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.
Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 03:37

Ah yes. Is there a platform that really works for HPRs? I think the easier path will be to more efficient radars and more processing on board rather than more brute power available.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18234
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Apr 2019 03:38

We will have to do both. SAAB moved to GaN for its Erieye to regain the LO range loss.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 03:45

Yeah - I still don't get it, how is their radar 300 kgs vs ours is 1600 kgs?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18234
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Apr 2019 04:30

Will check.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7624
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2019 05:01

Cybaru wrote:Yeah - I still don't get it, how is their radar 300 kgs vs ours is 1600 kgs?


SAAB has a very ambitious marketing team so double triple check any source document you may have to see what is included in that quoted weight. They tried to peddle a bottom mounted version of the radar to the USAF for the JSTARS-recap requirement only to get booted out of the competition (because beyond fancy marketing it made little sense from a physics perspective). On the RAF requirement they also claimed that their GlobalEye offered better capability than a larger radar, operating at a lower frequency on a platform with higher power generation capacity and more TOS. We also know, courtesy their marketing shop, that Gripen-E and GlobalEye made stealth irreverent.. BUT only till their collaboration with BAE systems showcases a stealth design for a future Gripen/UK Typhoon replacement program. :lol:

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 05:38

brar_w wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Yeah - I still don't get it, how is their radar 300 kgs vs ours is 1600 kgs?


SAAB has a very ambitious marketing team so double triple check any source document you may have to see what is included in that quoted weight. They tried to peddle a bottom mounted version of the radar to the USAF for the JSTARS-recap requirement only to get booted out of the competition (because beyond fancy marketing it made little sense from a physics perspective). On the RAF requirement they also claimed that their GlobalEye offered better capability than a larger radar, operating at a lower frequency on a platform with higher power generation capacity and more TOS. We also know, courtesy their marketing shop, that Gripen-E and GlobalEye made stealth irreverent.. BUT only till their collaboration with BAE systems showcases a stealth design for a future Gripen/UK Typhoon replacement program. :lol:



Yeah, I hear you. Not sure how they can do 150 degrees and 555 kms with the whole weight of the radar at 300 kgs. The radar units of plain vanilla fighters weigh between 100-300 kgs.

Would it be possible to get the same P8 platform for AEW and mount phalcon or the balanced beam radar on it? That is the only other platform that is producing huge amounts of energy for its sensors and has hard points to put podded RATs on them if needed.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7624
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2019 05:53

Cybaru wrote:

Yeah, I hear you. Not sure how they can do 150 degrees and 555 kms with the whole weight of the radar at 300 kgs. The radar units of plain vanilla fighters weigh between 100-300 kgs.


I am not sure the radar itself weighs 300 kg. In fact that is almost certainly false information.

Cybaru wrote:Would it be possible to get the same P8 platform for AEW and mount phalcon or the balanced beam radar on it? That is the only other platform that is producing huge amounts of energy for its sensors and has hard points to put podded RATs on them if needed.


The smaller 737 already has an integrated tophat L band AESA so of course the larger platform can accommodate a different sensor configuration. The current AESA on the E-7 is about 60% of what was to eventually go on a USAF 767 (long terminated) so perhaps a configuration in between the two can go on the larger 737 on the P-8.

I am not sure why anyone would want ot mount a balance beam on the the 737 though. An AEW sensor is already integrated on the E-7, and the IAF is already integrating a different sensor on a widebody. Who else would want to totally overhaul the E-7 configuration and start from scratch (Australia, UK, South Korea already committed to E-7).?
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Apr 2019 08:09, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 06:15

brar_w wrote:
The smaller 737 already has an integrated tophat L band AESA so of course the larger platform can accommodate a different sensor configuration. The current AESA on the E-7 is about 60% of what was to eventually go on a USAF 767 (long terminated) so perhaps a configuration in between the two can go on the larger 737 on the P-8.

I am not sure why anyone would want ot mount a balance beam on the the 737 though. An AEW sensor is already integrated on the E-7, and the IAF is already integrating a different sensor on a widebody. Who else would want to totally overhaul the E-7 configuration and start from scratch (Australia, UK, South Korea already committed to E-7).?



