Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 10037
- Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
- Location: The rings around Uranus.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
The time from RFP to RFQ may take years.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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 deployedbasant 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...
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Ah I’m with you now.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.
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...
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.
That looks awesome. Multiple use cases both air and ground!
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Is the radar same size that of Netra's?
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Do the pictures fly? They could have had 3 additional 145 based Netras.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
I just could not resist
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
They could have had so many things Vivek! You don't have enough fingers and toes to count them all!
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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 birthVivek K wrote:Do the pictures fly? They could have had 3 additional 145 based Netras.
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
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 10037
- Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
- Location: The rings around Uranus.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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 wrote:Is the radar same size that of Netra's?
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 10037
- Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
- Location: The rings around Uranus.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.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.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.Pratyush wrote:Air India should be having about 15 a 320 from the original Indian airlines connect from the late 80s.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 10037
- Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
- Location: The rings around Uranus.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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 wrote: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.Pratyush wrote:Air India should be having about 15 a 320 from the original Indian airlines connect from the late 80s.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.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.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.nachiket wrote: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.Pratyush wrote:Air India should be having about 15 a 320 from the original Indian airlines connect from the late 80s.
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
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 5352
- Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
^ wow. What will they use the nose space for I wonder?
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
messing with the nose per Indranil may compromise structural integrity
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
^^^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.
So the nose will remain as it is with only the glidescope and localiser.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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!
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!
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.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!
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):
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 457
- Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
- Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
- Contact:
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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 wrote: Seems that the scientists know that the CHAPPATI may not be delivering any substantial benefits over the KITKAT.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 457
- Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
- Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
- Contact:
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
@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.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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:@Brar_w any aircraft design is a compromise.
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.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.
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.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.
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.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
They've shown the Raytheon ISTAR.
https://www.raytheonintelligenceandspac ... ucts/istar
https://www.raytheonintelligenceandspac ... ucts/istar
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Thanks Brar. Greatly appreciated.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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).
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).
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... ndHEQ8SfZA ---> DRDO's 360 degree AWACS dome structure, manufactured by Coimbatore based Lakshmi Machine Works (LMW).
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 10037
- Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
- Location: The rings around Uranus.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.
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.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
Very few businesses can survive 100% on Defense, not Boeing or many other companies . Civilian capability is linked to defense capability.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
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.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 10037
- Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
- Location: The rings around Uranus.
Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion
^^^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.
Civilian capability comes out of military capability.