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.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11143
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 12 Sep 2019 14:30

Wasn't the US also initially involved in trying to put an American engine. If they reveal the true nature of JF 17 and why it cannot do a loop at any airshow will be revealed

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

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 12 Sep 2019 14:56

VikramA wrote:From my understanding the IAF wanted the phalcon not because it was some super duper AWAC and netra is not, but because phalcon being mounted on il76 has the space to operate for 12 hours because of 2 set of crews which netra cannot because of lack of space. It's not a question of import vs desi but question of platform. After the first netra, DRDO should have concentrated on mounting the Aesa radar on a wide body jet in a timely manner


The platform choice was a mess filled with corruption. Embraer bribed its way into the program. The IAF had always been resistant to it.

We have no platforms of our own for any force multipliers like AEW, MPA or electronic warfare so phoren companies and babus are always there to milk the system. This is endemic across all our programs because we are so dependent on phoren firms. We see this shite from Embraer, Agusta Westland, Bofors, etc. with the local programs always massively delayed or curtailed. Netra is just the latest.

dmun
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: 31 Jan 2019 20:03

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby dmun » 12 Sep 2019 15:03

Which other platforms where in the competition when Emb 145 was selected?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3307
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 12 Sep 2019 15:37

Cybaru wrote:I do think IAF has the two phalcons in sight. With that they are comfortable. I presume they will worry about remaining things when those get delivered. Having 5 AWACS and 3 AEW units is pretty decent.


looks like the case of being "top heavy" .. how does IAF take care of attrition in a drawn out conflict with just 3 Netras ? .. ( i said it nicely , long range SAMs from deeper than ocean friend next door can pose a real threat for forward deployed AEWs )

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18400
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 12 Sep 2019 17:41

Currently re-reading some CAG reports. The amount of BS there is in our DPP and other places.. its all about process, outcome be darned. And then there are the snafus by IAF etc adding sauce to an already messed up dish. Its a miracle we have anything in service.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2409
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 12 Sep 2019 21:22

kit wrote:
Cybaru wrote:I do think IAF has the two phalcons in sight. With that they are comfortable. I presume they will worry about remaining things when those get delivered. Having 5 AWACS and 3 AEW units is pretty decent.


looks like the case of being "top heavy" .. how does IAF take care of attrition in a drawn out conflict with just 3 Netras ? .. ( i said it nicely , long range SAMs from deeper than ocean friend next door can pose a real threat for forward deployed AEWs )


Not really. One shouldn't see AWACS as top heavy or light. It is required and we really don't need to over optimize everything.

5 phalcons are good! 10 would have been better, but Netra is fine too! If C295 starts, then lets just standardize on those and call it a day. So many things to do!

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Bart S » 12 Sep 2019 21:32

Is there any disadvantage to AEW/AWACS on a turboprop platform vs a regional jet or bizjet? The latter can fly faster and higher and get to it's destination sooner. Is there a decisive advantage to flying higher for such a platform? Do turboprops generate as much or more power compared with jets?

VikramA
BRFite
Posts: 158
Joined: 29 Aug 2018 15:41

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby VikramA » 12 Sep 2019 21:37

does anyone have any links which state the performance difference between the L band AESA radars found in AWACS like Phalcon and S band AESA found on netra, saab 2000?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2409
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 12 Sep 2019 21:55

Bart S wrote:Is there any disadvantage to AEW/AWACS on a turboprop platform vs a regional jet or bizjet? The latter can fly faster and higher and get to it's destination sooner. Is there a decisive advantage to flying higher for such a platform? Do turboprops generate as much or more power compared with jets?


I think you listed all the issues already! Keep in mind, we will be running them based out of our own territory especially the turboprop ones. Makes it a bit easier if they are missing refueling - second crew etc. Tasking a fresh unit out there makes it so much more convenient.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Bart S » 12 Sep 2019 22:10

^FWIW, C295 has the IFR option, at least Airbus was testing it.

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 787
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby krishna_krishna » 12 Sep 2019 22:13

Bart S wrote:Is there any disadvantage to AEW/AWACS on a turboprop platform vs a regional jet or bizjet? The latter can fly faster and higher and get to it's destination sooner. Is there a decisive advantage to flying higher for such a platform? Do turboprops generate as much or more power compared with jets?