I wasn't suggesting from scratch, but yeah, the idea is we buy the p8 body with the housing and not the sensor. DRDO adds and keeps updating the sensor as they see fit and it doesn't have all the 6 letter issues with the platform.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7624
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2019 06:25

Cybaru wrote:
brar_w wrote:
The smaller 737 already has an integrated tophat L band AESA so of course the larger platform can accommodate a different sensor configuration. The current AESA on the E-7 is about 60% of what was to eventually go on a USAF 767 (long terminated) so perhaps a configuration in between the two can go on the larger 737 on the P-8.

I am not sure why anyone would want ot mount a balance beam on the the 737 though. An AEW sensor is already integrated on the E-7, and the IAF is already integrating a different sensor on a widebody. Who else would want to totally overhaul the E-7 configuration and start from scratch (Australia, UK, South Korea already committed to E-7).?



I wasn't suggesting from scratch, but yeah, the idea is we buy the p8 body with the housing and not the sensor. DRDO adds and keeps updating the sensor as they see fit and it doesn't have all the 6 letter issues with the platform.


The P-8 does not have a housing for an aerial AEW radar sensor. The P-8 is based on the 737-800ER, while the E-7 is based on the 737-700ER so it won't be a straight fit and transition.

Similarly, the radar configuration and aerodynamics of the E-7 will be different from the balance beam radar mount so this would involve a whole another integration and testing program.

Image

So essentially what this entails is integrating an unrelated sensor and sensor configuration on the P-8. It can surely be done but there is nothing that can be leveraged (beyond militarization of the 737-800ER that the P-8 accomplished) to lower cost or shorten schedule.

Can the IAF/MOD not buy used Embraer's from the open market to avoid buying through the OEM? That could be a gap filler until the widebody is ready.

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


Power demands are from the free power that you can commit to the sensor during its most stressing /power drawing mission. You soon run into power shortage because you also have to power the ESM suite, the internal mission systems of the aircraft, the C2 suite and mission computers and the stations, communications etc etc. Hence, on high power sensor suites for this role you bring in additional supplemental electrical power.

The E-10A block 1 (cancelled) Supplemental Electrical Power System (SEPS) combined a T55-GA-715A turboshaft and a gearbox that mounted 6 180kVA generators. This to power the 6.1m x 1.2m X band AESA radar (>24,000 T/R Modules). The supplemental power requirement, over and above what the 767 could provide, was 1MW (up to 40,000 ft.). Out of this 0.5 MW was reserved for the sensor (largely driven by the Counter Cruise Missile mission), the remainder dedicated to the thermal management system and the other functions on the aircraft.
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Apr 2019 08:11, edited 3 times in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 06:45

I don't think the widebody will ever come.

Going with P8 allows hanging some RATs off the wing (reinforced) which won't be possible with the 737-700ER. 2-4 HiRAT along with dual generators per engine will allow getting it to over 1-1.4 MW.

Can you add more than two generators per engine? Your above example seems to indicate it is possible.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7624
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2019 07:03

I don't think anyone would be crazy enough to mount HiRAT or similar products on a 737 platform. If you cannot engineer supplemental power solutions within the airframe and the space and weight constraints then you either need to re do the trades and design a more efficient sensor (like the E-7 or E-2D do) or switch to a larger platform (like the E-10 did).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7624
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2019 07:10

Cybaru wrote:
Can you add more than two generators per engine? Your above example seems to indicate it is possible.


The weren't adding extra generators to the aircraft's engines. They were using a T55 turboshaft engine that powers the Chinook.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66595
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 13 Apr 2019 07:12

I dont think structurally its any big deal just how much does the 700 and 800 vary? Traditionally the higher numbered boeing models carry more pax but less range as in 777-200 is the longest range

Power wise instead of harpoon missiles on the centerline pylons the RAT can be fixed to power external ew gear and main radar can use a smaller engine in cargonhold as you said

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 07:15

I see nothing wrong with a podded solution, you will lose some efficiency, but it's no different than carrying a weapon system. The wing on the p8 is far more reinforced than the wedgetail.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 07:15

brar_w wrote:
Cybaru wrote:
Can you add more than two generators per engine? Your above example seems to indicate it is possible.


