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.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18534
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2019 17:19

PAF apparently will have a fleet of 6 Erieye (apart from their 4x ZDK-03). This is a huge force for such a small country.
https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2019/ ... stems.html

PRC has 14 AWACS, soon to be 21.

We have 5.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11248
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 13 Sep 2019 17:22

I think , PAF could not repair the 2 and hence 3 were lost in TTP attacks, and Chinese ZDK has been a non starter and was not there in Mar 19. So it probably 4 Erieye for the PAF

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18534
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2019 17:25

They were likely repaired. PAF had roun the clock AWACS deployment on the 27th and earlier.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11248
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 13 Sep 2019 17:27

Wait Erieye an AEW like Netra restricted to 240 degree coverage? And Dont think it has the range of Phalcon which is mounted on a Jet while this is on a Turboprop.

But certainly it is lot of AEW for the PAF.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18534
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2019 20:05

Yes, it is exactly like our Embraer but only that it has longer endurance likely though it probably cant fly as fast/high - turboprop vs biz jet.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 13 Sep 2019 20:25

Karan M wrote:They were likely repaired. PAF had roun the clock AWACS deployment on the 27th and earlier.


We on the other hand, sent Abhi on a 40 year old Mig21 without frequency hopping radio to face latest upgraded F16.

Every time the paki ******** post the his bloodied face with "tea is fine" message, "khadi gram udyog", "mig21++", "3 legged cheetah" are the only 3 terms I am reminded off.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 13 Sep 2019 20:41

Cybaru wrote:
Picklu wrote:
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


Thanks.

what i understood from the post is that a complete new sensor set needs to be developed to take advantage of the full capability of existing radome. Well, my solution is simple. Shove the CABS current sensor suite and fill up the extra space with ballast. For first 3 unit. Go with a scaled version of the sensor from 4th unit onward and build 3 more. By that time, the first 3 would come back for mid life upgrade, so replace the sensor with the enhanced version then.

The first 3 version may not satisfy the "prim n propah" but all you have to check is how tejas single seat naval version dealt with the rear cockpit. And that's why Navy is so ahead in the game of indigenization compared to the other 2 branches.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 594
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Raveen » 13 Sep 2019 21:02

Picklu wrote:
Karan M wrote:They were likely repaired. PAF had roun the clock AWACS deployment on the 27th and earlier.


We on the other hand, sent Abhi on a 40 year old Mig21 without frequency hopping radio to face latest upgraded F16.

Every time the paki ******** post the his bloodied face with "tea is fine" message, "khadi gram udyog", "mig21++", "3 legged cheetah" are the only 3 terms I am reminded off.



F-16 is 45 years old - please don't use madrassa logic. Avionics on the Bison are updated, the design might be old, but that is true for most current mass deployed fighters.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 13 Sep 2019 21:17

Raveen wrote:
Picklu wrote:
We on the other hand, sent Abhi on a 40 year old Mig21 without frequency hopping radio to face latest upgraded F16.

Every time the paki ******** post the his bloodied face with "tea is fine" message, "khadi gram udyog", "mig21++", "3 legged cheetah" are the only 3 terms I am reminded off.



F-16 is 45 years old - please don't use madrassa logic. Avionics on the Bison are updated, the design might be old, but that is true for most current mass deployed fighters.


Right, comparing F16 which has started as a 4th gen fighter from the beginning and have both avionics and structure upgraded with 3nd gen mig21 which has only got limited avionics upgrade is NOT madrassa logic. The length at some people go .....

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7373
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 13 Sep 2019 21:17

Well you need MoD, IAF & MoF to sit down at one table, list out a 5 year acquisition schedule and hash out what MoF will let you buy. Talking past each other will not work. But this needs leadership.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 13 Sep 2019 21:23

Prasad wrote:Well you need MoD, IAF & MoF to sit down at one table, list out a 5 year acquisition schedule and hash out what MoF will let you buy. Talking past each other will not work. But this needs leadership.


MoF will let you buy only 25% of what you ask. That's given. And true globally for all time.

But there is one thing they can not do. They can not go outside the list provided by IAF (or IA or IN for that matter). Some year it will be 15% and some year 35% but a percentage it will be and strictly within IAF/IA/IN.

