cost-cutting synergy between ministries, the government has announced that six used Air India A-320 jet airliners will be recycled into Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) systems for the Indian Air Force.
This will involve withdrawing the airliners from Air India, sending them to France for fitment of airborne radars, and then handing them over to the Defence Research and Development Organisation to be integrated with the complex software that will allow these aircraft to function as 'eye-in-the-sky' controllers of air force battles.
The 'acceptance of necessity' (AoN) of AEW&C systems was one of seven procurement clearances the ministry of defence announced, amounting to Rs 28,000 crore (Rs 280 billion).
The MoD terms this as a 'big boost to Make in India'.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
That news serves up more questions, so France is building the hardware., the radars into the plane and DRDO software ?basant wrote:What will IAF do with Air India's A-320s?By Ajai Shukla
This will involve withdrawing the airliners from Air India, sending them to France for fitment of airborne radars, and then handing them over to the Defence Research and Development Organisation to be integrated with the complex software that will allow these aircraft to function as 'eye-in-the-sky' controllers of air force battles.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
May be France is integrating hardware of DRDO into the airframe.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
In the case of the Netra, they sent dummies of the same form and fit as the actual radar. The connectors were also form perfect so that internal wiring could be completed by the OEM. I suspect it will be the same here.
One part of me says, just don't do anything much. Use the same AAAUs and consoles. Just add an extra tank for more fuel and call it good. The other part says, but this is a bigger platform. What are some low hanging fruits to augment beyond current Netra's capabilities?
One part of me says, just don't do anything much. Use the same AAAUs and consoles. Just add an extra tank for more fuel and call it good. The other part says, but this is a bigger platform. What are some low hanging fruits to augment beyond current Netra's capabilities?
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
At least the number of modules can be scaled up and more power will be available.. hardware can be tweaked a little more for better performance..
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Ajai Shukla is confused between radome and radar. Or just poor proof reading.