The weren't adding extra generators to the aircraft's engines. They were using a T55 turboshaft engine that powers the Chinook.


Where do they fit these?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66595
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 13 Apr 2019 07:17

Cy see the rr orpheus engine we fitted on roof of fairchild packet for hot n high ops

Image 8)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7624
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2019 07:21

Singha wrote:I dont think structurally its any big deal just how much does the 700 and 800 vary? Traditionally the higher numbered boeing models carry more pax but less range as in 777-200 is the longest range

Power wise instead of harpoon missiles on the centerline pylons the RAT can be fixed to power external ew gear and main radar can use a smaller engine in cargonhold as you said


The problem isn't doing it but doing so would essentially entail re-doing the entire test and certification program. No one is going to waive that off. It will be much less riskier yes but it does not do away with the need to do it.

Why would you need external power sources in the form of a giant RAT which no one wants to use for this application? I mean, which sensor is out there that is appropriate to be mounted on a 737 based platform but that will challenge the current margins on the E-7? I mean if you are pushing at those margins you really ought to be looking into a larger platform if for nothing else but for long term growth especially as active and passive defense systems would need to be introduced over to protect these things.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66595
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 13 Apr 2019 07:22

Minus the gearbox the heli engines are very compact

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 07:28

Singha wrote:Minus the gearbox the heli engines are very compact


Dang, I still can't see how t55 would be used for power generation.

Brar, I see your point, but can you point and would like to read some more on how the t55 was being installed, where and how much would it affect range etc...

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 07:30

Singha wrote:Power wise instead of harpoon missiles on the centerline pylons the RAT can be fixed to power external ew gear and main radar can use a smaller engine in cargonhold as you said


So it sucks in air from outside and releases gases outside as well?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7624
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2019 07:37

Cybaru wrote:
brar_w wrote:
The weren't adding extra generators to the aircraft's engines. They were using a T55 turboshaft engine that powers the Chinook.


Where do they fit these?


Integrated of course. Where else? On the E-10A, this was in the aft cargo compartment.

Cybaru wrote:Dang, I still can't see how t55 would be used for power generation.


As I mentioned earlier, the T-55 was to be mated to a gearbox with 6 x 180kVA generators.

http://www.aero-news.net/annticker.cfm? ... 450bdfda7c

Cybaru wrote:Brar, I see your point, but can you point and would like to read some more on how the t55 was being installed, where and how much would it affect range etc...


I'm going off on memory and what I can quickly google based on what I remember. I can try to dig up some more details on it and the exact modifications that were performed on the aircraft but this was like a decade and a half ago so I'm not sure how relevant this would be to a future system. More interesting would be to look into they are managing more capable and power hungry systems on even smaller aircraft with the JSTARS-recap (which is apparently now a US Army program). That power and thermal solution will likely be more relevant to a future system.

But I ask again, why does the E-7 or P-8 need more power over and above what is provisioned on these aircrafts? To support which sensor?
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Apr 2019 08:14, edited 4 times in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 07:38

WHy I was suggesting the use of p8 along with some RATs.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeings-p-8-is-the-737-with-missiles-sonar-and-a-specialty-in-hunting-submarines/

This is why the P-8 production line in Renton is separate and customized.

So that the P-8 will be able to withstand much more stressful maneuvers than a commercial 737 will ever make, its aluminum skin is 50 percent thicker than a regular 737’s and the fuselage and wings have more stiffening stringers and frames, meaning many more rivets.

Because it will sometimes on missions fly low over the ocean, every surface from the nose cone to the horizontal tail must be equipped for de-icing.


I don't think RATs have a huge downside. It would be like carrying two external fuel tanks. The penalty won't be anymore. The other structural changes are still a huge downside, maybe easier to add more frames and strengthen the 737 wings.

Sticking some Dhruv engines with generators in cargo hold for energy isn't a bad idea either, but that will require certification, modification to airframe as well.
Last edited by Cybaru on 13 Apr 2019 08:16, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 08:14

brar_w wrote: More interesting would be to look into they are managing more capable and power hungry systems on even smaller aircraft with the JSTARS-recap (which is apparently now a US Army program). That power and thermal solution will likely be more relevant to a future system.