Both have Pro’s

Turboprop needs small runway to take off and land.

Turboprop is efficient at slower and medium
Speeds but at higher speed jet is.

There is a general restriction on turboprop sat 30000ft. If you need to fly higher you need turbojet.

Turbojet also get effected by icing that occurs at colder temperatures.

But props are more efficient engines.

A320 produces 150kW where as it needs only 50kW, att-72 produces about 100kW( it is dependent upon air speed, speed of aircraft etc.)

Turboprops are also lighter in weight

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Bart S » 12 Sep 2019 22:17

^OK, so:
1> Is the lower ceiling a severe disadvantage for the AWACS/AEW application?
2> Can a turboprop (let's say C295) generate enough spare power to not be at a disadvantage vs a small jet (say Gulfstream 600 or EMB145)?

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby souravB » 12 Sep 2019 22:50

1> Higher the platform is, farther it can see due to the curvature of earth.
2> It should be. Without enough power it cannot operate a phalcon on it. If a phalcon could be mounted, surely netra would be achievable.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2409
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 12 Sep 2019 22:56

You can always add an APU or two. Will cut your on station time a bit.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2757
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 13 Sep 2019 00:04

chola wrote:Embraer bribed its way into the program. The IAF had always been resistant to it.


Actually Embraer was the most supportive company modifying the platform at its own cost compared to Beriev that modifies the Ilyushin platform charging a hefty cost to IAF.

Embraer also added Mid Air Refueling to Indian version - that is not there in Brazilian, Greek or Mexican versions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_R-99

Indian version has additional SATCOM for GSAT-7A (dome on roof), COMINT/SIGNIT (side blisters, rear fuselage blisters), etc.

Embraer did extensive testing of the new platform in hot & humid conditions in Brazil and extreme cold weather conditions in Alaska to comply with IAF/DRDO requirements.

They were the best vendor who were forced to pay a bribe via Sanjay Bhandari/Robert Vadra.

Given the extensive modification of the platform and its ability to operate at a squadron/wing level, many more should have been ordered and deployed at every IAF wing to support both air dominance and strike missions.

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1996
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 13 Sep 2019 00:10

At this point, just get the wedgetail platform from boeing, certify the CABS sensor suit on it and induct them. The least disruptive path.

But no, we have to get the best of the breed custom bespoke globally unique solution and then pay through our noses after decades delay due to single vendor situation!!!!!

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2409
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Sep 2019 00:12

Brar has been over why the Wedgetail won't work. But whole heatedly agree with your broader point picklu!

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2851
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 13 Sep 2019 00:17

^^^if tsarkarji is correct, then why not simply order more platforms at reasonablle rates from emb itself..saves everyone pain? if govt can coast the rafale issue then this would be easier...with modi at helm there would be much more acceptance of this

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1996
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 13 Sep 2019 00:19

Cybaru wrote:Brar has been over why the Wedgetail won't work. But whole heatedly agree with your broader point picklu!


Sorry, i might have missed that post from brar, would be glad if someone points to it.

Just to be clear, i do not want the whole wedgetail, just the boeing plan with the balance beam radome on it. The sensor suit and the operators stations comes straight from CABS*. There will be some effort on integration and certification but both being similar configuration, the changes would be lot lower than say flying rotodome and hence least disruptive path.

* For the first 3 unit, no scale up of anything; if the platform supports higher weight, put ballast. Scale up the sensor system to match the capability of the flying platform from the fourth unit onward. The first 3 will anyway comeback for midlife upgrade in a decade.

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1996
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 13 Sep 2019 00:22

ArjunPandit wrote:^^^if tsarkarji is correct, then why not simply order more platforms at reasonablle rates from emb itself..saves everyone pain? if govt can coast the rafale issue then this would be easier...with modi at helm there would be much more acceptance of this


Banned on bribary charge hence no-go from political perspective. If they are available, I would be the first one to support a follow-on order of 20 new emb.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Bart S » 13 Sep 2019 00:25

If the Sonia family was involved in corruption, why should the nation pay the price? Govt should co-opt Embraer to give evidence and build a case with the understanding that they will pay a small fine and be reinstated.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4433
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 13 Sep 2019 00:40

tsarkar wrote:
chola wrote:Embraer bribed its way into the program. The IAF had always been resistant to it.