Hence IAF/IA/IN need to be smart and ask for a list having 95% desi systems because when push comes to shove, those will work.

Right now, what %ge of "IAF/IA/IN requirement list" is indian value add?

The reason why I do not buy the argument put forth by IAF that MOD/MOF is the decision maker / financial controller is simply because every organisation unit goes through the same dynamics; each and every business unit. But you will find some BU having dynamic leadership are doing much better compared to their peers in the same org or competition in overcoming such "fact of life". Same for IN vs IA & IAF.

Everytime you show MOD/MOF as the incompetent or corrupt, you will always find involvement of a military man along with them.
Last edited by Picklu on 13 Sep 2019 21:36, edited 2 times in total.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2583
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 13 Sep 2019 21:30

ragupta wrote:
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.


Well, only OEM can make the modification required on IL76 to place the "chappati" on the top, without causing a crash.

And as far i understand, it may not be possible to modify an existing IL76 to AWACS, without major modification and cost. It is better to build a new one.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 13 Sep 2019 22:43

I don't know how to put it delicately, but the IAF has behaved like a petulant child:

1) I want shiny Rafales or the slightly less shiny Gripens. If I cannot either, I'd rather go through another MMRCA tamasha than order Tejas MK1 or MK1a

2) I would rather wait a decade for the new AWACS than buy a proven AEW&C. Because I didn't like the Embraer platform.

They're folding their hands across the chest and refusing all food!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18534
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2019 23:48

A limited budget leads to all this. They want to maximize bang for buck.

Now you'll say, what?? A limited budget should mean buy more local. Problem is with no dinero, they cant afford to stock up on IFR and other support assets. So the AWACS has to be all singing and dancing.

PAF skimps on fighters, spent it on Force Multipliers. We cant do that either, because PRC. They are making full use of their economic boom. Imports + massive local program, former provide combat punch when local systems arent mature.

This all boils down to MOD, lack of direction there and firm instructions to IAF. Also, lack of support from MOF. That we'll fund the rest if you go local and anyhow IFR are required and desi AEW&CS will return the money spent upfront, in lifecycle costs.

Which is why a booming economy is as essential to natsec as 1000 tanks or whatever.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Kakarat » 14 Sep 2019 00:48

I think IAF should go for C-295 based 360* AWACS with Netra's Radar adopted in the rotating disc, By doing it IAF will get a low cost 360* system that can be purchased in numbers as C-295s are to be made in India soon

Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18534
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 14 Sep 2019 01:34

C-295 AEW&C (the Israeli package on the C-295)

4x workstations (low for IAF)
360 degree radar (good!)
260knots cruise speed (vs ERJ-145s 450 knots), not great!
11 hours endurance (excellent, vs ERJ-145s 5 odd hours)
Alt, 25000 feet (vs ERJ-145s 37000 feet), the radar range will be a healthy 200 odd nm.

The cruise speed is an issue but not an insurmountable one by any means. Basically, send in replacements early.

Lets compare to the SAB-2000, all back of the envelope onlee:

Cruising speed: 260 knots vs 340 knots (no surprise, the SAAB was a turboprop airliner)
Endurance: 9.5 hrs vs 11 hrs (+ for the C-295)
5 OWS (vs 4 on the C-295, we could likely fit in more if IAF so desires)
Radar range: 350km vs fighter sized targets (the desi AEW&C has achieved far more in its extended range search mode).

My conclusion: the C-295 is a good pocket AWACS provided we can fit in the extra ESM sensors etc (no idea of volume) & its aerodynamics are not further compromised.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 14 Sep 2019 01:42

Karan M wrote:They want to maximize bang for buck.

Now you'll say, what?? A limited budget should mean buy more local.

Karan ji, with all due respect - how does one maximize bang with 6 times more expensive aircraft? Isn't buying Rafales exactly the opposite of maximizing "bang for buck"?
Problem is with no dinero, they cant afford to stock up on IFR and other support assets. So the AWACS has to be all singing and dancing.

PAF skimps on fighters, spent it on Force Multipliers.