YEah, if you get some time to post interesting stuff, I would enjoy reading up more on it.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7624
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2019 08:15

Cybaru wrote:
brar_w wrote: More interesting would be to look into they are managing more capable and power hungry systems on even smaller aircraft with the JSTARS-recap (which is apparently now a US Army program). That power and thermal solution will likely be more relevant to a future system.


YEah, if you get some time to post interesting stuff, I would enjoy reading up more on it.


That is of course not going to be disclosed at this point of time so we won't know exactly how they are planning to do it on a future platform.

I don't think RATs have a huge downside. It would be like carrying two external fuel tanks. The penalty won't be anymore. The other structural changes are still a huge downside, maybe easier to add more frames and strengthen the 737 wings.


As I said, I don't see anyone in serious control of any decision making process on any sensor related program on the 737 is ever going to make such a decision. Like I said, which sensor is out there that the 737 cannot support and why would I need to hang giant RAT's on instead of just moving to a larger, more optimized platform or a more efficient sensor?

You don't start with a platform. You start with a mission, and define your mission performance parameters. You then determine and conduct sensor trades. It is only then you look at an optimal platform. No one ever starts off backwards as one would if one was handed a blank 737 and told to design an AEW around it. Not unless that is the only option available.
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Apr 2019 08:22, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 08:18

yes yes only open source, please. Don't get any of us in trouble :)

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 08:22

brar_w wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Like I said, which sensor is out there that the 737 cannot support and why would I need to hang giant RAT's on instead of just moving to a larger, more optimized platform or a more efficient sensor?


What do you need for the following? free energy that is..

0.5 MW
1 MW
1.5 MW
2 MW

I mean there is a limit to how much you can bloat and add inefficiencies due to that alone - your cost of operations, plus now you have a larger platform so you add more crap to it and now you need more juice.. it goes on and on...

Agree with you on mission-based design. Not arguing that.
Last edited by Cybaru on 13 Apr 2019 08:23, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66595
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 13 Apr 2019 08:23

P8 FCS also has changes to permit higher bank angle like 45' nearly twice of commercial plane.

the missile pylons can house growla sized RATs or vane turbines(prowla style since P8 is subsonic) to power high grade jammers on outboard pylons and under the belly and ESM gear.
-----
i used to think of the wedgetail as a balance beam but its a giant two faced flat panel side looking radar with a leaner balance beam on top from the cutaway. the additional engine may be where the tailfins meet but I do not see any aux air intakes

Image

Image

so why not mount 2 sticks of drdo radar on wedgetail and run with that ? Aus UK turkey and east asian clients are going with that.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66595
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 13 Apr 2019 08:29

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7624
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2019 08:29

Cybaru wrote:yes yes only open source, please. Don't get any of us in trouble :)


I wouldn't know it so there is no possibility of going through any trouble. This information won't be classified but would be tightly held to the chest by the OEMs involves since it is still in competition.

What do you need for the following? free energy that is..

0.5 MW
1 MW
1.5 MW
2 MW

I mean there is a limit to how much you can bloat and add inefficiencies due to that alone - your cost of operations, plus now you have a larger platform so you add more crap to it and now you need more juice.. it goes on and on...


How do I know? That is for the operator community to determine depending upon what performance they want a specific system to have. As I said, the E-10A's very high power requirement was dictated not only by a very large radar(24,000 + T/R module X band radar with T/R modules derived from the AN/APG-79 radar) but that radar was very large because not only did it also need to replace the SAR/GMTI function of the JSTARS but also provide high resolution Cruise Missile detection and tracking. So your sensor requirements are derived from what the operator wants or needs in that sensor and that ultimately gets trickled down into platform requirements. Once you are within a trade space you can do both sensor trades, mission trades or platform trades to stay within cost and scope. There are ways to do all of that..hence you see an L band AEW sensor on the E-7 instead of S or C band sensor used in other applications or you see a UHF band sensor on the E-2D etc etc. The sensor trades are dictated by the performance requirements, and other margins available and same goes with the platform. You can trade these things to stay within a threshold of complexity or cost.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 08:32

Singha wrote:P8 FCS also has changes to permit higher bank angle like 45' nearly twice of commercial plane.

the missile pylons can house growla sized RATs or vane turbines(prowla style since P8 is subsonic) to power high grade jammers on outboard pylons and under the belly and ESM gear.
-----
i used to think of the wedgetail as a balance beam but its a giant two faced flat panel side looking radar with a leaner balance beam on top from the cutaway. the additional engine may be where the tailfins meet but I do not see any aux air intakes

so why not mount 2 sticks of drdo radar on wedgetail and run with that ? Aus UK turkey and east asian clients are going with that.