Actually Embraer was the most supportive company modifying the platform at its own cost compared to Beriev that modifies the Ilyushin platform charging a hefty cost to IAF.

Embraer also added Mid Air Refueling to Indian version - that is not there in Brazilian, Greek or Mexican versions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_R-99

Indian version has additional SATCOM for GSAT-7A (dome on roof), COMINT/SIGNIT (side blisters, rear fuselage blisters), etc.

Embraer did extensive testing of the new platform in hot & humid conditions in Brazil and extreme cold weather conditions in Alaska to comply with IAF/DRDO requirements.

They were the best vendor who were forced to pay a bribe via Sanjay Bhandari/Robert Vadra.

Given the extensive modification of the platform and its ability to operate at a squadron/wing level, many more should have been ordered and deployed at every IAF wing to support both air dominance and strike missions.


Agree. They did it within the schedule as well, with no cost or time overruns. Makes most sense to order another 3-4 EMB-145 jets and get them modified to the Netra AEW&C standard. But all this discussion on BRF makes no difference, the service that needs to do it shows no signs of going with this option.

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Snehashis » 13 Sep 2019 00:49

I believe we ordered some 4 odd EMB-145 for VIP transport. We can modify them with the help of OEM without purchasing a new one.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4433
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 13 Sep 2019 00:56

Snehashis wrote:I believe we ordered some 4 odd EMB-145 for VIP transport. We can modify them with the help of OEM without purchasing a new one.


Those are EMB-135 Legacy jets. Smaller than the EMB-145 and with less electrical power generated to power all the systems that need to be powered on the Netra.

EMB-145s are economical. They aren't that costly to acquire or to operate. The Netra will (and I can guarantee that) be way cheaper to operate per flight hour than the Il-78 based Phalcons. Yes, smaller range than the Phalcon, lower unrefuelled mission endurance and with 240 deg coverage, but it is almost at the same performance level as the Erieye and I have never heard any operator complain about its performance.

And if the IN can get 10 more P-8Is, I just cannot understand why the IAF cannot pursue an order for 4-5 to tide over the shortfall till the AWACS-India program actually delivers. if a business case for P-8Is (which are not cheap by any measure) exists, then surely the IAF can get cheaper Netra's processed. They seem content to just wait it out till the costlier option is provided, rather than looking at the best usage of cheaper but possibly less capable systems.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7040
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 13 Sep 2019 01:03

ArjunPandit wrote:^^^if tsarkarji is correct, then why not simply order more platforms at reasonablle rates from emb itself..saves everyone pain? if govt can coast the rafale issue then this would be easier...with modi at helm there would be much more acceptance of this

Did you read the previous posts about our completely dysfunctional procurement process? If something makes common sense it will most surely be not done. In this case, it is even worse. Embraer has been accused of corruption. Our response as usual is to stop doing business with the company instead of punishing the dalals because that might hit too close to home. The detrimental effect on the armed forces as well as DRDO's Netra program is nobody's concern but the poor affected souls of course. Even Modi isn't much use here. He used his heft to get the IAF 36 Rafales (for which he was hounded by his political opponents), but otherwise he has been disinterested in reforming the MoD. Parrikar was the only one trying to make any kind of changes to some effect. But he's no longer with us.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1993
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Bart S » 13 Sep 2019 01:06

Snehashis wrote:I believe we ordered some 4 odd EMB-145 for VIP transport. We can modify them with the help of OEM without purchasing a new one.


Or have some private co buy it and lease it to DRDO who can sublease it to services. Might sound far fetched, but still better than doing nothing.

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Snehashis » 13 Sep 2019 01:22

Kartik, the problem is our corruption enquiry is incomplete and Embraer already paid a fine to USG for that corruption. So it is difficult for the government to re-order. Only bet look likes C-295 based AEW if we want a few more on a smaller platform.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2409
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Sep 2019 01:54

Picklu wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Brar has been over why the Wedgetail won't work. But whole heatedly agree with your broader point picklu!