Isn't it strange that with their limited resources, they have more AWACS/AEW than us? Aren't they then following a more efficient strategy? Couldn't we spare a whole bunch of money by not throwing it on expensive a) Rafales, b) Expensive M2K upgrade (without re-engine)

We cant do that either, because PRC. They are making full use of their economic boom. Imports + massive local program, former provide combat punch when local systems arent mature.

PRC has a massive local program with minor imports. India has a massive import program (#1 in the world) and little to negligible local program. Do we need to match PRC dollar for dollar? Well we're nowhere near to managing that and with the current decline in industrial growth, that will remain elusive in the near term. Wouldn't it be better to invest in force multipliers then?
This all boils down to MOD, lack of direction there and firm instructions to IAF. Also, lack of support from MOF. That we'll fund the rest if you go local and anyhow IFR are required and desi AEW&CS will return the money spent upfront, in lifecycle costs.

Sure we all like to blame the babus and not without reason. But who called the LCA a three legged cheetah or a Mig-21++. Who spent tons of money on underpowered Jags as replacement to underpowered Maruts that IAF still was looking to re-engine.

I think we are all grown ups here and understand how things operate in India.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18534
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 14 Sep 2019 01:54

Vivek K wrote:Karan ji, with all due respect - how does one maximize bang with 6 times more expensive aircraft? Isn't buying Rafales exactly the opposite of maximizing "bang for buck"?


You have less money. Will you buy more of less capable platforms or one platform which can (theoretically) do "far more"? Even with their budget troubles, never forget the PAF built up a core of F-16s with all the expensive upgrades.

Isn't it strange that with their limited resources, they have more AWACS/AEW than us? Aren't they then following a more efficient strategy? Couldn't we spare a whole bunch of money by not throwing it on expensive a) Rafales, b) Expensive M2K upgrade (without re-engine)


Their strategy has pros/cons. Pro is they get to face off against us. Con is they know it, we know it, they are not really a head on peer. Our problem is we can't match PRC and Pakistan without investing in expensive state of the art platforms.
Rafales - jury is out. I can work out half a dozen ways the IAF could have spent the money, but clearly IAF just went for the easiest option given our procurement system & the fact they just didn't want to risk any more effort in teething troubles with complex upgrades. The IAF and MOD are clearly just not set up to do things in a different manner. So they went with what they thought offered the quickest and easiest answer. Also, the Rafale will be a "x" factor vs the PRC. They have an idea of how Russian systems and associated tactics work. Not so for the Rafale.

M2K upgrade - I support it. Its a very valuable addition, and actually provides us capability against the emerging VLO threat in the region. It also prevented PAF from getting its hands on the JF-17 upgrade program, which would have made the JF-17 a very nasty opponent in many respects.

Sure we all like to blame the babus and not without reason. But who called the LCA a three legged cheetah or a Mig-21++. Who spent tons of money on underpowered Jags as replacement to underpowered Maruts that IAF still was looking to re-engine.

I think we are all grown ups here and understand how things operate in India.


Yes, there is a bias in sections of the services, but we must also realize that the security threat India faces is massive & losing a war is not an option. This forces the services to constantly hanker after what they think are proven, war winning tools. Balancing the two (purchases and indigenization) requires a growing economy.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 14 Sep 2019 02:11

Karan ji - not disagreeing with you. However, 3 Rafales for a squadron of LCAs does not seem a wise choice. With time, DRDO/HAL/Indian MIC will develop an Asta NG/Mk2/3/4/5.... (especially if services work them and place large orders) that would be as good or better than AMRAAM. And the addition of newer radars/missiles/avionics on LCA does not carry a price tag of billions. OTOH upgrading a $225 million Rafale will cost roughly as much money (as we have seen in the M2K upgrade).

So spending on your own MIC - will not lead to defeat (that's what I understood from the above, apologies if this is incorrect understanding) but will build up your economy to help you develop even better products. And if buying from suppliers can stop Pakis from getting their hands on critical equipment then how come the JF-17 is flying on engines from our great friend - the mother of some posters on the forum? Is France then a better friend than Russia?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7169
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 14 Sep 2019 02:27

Vivek K wrote:And if buying from suppliers can stop Pakis from getting their hands on critical equipment then how come the JF-17 is flying on engines from our great friend - the mother of some posters on the forum? Is France then a better friend than Russia?

I believe this aspect was included in discussions with the French during the M2k upgrade. I don't remember ever hearing that we made a concerted effort to stop the Russians from selling the RD-93 to the pakis by threatening our own procurements with them. Not sure if that would have worked either since we would have had a lot to lose ourselves if we carried out that threat.

If France or RUssia were "friends" we would not have to threaten either of them anyway. Everyone is out looking after their own interests.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18534
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 14 Sep 2019 02:31

Vivek K wrote:Karan ji - not disagreeing with you. However, 3 Rafales for a squadron of LCAs does not seem a wise choice. With time, DRDO/HAL/Indian MIC will develop an Asta NG/Mk2/3/4/5.... (especially if services work them and place large orders) that would be as good or better than AMRAAM. And the addition of newer radars/missiles/avionics on LCA does not carry a price tag of billions. While upgrading a $225 million will cost roughly as much money (as we have seen in the M2K upgrade).


The LCA can't range deep into PRC, which the IAF thinks the Rafale can. I would have bought the LCAs & freed up Su-30s for the PRC sector & upgraded them with Israeli if not Russian kit. But the IAF is just not set up for stuff like this. Also, they wanted something "ready" vs debugging a new product/upgrade.

So spending on your own MIC - will not lead to defeat (that's what I understood from the above, apologies if this is incorrect understanding) but will build up your economy to help you develop even better products. And if buying from suppliers can stop Pakis from getting their hands on critical equipment then how come the JF-17 is flying on engines from our great friend - the mother of some posters on the forum?


What I am pointing out is that for countries in our position, you have to do both. The Chinese for sure, did not only depend on indigenization. Whatever was indigenized was also actually a derivative of someone else's design - the Lavi from the J-10, their AI radars from Phazatron templates and so forth.

And buying suppliers does not always work out, but it must be remembered that under MMS, the pro-US tilt had the Russians angry. This is the risk you run. Modi today is balancing the Russians vs the French vs the Americans. Can't please them all. So you have to develop systems that can outperform whatever they give.

Which brings us to the chicken and egg problem. How do you develop, if you keep buying from outside? Which is why I said - its the economy, if you are rich enough to do both (as the Chinese were), you can gradually, over time, start moving to an indigenous basis. In our case, we too have started our path. Look at the following and tell me, do you still think complaining 24/7 is justified:

1. Akash follow on orders (above the first 8 squadrons) - again, over the original plan for an imported SRSAM
2. Akash 1S orders for IA - again, over the plan to import a MRSAM
3. MRSAM order for IA - again, vs plans to buy a Buk M3 etc, significant indigenous content
4. QRSAM D&D for IA - again, putting plans for an imported Pantsir etc on the backburner
5. Tejas orders for 40, and now 83 (at least in the next few months): First, resuscitating a program which was to be cancelled for a Tejas Mk2 which the IAF was still unhappy with, and a new Tejas Mk2 which is now planned for 200 odd units (a dozen squadrons), and the IAF has signed onto this program. At the very least, you will have 123 Tejas and a Mk2 funded D&D program which has + ramifications for the AMCA (and this only happens if no Mk2 is developed in any reasonable timeframe and delayed by a decade, which is very unlikely)
6. Dhanush, Sarang & ATAGs for IA: All 3 significant
7. Privatization of ammo orders: I have already posted on this in the past
8. Local BPJ, MPATGM, LUH etc.
..
I won't post on the umpteen radars, EW etc - my prior posts have it.

My point is that things are hardly as bleak as you make them out to be. If pvt sector starts making ammo, all I'll say is sirji, get a bottle of Amrut!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18534
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 14 Sep 2019 02:35

About AWACS - returning back to thread topic. Please post anything about AWACS India if you come across it.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 533
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby souravB » 14 Sep 2019 03:03

Karan M wrote:C-295 AEW&C (the Israeli package on the C-295)

4x workstations (low for IAF)
--snip--

Karan sir, For future use, IAF should be looking into offsite processing via satellite datalink and control. More workstations can be provided in a CCS node.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18534
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 14 Sep 2019 03:09

The AEW&CS have a Ground Exploitation System - which handles some of the heavy processing offboard & then datalinks back to the IACCS.
GES is a mobile shelter that can be deployed in tactical field areas and acts as an interface between AEW&C and IACCS . GES receives air situation picture from AEW&C system and communicate commands of the IACCS to the AEW&C system.


But always, you want to minimize latency. F-16 pilots in Operation Desert Storm, turned off their encrypted mode in their radios because of the latency issue!

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2437
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 14 Sep 2019 04:16

Karan M wrote:C-295 AEW&C (the Israeli package on the C-295)

4x workstations (low for IAF)
360 degree radar (good!)
260knots cruise speed (vs ERJ-145s 450 knots), not great!
11 hours endurance (excellent, vs ERJ-145s 5 odd hours)
Alt, 25000 feet (vs ERJ-145s 37000 feet), the radar range will be a healthy 200 odd nm.

The cruise speed is an issue but not an insurmountable one by any means. Basically, send in replacements early.

Lets compare to the SAB-2000, all back of the envelope onlee:

Cruising speed: 260 knots vs 340 knots (no surprise, the SAAB was a turboprop airliner)
Endurance: 9.5 hrs vs 11 hrs (+ for the C-295)
5 OWS (vs 4 on the C-295, we could likely fit in more if IAF so desires)
Radar range: 350km vs fighter sized targets (the desi AEW&C has achieved far more in its extended range search mode).

My conclusion: the C-295 is a good pocket AWACS provided we can fit in the extra ESM sensors etc (no idea of volume) & its aerodynamics are not further compromised.


>4x workstations (low for IAF)

I have seen eight operator stations for C295. The cabin is 41 feet in length. Allowing for atleast 6 / 8 * 3-4 feet for each station (18-32) feet required space.

>11 hours endurance (excellent, vs ERJ-145s 5 odd hours)

the ERJ has close to 10 hours endurance in special operations missions mode (AEW/MPA). I had earlier posted brazilian af running 10.5 hour missions on these erj planes.

>Alt, 25000 feet (vs ERJ-145s 37000 feet), the radar range will be a healthy 200 odd nm.

Your calculation sound about right, but the max I think is 30,000 feet.

Radar Horizon range is 245(@30000ft) miles vs 272 (@37000 ft) miles if the aircraft of interest is on the ground and taking off.
Radar Horizon range is 386(@30000ft) miles vs 413 (@37000 ft) miles if the aircraft of interest is at @10000 ft.

Both are pretty respectable in my opinion for our purposes.

Your conclusion sums it rightly so, but there maybe space to add more things in these puppies plus you get a full 360 degree for deployment outside your airspace. Although the reaction time and time to station won't be that great..

Check email for slide.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3836
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 14 Sep 2019 07:29

Karan M wrote: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:
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


Lack of proper planning. That's the only thing I can say because I come from business end of things and for any organization building a product, it is inexcusable that you don't understand the market you are selling to.

The IAF is the DRDO's sole customer for Netra so why use a platform they won't support? Read the CAG article I posted. IAF personnel embedded in the program stated flatly the Embraer was not the right plane! But they still built it on the 145 so why does anyone expect the IAF to support them now?

The truth is our whole AEW program is haphazard. We are simply horrible at planning. In fact, it was chini planning not ours that there are IAF Phalcons to begin with. Remember, the Phalcon was a Chinese program -- it was they who paid the Israelis for the conversion of the Il-76. If it weren't for the pure luck of America putting a stop to the Phalcon going to Cheen we would be in an unimaginable hole today.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7373
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 14 Sep 2019 12:37

Chola,
Was the platform selected by DRDO or somebody else? Why was it stopped at 3? We all know the answers. Neither IAF nor DRDO is at fault, as usual.

Karan,
You left out a few pointers.
Range,
fuel consumption,
cost of operation (partly overlaps with fuel consumption)
Cost of platform+modifications
While IAF needs to plan for war, like the IN, we also need to plan for peacetime. Which is a more efficient use of our money? We need to be collecting elint over Tibet given how much activity ramp up is happening, not just in the PLAAF but also ground forces.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11248
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 14 Sep 2019 12:43

Yup but IAF needs to Augment numbers and not just wait for Uptopian A-330s, if C-295 based Netra's can give the numbers they should go for it. This can relive the Phalcons in some areas for 24 by 7 duty.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2964
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 14 Sep 2019 12:47

This is a combat tested system, could serve as an export package

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3412
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 14 Sep 2019 15:40

Are there any updates for the DRDO AWACS ? .. apparently suggestions were to standardize the AWACS fleet on them ? Netras being some kind of "stop gap" solution


Image



https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2019-03-28/india-renews-indigenous-awacs-efforts

Six next-generation longer-endurance AWACS aircraft based on the Airbus A330 platform were proposed years ago and received approval and clearance in principle. They are awaiting a final nod from the ministry of defense. Larger and offering a higher operating altitude than the EMB-145s, the first two A330 platforms are part of the first phase of the program and will be fitted with an indigenous radar. Based on negotiations related to the first two A330s, four additional A330s are in the pipeline. Easwaran said work on “critical technology for the A330 AWACS had started,” and he hopes “it will be cleared in a few months.”

Meanwhile, S. Christopher, the retired chairman of DRDO and director of the Centre for Airborne Systems, told AIN that the radome and the antenna for the Netra had been developed within the country. “We believe the rest of things can move fast provided sanction is given,” he added.

Challenges could arise in adapting the current radar system and moving from a 24-tonne to a 200-tonne platform, with the radar expected to require more power and endurance. The Embraer Netra system employs a two-sided “sword” antenna array, whereas the larger aircraft would have a triangular antenna array

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18534
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 14 Sep 2019 15:53

Cybaru wrote:>4x workstations (low for IAF)

I have seen eight operator stations for C295. The cabin is 41 feet in length. Allowing for atleast 6 / 8 * 3-4 feet for each station (18-32) feet required space.


Well, also have to add in all the cabinets for the radar, ESM etc, operator rest area/ galley/loo.. space gets used up fast.

>11 hours endurance (excellent, vs ERJ-145s 5 odd hours)

the ERJ has close to 10 hours endurance in special operations missions mode (AEW/MPA). I had earlier posted brazilian af running 10.5 hour missions on these erj planes.


Ours have 5.5 hours w/o IFR going by memory..

>Alt, 25000 feet (vs ERJ-145s 37000 feet), the radar range will be a healthy 200 odd nm.

Your calculation sound about right, but the max I think is 30,000 feet.

Radar Horizon range is 245(@30000ft) miles vs 272 (@37000 ft) miles if the aircraft of interest is on the ground and taking off.
Radar Horizon range is 386(@30000ft) miles vs 413 (@37000 ft) miles if the aircraft of interest is at @10000 ft.


I just took AF tech's site on the C-295 and rounded off.

Both are pretty respectable in my opinion for our purposes.

Your conclusion sums it rightly so, but there maybe space to add more things in these puppies plus you get a full 360 degree for deployment outside your airspace. Although the reaction time and time to station won't be that great..

Check email for slide.


Wokay.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18534
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 14 Sep 2019 15:58

Range & endurance are heavily correlated. Basically take endurance as the amount of time it can remain in the air at cruising speed. You have both above.

IMHO, the latter is more critical for an AEW and the max range of the C-295 is 5600 odd km vs the ERJ-145s 2900 odd km, matches the difference in endurance!

The cost part is immaterial/moot because of a very simple reason - you don't have the option of going back to the ERJ-145 & the operating costs of the longer endurance C-295 will automatically be (+)'ly affected by the fact that you don't require IFR to keep it in the air.

What must also be understood is we're talking of a relatively cheap picket AEW&CS. This will have limitations against the emerging crop of LO/VLO designs PRC is working on. That is another + for Phalcon & AWACS India, but the challenge is of course, if you don't have funds for those, what are you going to do till then.

Prasad wrote:Karan,
You left out a few pointers.
Range,
fuel consumption,
cost of operation (partly overlaps with fuel consumption)
Cost of platform+modifications

ashthor
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 11:35

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby ashthor » 14 Sep 2019 16:54

May be Embraer can be asked to pay a fine for an order of 10-12 aircraft's. Quickly build up the nos while the
chappati come. Once alternates come in they can be sold to friendlies.

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 790
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby krishna_krishna » 14 Sep 2019 18:51

Just few points, ever wonder why no.2 was delayed while IAF took delivery of No.1 and one was supposed to stay with DRDO for its own development.

I believe # 1 and later after feb 27 the one for DRDO was quickly transferred to IAF.

Recently no.2 also got transferred. I believe no.2 is incremental better than #1 and 3 because as per suggestions from IAF based on their usage they suggested some changes they want in No2. So I believe there is already some learning implemented.

What I suggest is a realistic path forward:

1) IAF agrees to lease more Netra from CABS&DRDO, with incremental upgrades pay based on performance
2) IAF can choose to get new AWACS later and DRDO should be able to sell these to another country after overhaul if IAF does not need it.
3) That way IAF is not down with paying upfront, DRDO gets monies back. DRDO also retains know how and technology capability building with combat proven systems.

Offcourse GOI will have to finance cost temporarily. This is the most realistic achievable solution that help exchequer and IAF in short and long term

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2138
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 14 Sep 2019 19:32

Even better - why not IAF lease Rafales and pay a nominal sum say the price of an LCA and pay the difference only when they actually prove themselves in battle!

Leasing cannot work. You’re ok paying $225 million for imported goods but when it comes to paying for local stuff - you’re playing games buddy! That’s not the way India will ever sustain or even have a local MIC.

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 790
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby krishna_krishna » 14 Sep 2019 19:43

Vivek K wrote:Leasing cannot work. You’re ok paying $225 million for imported goods but when it comes to paying for local stuff - you’re playing games buddy! That’s not the way India will ever sustain or even have a local MIC.


I agree with you 50000% buddy, I do not want to criticize IAF more than I have already done. This is about finding a way forward.

Recently Banglore firm created sniper rifles totally for export, if our armed forces are not going to support desi products then other options is
:

1) No Desi capabilities
2) VS capabilities that cater to the world. (In this case at least the country has the capabilitiy that is far better than what these crap imports bring over a period of time). There are so many cases Arjun better than T90 tin cans, Akash better than (was) planned imports SAMs, netra AWACS better than erieye so on and so forth.

Unless things change within armed forces thinking this stalemate will continue and so will be the capabilities will suffer.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2583
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 14 Sep 2019 20:40

I think one reason IAF has not agreed for India AWACS yet, is that it wants CABS to concentrate on getting Netra inducted first with all the requirements implemented. The delay in inducting the second netra, tells us IAF made CABS work hard.

CABS being R&D, will have temptation to jump on the next shiny toy. CABS is not Boeing/LM sized org, where it can work on two AWACS programs at once.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4304
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 14 Sep 2019 21:03

^^^
Work happens in parallel. Official sanctioning (i.e. funding) apart, R&D is a multi-year effort over many aspects that go on to become an end product like Netra or AWACS-I. Pieces build upon previous gains.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20118
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 14 Sep 2019 22:43

Why the A-330 is being touted when the IL-76 ( new upgraded version) is being acquired for our two extra
Phalcons , far cheaper too, beats me.Allegedly, the A-330 option was turned down on the cost factor in comparison with the Ru bird previously so a new strategy- wanting only a twin-engined bird, ostensibly cheaper to operate, is
a device allegedly to sideline the Ru bird. We might as well order more Phalcons for commonality anx cost- effectiveness in operating just one type of AWACS! It makes little sense to have 5 Phalcons and around the same number of a diffetent platform, if the IL-76- which has performed superbly for decades, accident free too, is a gas- guzzler!
Why then order the extra two in the first place?

Netra's usefulness is that it allows us to field larger numbers at various operational zones at lower cost, which with in- flight refuelling allows it longer time on station too. A very useful asset complementing our larger AWACS.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 275
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby pushkar.bhat » 15 Sep 2019 10:54

@Phillip A-330 for Indian AWACS and IL-76 for Phalcon. Indian AWACS better based on the A-330.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Atmavik, Balaji, Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, shobhits89 and 21 guests