I think it is a good idea to use the housing and stick DRDO radar in it. Plus the radar will change somewhat, the housing allows for radar placement for almost 360-degree coverage. In some sense better than the balanced bar!

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 08:35

brar_w wrote:How do I know?


I think you know everything :)... Not being sarcastic. I enjoy reading your posts and thought you would know..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7624
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2019 08:36

You can't just stick a new sensor into the top-hat antenna. The integrated assembly is part of an L-Band AESA radar as is the top-hat configuration which is developed around this scalable sensor (as I said the radar on the E-7 is about 60% scale of what the USAF would have eventually put on an E-10 increment 2 platform). A completely different sensor means a completely different design. There is no escaping that. This is a lot of work and for all practical purposes tantamounts to developing a new radar, and radar configuration for integration on the 737.

The E-7 is the most widely sold western AEW platform out there (of its generation) and besides a tech refresh on the radar and other sensors or a re-host on a new 737-8ER platform for commonality with the P-8, who else is going to fund a completely new sensor for it? It makes no economic sense. The USAF isn't buying any and is unlikely to and that leaves NATO countries who would much rather buy something affordably and that means buying off the shelf.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Wedgetail-Antennas.html

The MOD/IAF are committed to a rotodome for a future AEW aircraft and that likely means a widebody.
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Apr 2019 08:51, edited 2 times in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66595
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 13 Apr 2019 08:37

http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/me ... script.pdf

o the business end of the capability is the MESA Multi-Role
Electronically Scanned Array. So it’s actually four radars. So, if you think of it, the two
side arrays are the more obvious ones, so that’s the side array and there’s one on the
other side as well, and then in the surfboard you’ve got two radars, so you’ve got the top
hat forward and the top hat aft. The idea behind the top hat radar is to account for the
interface between the two side arrays. So you’ve got one side array looking out that
way, one out that way, and there’s always going to be a bit of a gap, so that’s what those
top hats do. They take account for that overlap of the two main side array radars

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 09:38

I think i like the original idea of G650. You can also stick varying antenna's on each of them if you like, X/L/S for different roles, or do S/L band in one array if possible at all :?: . If the hawkeye can power a UHF antenna for serious purposes, we should be able to as well on the G650.

For tracking cruise missiles, stick a GreenPine derivative on top of a hill somewhere to make sure you get it all. There are no power restrictions there or not as bad as one on these tiny airborne sensors.
Last edited by Cybaru on 13 Apr 2019 10:11, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66595
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 13 Apr 2019 10:02

UK has retired its 5 sentinels for lack of opex

Image

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 11:35

brar_w wrote:
How do I know? That is for the operator community to determine depending upon what performance they want a specific system to have. As I said, the E-10A's very high power requirement was dictated not only by a very large radar(24,000 + T/R module X band radar with T/R modules derived from the AN/APG-79 radar) but that radar was very large because not only did it also need to replace the SAR/GMTI function of the JSTARS but also provide high resolution Cruise Missile detection and tracking. So your sensor requirements are derived from what the operator wants or needs in that sensor and that ultimately gets trickled down into platform requirements. Once you are within a trade space you can do both sensor trades, mission trades or platform trades to stay within cost and scope. There are ways to do all of that..hence you see an L band AEW sensor on the E-7 instead of S or C band sensor used in other applications or you see a UHF band sensor on the E-2D etc etc. The sensor trades are dictated by the performance requirements, and other margins available and same goes with the platform. You can trade these things to stay within a threshold of complexity or cost.


Most of the Euro/Aussie AEW birds don't have huge threats on their border. Perhaps they don't need a refresh as their main threat is possibly the occasional smugglers or illegal immigrants coming in on boats.. None of them will see cruise missiles coming down their way.

only one to watch is Israel/khan as they have active borders or fights. With Saudi and UAE doing large refresh, it remains to be seen what israel will do. Anyway whatever it does probably won't make it out on news. So kinda difficult to understand what choices they made or how they solved the same problem.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2366
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Apr 2019 11:36

Singha wrote:UK has retired its 5 sentinels for lack of opex



3 person team on it, wonder what they gather. BBC spot on them didn't seem that impressive except for 12 hour sortie mention. They said, they get ground picture, but can't tell who is who in syria since things are fluid.

Perhaps we should buy to try and see what we can glean if they are cheap.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7624
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2019 16:39

Cybaru wrote:Most of the Euro/Aussie AEW birds don't have huge threats on their border. Perhaps they don't need a refresh as their main threat is possibly the occasional smugglers or illegal immigrants coming in on boats.. None of them will see cruise missiles coming down their way.

only one to watch is Israel/khan as they have active borders or fights. With Saudi and UAE doing large refresh, it remains to be seen what israel will do. Anyway whatever it does probably won't make it out on news. So kinda difficult to understand what choices they made or how they solved the same problem.


The IAF has a radar which the designers are pursuing for the A-330 based solution. That is likely not going to work on a 737 like airframe just given the size so best to do two things - 1) Buy interim AEW aircraft in the form of the Netra (perhaps via second hand market to avoid going directly via the OEM/new built) and 2 ) design and build the A330 based AEW so that it is operational around 2030. The RAAF too isn't picking its platforms (E-7, P-8, F-35 etc) to fight drug smugglers but to fight the higher end battle against a more capable adversary.

The Euro operators have the NATO threat to worry about, that is what the E-7 is for for the UK for example. It uses a very capable L band AESA which will no doubt be upgraded over time. Like I said, why do you want to change the sensor? It has been shown to be capable enough for multiple operators out there and was recently chosen by the RAF as well.

For CCM as i said the most optimal way to accomplish that mission is using a very high power high frequency radar that can look down to find the low flying/terrain hugging low signature missiles as well. This will give you the precision and tracking required to pass on highly accurate tracks for Air Defense systems to use. At least this was what the USAF's trade study and analysis of alternatives developed found for the CMD mission. Using an Early Warning radar to detect and track cruise missiles is fine and can be done by a lower frequency sensor as well but it really depends what you want to do and how and for which mission you want to optimize your sensor. A S band array is a good compromise and as I said the L and UHF band arrays on the E-7 and E-2 are really good for efficient volume search and early warning but not optimal for CCM besides AEW against them. On the E-10 the dedicated X band array was for SAR/GMTI and for detecting and tracking cruise missiles while the L band VSR was for early warning and tracking airborne targets. Think about the size of that high frequency radar they put out. It was akin to a flying AN/TPY-2 ground based radar. While the E-10 was chopped a scaled variant of the radar currently flies on the Global hawk.

Image

Cybaru wrote:
3 person team on it, wonder what they gather. BBC spot on them didn't seem that impressive except for 12 hour sortie mention. They said, they get ground picture, but can't tell who is who in syria since things are fluid.

Perhaps we should buy to try and see what we can glean if they are cheap.


The Sentinel was not a Battle Manager in the traditional sense. It does not need a large number of people on board because it piped data off of the platform for it to be used on the ground. The IAF is apparently getting something similar from Raytheon though probably at least half a generation more advanced from a technological perspective.

Last edited by brar_w on 13 Apr 2019 17:35, edited 1 time in total.

mmasand
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 19 May 2009 23:46

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby mmasand » 13 Apr 2019 17:33

Swarajya reporting the A330 program is back on track.

https://swarajyamag.com/insta/indian-ai ... t-aircraft

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2399
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 13 Apr 2019 17:51

Karan M wrote:Do you have a quote or link for this? Very significant find.



Wish I could find the source, Pretty confident that in one of the interviews, Dr Christopher mentioned about the "extra engine". I guess he could be referring to be the engine which is used to power the electronics of a regular civilian jet. May be an up-rated one to power the antenna.

Other things I remember is the dome will have 4 antenna, instead of 3 found on Phalcons.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya_V, raghuk, VickyAvinash and 69 guests