Sorry, i might have missed that post from brar, would be glad if someone points to it.

Just to be clear, i do not want the whole wedgetail, just the boeing plan with the balance beam radome on it. The sensor suit and the operators stations comes straight from CABS*. There will be some effort on integration and certification but both being similar configuration, the changes would be lot lower than say flying rotodome and hence least disruptive path.

* For the first 3 unit, no scale up of anything; if the platform supports higher weight, put ballast. Scale up the sensor system to match the capability of the flying platform from the fourth unit onward. The first 3 will anyway comeback for midlife upgrade in a decade.


Here you go.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3040&p=2343104&hilit=wedgetail#p2343104

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3031
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 13 Sep 2019 02:07

Bart S wrote:Or have some private co buy it and lease it to DRDO who can sublease it to services. Might sound far fetched, but still better than doing nothing.


That could be the way out. Maybe Bharat Forge or someone, buy 4-5 Embraer plane, lease to DRDO and that in fact lease to IAF. That way we have a way around. Or go full throttle against Damad ji Suri ji and others and jail all of them for all defense corruption (even pappu is directly involved based on news leak, including SG) and after that buy directly saying hurting nation. No one will raise a finger

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2409
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 13 Sep 2019 02:31

I think leasing sets up more grounds for corruption. Give a waiver to EMB, add 6-7 more. That should be sufficient. 9 + 5 is plenty good. if EMB doesn't work, go with C295 - it will be assembled/maintained locally. Might become the special operations plane for us.

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

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 13 Sep 2019 09:29

Kartik wrote:
tsarkar wrote:
Actually Embraer was the most supportive company modifying the platform at its own cost compared to Beriev that modifies the Ilyushin platform charging a hefty cost to IAF.

Embraer also added Mid Air Refueling to Indian version - that is not there in Brazilian, Greek or Mexican versions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_R-99

Indian version has additional SATCOM for GSAT-7A (dome on roof), COMINT/SIGNIT (side blisters, rear fuselage blisters), etc.

Embraer did extensive testing of the new platform in hot & humid conditions in Brazil and extreme cold weather conditions in Alaska to comply with IAF/DRDO requirements.

They were the best vendor who were forced to pay a bribe via Sanjay Bhandari/Robert Vadra.

Given the extensive modification of the platform and its ability to operate at a squadron/wing level, many more should have been ordered and deployed at every IAF wing to support both air dominance and strike missions.


Agree. They did it within the schedule as well, with no cost or time overruns. Makes most sense to order another 3-4 EMB-145 jets and get them modified to the Netra AEW&C standard. But all this discussion on BRF makes no difference, the service that needs to do it shows no signs of going with this option.


Embraer might have been amenable but their platform was not liked by the IAF at the time. Or even now. There is no great cry from them to continue the Netra project despite the need. They are letting it die on the vine though the radar was highly praised during the hostilities in February. That should tell us something about the platform.

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2018/08/29/How-a-CAG-report-exposed-DRDO-mishandling-of-AEW-CS-programme.amp.html

During the design and development stage, some operational parameters were compromised because of the Embraer’s limitations. Also, there was no competitive bidding while selecting the aircraft. The Embraer was shortlisted through a nomination. Notably, several aircraft, such as the IL-76, and models from Gulfstream, Bombardier and Boeing were available at the time.

“The justification given for the selection of EMB-145 was not tenable,” the CAG observed. “No objective assessment of the merits and demerits of available options was done. The selection of EMB-145 was arbitrary and based on preconceived preference.”

Initial operational requirements stipulated that the system should be able to operate from high-altitude locations like Leh to have a much deeper view into the Chinese army’s activities. As the EMB-145 was incapable of doing so, claims the report, the Air Force had to drop this requirement in February 2006.

The report also said that the Air Force officials working with the DRDO reiterated that Embraer was not the suitable aircraft.

The CAG also criticised the project for the way the pilots were trained. “From the scrutiny of the expenditure on training, the audit found that the training commenced in June 2007. At this point, the procurement contract for EMB-145 was yet to be awarded and negotiations were underway between the CABS and M/s Embraer. Therefore, training of pilots on an aircraft even before finalising its purchase is highly unjustified,” CAG pointed out. Six pilots were trained abroad at a cost of Rs 23 crore.

Of the 18 requirements specified by the Air Force, AEW&CS could not fully achieve ten important ones. Despite this, the Air Force accepted the first system in February 2017.

“Since EMB-145 was selected, the weight of the mission system had to be adjusted to the optimum payload capacity of EMB-145, which was 3,000kg. The radar along with its associated systems, which was to be mounted on the fuselage, had to be limited to 1,500 kilos due to structural limitations,” the CAG said.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2499
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby abhik » 13 Sep 2019 11:34

A Gulfstream G550 would have been the perfect platform IMO, a ~95% solution at probably half the cost rather than the huge A330 which we are not able to afford - we need the numbers.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2498
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 13 Sep 2019 12:36

IAF is used to the "big" Phalcons. So it will not settle for a platform, which does not provide equivalent or more station time and capacity in terms of radar size and other sensors.

The fact that IAF prefers to wait for eternity, for the next 2 Phalcon, rather than buying anything else should tell you about IAF "requirements"!

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1923
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 13 Sep 2019 14:33

Karan M wrote:Currently re-reading some CAG reports. The amount of BS there is in our DPP and other places.. its all about process, outcome be darned. And then there are the snafus by IAF etc adding sauce to an already messed up dish. Its a miracle we have anything in service.


Karan sir

Hopefully not as effed up as this :)

The pentagon wars - a product management lesson



MODs please pardon the OT

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18400
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2019 16:32

The Pentagon Wars is a product management disaster.

The DPP set up under which MMRCA etc were procured, makes even procurement a disaster. Seriously whosoever came up with it, deserves an award from Pakistan and PRC. Its only focused on process, outcome can go to ...outcome as in getting services the best gear, at the right price.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18400
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2019 16:38

The question is this:

Its clear it doesn't meet Phalcon etc level requirements as originally envisaged because Embraer was forced onto Indian procurement by the usual gang of "family" folks.

But does it at least match what Pakistan has deployed? Because if it does, that's good enough for us to get a few more as gapfillers till more fancy systems emerge.

The only critical issue the AEW&CS (due to its platform) has is this - five hour endurance (w/o IFR). In which case we should be working on a war footing to look for another platform (turboprop or jet) to fix this.

chola wrote:
Kartik wrote:
Agree. They did it within the schedule as well, with no cost or time overruns. Makes most sense to order another 3-4 EMB-145 jets and get them modified to the Netra AEW&C standard. But all this discussion on BRF makes no difference, the service that needs to do it shows no signs of going with this option.


Embraer might have been amenable but their platform was not liked by the IAF at the time. Or even now. There is no great cry from them to continue the Netra project despite the need. They are letting it die on the vine though the radar was highly praised during the hostilities in February. That should tell us something about the platform.

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2018/08/29/How-a-CAG-report-exposed-DRDO-mishandling-of-AEW-CS-programme.amp.html

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 337
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby ragupta » 13 Sep 2019 16:55

nam wrote:IAF is used to the "big" Phalcons. So it will not settle for a platform, which does not provide equivalent or more station time and capacity in terms of radar size and other sensors.

The fact that IAF prefers to wait for eternity, for the next 2 Phalcon, rather than buying anything else should tell you about IAF "requirements"!


Why not convert all the IL-76 in inventory to Phalcon. if that is what IAF likes, or it is just interested in maintaining zoo. I would like to see a company in India, acquiring used platforms at throw away price, refurbhising and providing for use for transport and special needs. It could acquire commonly used civilian aircrafts like Boeing and airbus, which cannot be used for civilian transport, and provide as research, transport, awacs program, reducing the need for IAF to acquire such assets and waste time on it.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18400
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2019 17:01


Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18400
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2019 17:04


Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18400
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2019 17:06

Now, the real issue is the IAFs limited amount of force multipliers, i.e. tankers. It wants a long endurance platform which can fly as high as possible, and have the widest coverage (azimuth & elevation).

But the problem is we can't seem to afford more Phalcons right away.

So you do what you must & use what is available!


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests