Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Aug 2013 16:18

I always knew despite the initial hoopla, getting a IOCed product would be a big challenge.

hope its not another IJT...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Aug 2013 16:56

If I'm not mistaken,we are getting two more Phalcon AWACS to add to the three from Israel mounted on IL-76/476 platforms.THis makes 5.We then have several EMB-145 platforms for the desi CABS radar.Number?
After this comes our desi AWCAS to replace Israeli ones,because of very high cost,with a platform likely to be the A-330/winner of the tanker contest for uniformity.I don't know why the MTA has also not been considered for an AEW/AWACS platform.In a Livefist page,one of the roles mentioned is an AWCAS role.It has a range of 2500km

Here is an IDR feature,extract on the IAF's "force multipliers":

he fleet of IL-76-based AWACS aircraft is being augmented by a fleet of Embraer-145 based Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system aircraft which will provide the second tier of airborne surveillance feeding information to the AWACS operating as the ADDC. This semi-indigenous system has been developed through collaboration between Embraer of Brazil that has provided three Embraer 145 jets as the basic platform for $210 million and the Centre for Airborne Systems (CABS), a laboratory under the Indian Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) that provides the radar system with Active Array Antenna Unit (AAAU), various other sub-systems and associated equipment. The total cost of the project for three AEW&C systems is estimated at Rs. 1.8 billion. The first of the three AEW&C aircraft contracted for arrived at Bangalore, India, in August 2012 for integration of the radar and further testing before its induction into the IAF. Two more systems are to follow and are expected to be delivered by 2015, some three years behind the originally envisaged schedule. These platforms will provide a 240-degree surveillance coverage over a distance of up to 375km and the aircraft would be able to on station continuously for five hours.

The IAF is going in for a major upgrade programme for its fleet of Searcher Mk II and Heron UAVs…

The long term requirement of airborne surveillance aircraft for the country, i.e. a mix of AWACS and AEW&C aircraft is assessed as a minimum of 20 platforms. So far, a total of eight platforms have been contracted for of which four have already been inducted. Three of these are operational.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

With increasing reliance on technology and automation in warfare, indications are that air forces the world over as also in India, will become increasingly dependent on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). The IAF currently operates the Searcher Mk II and the Heron for surveillance and reconnaissance. It also operates the Harop or the Harpy Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAV) designed to home on to enemy radar emissions, destroying both itself and the enemy radar. These unmanned aerial systems can loiter over a battlefield and can be used against high value targets as and when the opportunity arises. These systems can also be employed for Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) missions. All these platforms are from Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and the induction began with the Searcher Mk II after an agreement was entered into with IAI in 1996. The IAF also operates the Lakshya manufactured by the DRDO which serves as towed aerial targets for live fire training.

India announced that it wanted to develop combat drones (UCAVs) by arming the future Rustom H

With the help of IAI, the IAF is going in for a major upgrade programme for its fleet of Searcher Mk II and Heron UAVs. After the upgrade, the IAF will be able to operate the UAVs from thousands of miles away through satellite communication data link.

The IAF has floated a tender for 60 UAVs for which two Israeli firms, including Innocon and Blue Bird Aero systems have expressed their interest in offering their unmanned aerial systems. The Israeli UAV manufacturer Innocon in collaboration with an Indian partner has offered the ‘Spider’ for the Indian UAV tender. Weighing 2.5kg without payload and battery, the ‘Spider’ UAV has an endurance of 30 mins.

The ADE is developing the largely indigenous Rustom II which will be in the same class as the Predator of the US.

Blue Bird which is involved in the design, development and production of tactical unmanned aerial systems, is offering its one-kg Micro B air vehicle. Blue Bird also has an agreement with Bangalore’s Dynamatic Technologies Ltd. for the manufacturing, assembly and marketing of mini and micro tactical UAVs in India. The Indian tender stipulates that the weight of the UAV itself should not exceed 5.50lb and the maximum all up weight at 33lb. The IAF has also submitted a request for information to international suppliers for an Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) with low radar cross-section, high service ceiling, an expected range of 500nm (925 km) and the capability to carry precision-guided weapons in an internal weapons bay.

On the indigenous front, the Bangalore-based Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), a laboratory under the DRDO, in collaboration with HAL and Bharat Electronics Limited, is developing a Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAV designated as the “Rustom 1”. This UAV will augment and ultimately replace the IAI Heron. After a shaky start, the flight test phase is progressing well. The Rustom 1 will be capable of missions such as reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, target designation, communications relay, battle damage assessment and signal intelligence.

The ADE is also developing the largely indigenous Rustom II which will be in the same class as the Predator of the US. It will field advanced capabilities, additional payloads and an endurance of 24 hours. Maiden flight is scheduled for February 2014 and the $342.25 million Rustom II project for ten Rustom-2 UAVs, spare vehicles and support equipment is planned to be completed by August 2017. Also on the drawing board at the ADE is an Autonomous Unmanned Research Aircraft dubbed as the AURA which essentially is a UCAV. Meant for induction into the IAF and built on the “Flying Wing” concept, the AURA UCAV will be a tactical stealth aircraft, with large percentage of composites in the airframe, would have internally carried weapons and would be capable of delivering laser-guided air-to-surface weapons. It would be powered by a turbofan engine.

How the IAF copes with the challenges in the future will hinge substantially on the quality and integration of entire range of Force Multipliers…

Another novel concept the ADE is working on is the development of a solar powered High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UAV capable of carrying a payload of sensors weighing up to 50kg for surveillance and reconnaissance tasks. This will be an all-weather, long-range, high endurance UAV with sorties at an altitude of 30,000 feet and lasting up to 30 days. It will have specially designed solar panels to provide power by night and in cloudy weather conditions from the reserve of energy generated earlier and stored in fuel cells.

There's a good comprehensive look at the entire modernisation plans of the IF at this link.

http://www.defencereviewasia.com/articl ... -Air-Force

Mahesh_R · Post by **Mahesh_R** » 17 Aug 2013 17:36

JTull wrote:Up!

Any update on AEW (Emb-145)? It's going to be 1 year since CABS received the first aircraft.

I had seen one landing in Blore old airport on Aug 14th also daily Atleast 4 times LCA's landing and take off ...
Will try to get some snaps next time

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Aug 2013 18:35

I always knew despite the initial hoopla, getting a IOCed product would be a big challenge.

hope its not another IJT...

{OT alert}

Multiple issues, common to all is testing/certification. Both of which needs a process. If the process is agreed upon, then the time consumed is relative small, else they have to establish an agreed upon process, then go through it, tweak the process if need be (more than likely for first timers) and re-go-through-it-again. Until it is well established. Any new features in any of the components being tested could trigger a go-through-it-again.

IF most of the products come from abroad one can borrow the certifications from them and India does not have to test them in-house. Else, .................

I THINK where all this being held up is in two areas: 1) India wants to be self-certified, that is not really rely on outside entities to certify products. A very good thing, but extremely time consuming, not to speak of the cost, and 2) One cannot get around design issues. In a product like the IJT, who knows what the impact is on A, when B changes. Since Indian agencies are doing a lot of things for the first time, the chances of something going wrong are excruciatingly high.

BUT, IF India wants to be self sufficient and a leader, there is no way out. 30 years for a good LCA is worth the while. One has to listen to the rants from all and just plod along to get the job done, SO THAT the future is brighter.

Of course the down side is that the user gets impatient (naturally, understandable) and BRiet's feathers get flustered.

BTW, THAT was why I would think the FGFA was worth the $5.5 billion in the R&D/Design phase FOR the twin seater. And, since that entire effort has been squashed is the reason why I do not think the FGFA is worth it from a design PoV - IAF needs numbers and it is a great plane that is fine. In the current effort Indians will not get to learn from the design/certification/test phase of a 5th gen product.

kit · Post by **kit** » 17 Aug 2013 21:28

any naval variant of the indian aew&c ?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 03 Nov 2013 18:01

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 21 Jan 2014 16:49

Indigenous 'eye-in-the-sky' being developed for Indian Air Force
http://twocircles.net/2014jan21/indigen ... force.html
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... _AWACS.htm
By Gulshan Luthra, IANS,

New Delhi : An indigenous AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System), that enables the Indian Air Force (IAF) look up to 400 km into Pakistan and China while remaining in the safety of its own airspace, should be available by about 2020, its developer says.

Avinash Chander, head of India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Scientific Adviser to the defence minister, told India Strategic (http://www.indiastrategic.in ) in an interview that some initial capabilities had been achieved and it is now natural to progress towards creating this tremendous force-multiplier for the IAF, which currently has three AWACS and has projected a requirement of 10 in the next decade.

The radar, the key element of the AWACS, will be a rotating rotodome with electronic scanning, and as the space requirements for the equipment are considerable, DRDO was looking at either the Boeing-767 or Airbus A- 330 as the platform.

There have been some discussions with their manufacturers on what can be done. Once the specifications are frozen and government sanction obtained, an Expression of Interest would be invited from them, and then an RfP (Request for Proposals - or tender) would be issued.

The development of the radars and sensors would continue in parallel. After that, the key task and challenge would be their integration on the aircraft.

"Our design works are progressing but the key is the integration of the equipment on the aircraft," Avinash Chander observed.

The three IAF AWACS comprise the Israeli Phalcon radar mounted aboard a Russian IL-76 aircraft.

Two smaller Airborne Early Warning Systems fitted on Embraer 145 aircraft should also be with IAF by mid-2014.

But numbers are important as not all aircraft can be in the air all the time and IAF has large areas to scan all around India.

As for the rotodome, Chander explained that the static radars, which scan electronically, have some limitation of a blind area as it is fitted on the fuselage of an aircraft. With a rotating dish - or antenna - it can cover 360 degrees.The radar being developed by DRDO will have both physical rotation and electronic rotation of the radar waves, Avinash Chander said.

Notably, as both the aircraft being looked at are civilian airliners, their maintenance will not be a problem as there are a large number of engineering and technical personnel available in India. The choice of payload in terms of weight and configuration would eventually help decide the choice of the aircraft as well.

The cost of an AWACS depends upon the choice of the platform, that is, the aircraft, onboard systems, effort in technical integration and the numbers required to defray the development expenses, estimated at around $300 million (Rs.18.5 billion) per fully loaded aircraft.

It would be cheaper perhaps initially to buy a ready made system like the Phalcon but if the country is looking at control of technology that the Indian forces would use, then it is imperative to develop it with indigenous systems to the extent possible and integrate it at home. That would raise the cost by at least 25 per cent but ensure a strategic independence in operating it.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 21 Jan 2014 18:06

For commonality with the new refuellers they should go for the A330. OTOH, Japan operates their AEW on B767 so Boeing may have more experience with the antenna housing.

Another good point is that the first CABS AEW should be with the IAF in 2014 if they stick to the schedules.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Jan 2014 17:04

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... _March.htm

But he shared another good news: two Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft developed by DRDO should be delivered to the Indian Air Force (IAF) within six months, or mid-2014.

DRDO developed its own phased array radar, and has put in on board three Brazilian Embraer 145 aircraft. Two will be supplied to IAF, and one is being retained by it for further development of various systems.

“The aircraft has completed various flight evaluation trials, and the communication relays had been fully established and made operational.”

The aircraft are now under radar evaluation in the final tests, and should be ready for delivery in four to six months.

vic · Post by **vic** » 22 Jan 2014 18:02

Personally I think we should go for:-

IL-476 for both AWACS and future tankers. We should also upgrade old IL-76s with PD-14 engines. The said engines will also be used in MRTA. This means a demand of around 250-300 engines which should be license produced in India with ToT.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 22 Jan 2014 18:15

Any news on follow on orders for Emb-145?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Jan 2014 19:17

I agree with Vic.Since an A-330 is being considered,why the IL-76/476 platforms which are already in use on the 3 existing Phalcons are being changed is a mystery.We also have a alrge number of existing IL-76s out of which a couple which have considerable life left in them could be used instead of acquiring a new aircraft if funds are a problem...which doesn't seem to be the case!
The cost of an A-330-200 (range 4000-7,50nm,cargo 70t),the cheapest is reported to be $215+M.In comparison,the cost of an IL-476 which is on order in large number (100+) for the Russians civil/mil, costs just $60M,(with a payload of just under 60t and range of 5000km fully loaded).Here's a note comparing the merits of the C-17 and IL-476.A 767 is around $150-160M.

Interestingly,just like the C-17 which got a new lease of life after Indian orders,767 production was to have ended end 2013 with no new orders.Is this tender announcement another "fast track" salaam and tribute to Uncle Sam by his loyal bootlick regime before it vanishes into history?! The more expensive A-330 by any stretch of the imagination cannot be L-1! Therefore,in any contest between the two,the 767 will win.Why was the IL-476 not considered? A Q for our MPs to ask in parliament.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/il- ... rts-07569/

The new models of the Il-76 indicate a substantial R&D investment and an effort to make the Il-76 a serious competitor (mainly on price, at about $60 million each) with the C-17 (which costs about four times as much and is able to carry up to 100 tons). What the C-17 is best at is carrying about half that weight, half way around the world, non-stop. The Il-76 has a hard time matching that. The C-17 is also easier to maintain and more reliable. But the fuel-efficient Il-476 that can be refueled in the air has a price that's tough to beat.

Therefore,one would be able to get 3 IL-476s for the price of just one 767/A-330,with a heap of spares.engines thrown in as well.With the radar and mission package internally being made in India,the cost would come down considerably,giving us the added advantage of 3 times the number of platforms,boosting our inventory of AEW/AWACS aircraft.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 22 Jan 2014 19:53

IL-76s may have cheaper price tag but have much much higher maintenance cost. IMHO their availability rate is also very low in IAF.

And reliability and affordability of PD-14 (not sure where it stands in terms of certification and production) cannot be compared to CFM engines on Airbus. Its a comparatively new engine and we don't have good experience when it comes to "new engines" + "Russia" (no offense).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Jan 2014 20:07

vic wrote:Personally I think we should go for:-

IL-476 for both AWACS and future tankers. We should also upgrade old IL-76s with PD-14 engines. The said engines will also be used in MRTA. This means a demand of around 250-300 engines which should be license produced in India with ToT.

Philip wrote:I agree with Vic.

The IL-76 is arguably the worst platform we can opt for. There's a reason why refuelers and AEW&C aircraft have been based on commercial airliners instead of C-141s and C-17s.

Its the same reason, airline companies are not lining up outside UAC's door for a passenger variant of the Il-76. Even couriers like Fedex and DHL haul their freight on Boeings and Airbuses.

Over the entire life-cycle, a commercial airliner will always beat the cost of a military cargo aircraft. Additionally, it will deliver greater reliability, higher operational availability and will be able to utilize existing support infrastructure for civilian aircraft.

If cost-efficiency had been the driving factor for them, even the Soviets would have modified the Tu-154 instead of the Il-76.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Jan 2014 21:05

However,just think of the capital cost.If you just add up the annual interest to the price of an aircraft costing 2-3 times as much ,I am sure that life-cycle costs will be cheaper for the Russian bird. The IL-76 has had an excellent record in IAF service,has ferried our crews and support for the aircraft that went to Alaska and the UK for exercises as well.The difference in capital cost is just too much.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Jan 2014 21:18

The spares for Il-76/78 are hard to come by even now. Think about 20 years from now, as the new platforms will last at least that long!

The advantage of going with A330 etc is that there are a few thousands of them still flying worldwide, and will still be flying 15-20 years from now. There is a big civilian maintenance market out there which understands the aircraft very well. And their engines (fuel economy , robustness, MTBO, noise levels etc) is something thing that the Russian engines will find hard to beat.

The fact that IAF is keenly looking for A330 for their refuelling needs tells a lot about Il-78s currently in service, which is basically a derivative of Il-76.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jan 2014 21:30

The IL-76 *had* a great ............. all in the past. In recent past it was a royal pain. And for years now the IAF has said they will replace them.

On IL-476, they were targets for the IAF, until that fizzled too. May be a great plane, but not meant for the IAF (per the IAF). 476 horse stated it will come out in 2018.

The Boeing/Airbus affords sensible maintenance, spares, etc - which is *already* there - in India. IL has not such structure in place in India.

Where did the cost of Western planes as 2-3X come from?

As far as google: IL-476 @ around $115 mil and Boeing @ around $185 mil and A-330 @ around $215 mil (676 and 330 are list prices). Considering that the price for the 476 is for the RuAF, it should be higher for the IAF.

At this point the only plane that seems viable is the MiG-29K, which the IAF will not get because they do not want everything in one basket.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 22 Jan 2014 21:44

Philip wrote:However,just think of the capital cost.If you just add up the annual interest to the price of an aircraft costing 2-3 times as much ,I am sure that life-cycle costs will be cheaper for the Russian bird.

They've gone through the exercise before the A-330 decision, and found it had a cheaper life-cycle cost (which includes acquisition costs).

The IL-76 has had an excellent record in IAF service,has ferried our crews and support for the aircraft that went to Alaska and the UK for exercises as well.The difference in capital cost is just too much.

By most accounts, the IAF doesn't appear eager to persist with Il-76 platform. And if the economics were indeed tilted in Ilyushin's favour, they would have been muscling their way into the passenger aircraft market, not waiting on Russian orders to resurrect the program.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Jan 2014 21:57

NRao wrote:
...
As far as google: IL-476 @ around $115 mil and Boeing @ around $185 mil and A-330 @ around $215 mil (676 and 330 are list prices). Considering that the price for the 476 is for the RuAF, it should be higher for the IAF.

...

Typically, airlines get around 30-40% off the list prices depending on the customer and size of the order. So the western aircraft will not be 2x-3x the size of Ils.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 23 Jan 2014 08:14

A bird in hand is worth a couple in the bush... I am not sure when this IL-476 bird is. Going to hatch and come to a bush near us... Till then let us focus on the bird. In hand... We are in line to buy 6 A-330 based MIRs, maybe we should standardize on that platform for our AWACS... B-767 also has the commnonality advantage with the large fleet in the civilian space.

vic · Post by **vic** » 23 Jan 2014 09:17

Civilian airliners need to fly 7-8 hours per day. While the average flying time of AWACS would be 1-2 hours per day. Therefore the life cycle costs are computed way differently. IL-476 fly away cost would be around USD 60-100 million while fly away unit cost of A-330 or 767 will be USD 200 million.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jan 2014 09:24

vic wrote:Civilian airliners need to fly 7-8 hours per day. While the average flying time of AWACS would be 1-2 hours per day.

Who said so?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jan 2014 09:26

vic wrote:Civilian airliners need to fly 7-8 hours per day. While the average flying time of AWACS would be 1-2 hours per day. Therefore the life cycle costs are computed way differently. IL-476 fly away cost would be around USD 60-100 million while fly away unit cost of A-330 or 767 will be USD 200 million.

Is the IAF considering the IL-476 at all?

From reports they are considering the other two.

And, where did you get these prices from?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 23 Jan 2014 10:55

vic wrote:Civilian airliners need to fly 7-8 hours per day. While the average flying time of AWACS would be 1-2 hours per day. Therefore the life cycle costs are computed way differently. IL-476 fly away cost would be around USD 60-100 million while fly away unit cost of A-330 or 767 will be USD 200 million.

make it 12-13 hours a day. thats the typical utilization of civilian airplanes for scheduled carriers.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Jan 2014 13:13

vic wrote:Civilian airliners need to fly 7-8 hours per day. While the average flying time of AWACS would be 1-2 hours per day. Therefore the life cycle costs are computed way differently. IL-476 fly away cost would be around USD 60-100 million while fly away unit cost of A-330 or 767 will be USD 200 million.

While AWACS and refuelers don't fly as many hours annually as passenger variants, their resulting life is much longer. The last KC-135 (based on the 707) was delivered to the USAF in 1965. But where commercial variants are often flogged out in 20 years, (rebuilt) KC-135s are expected to continue serving till 2040.

MRTTs in IAF service should comfortably serve till 2060. I wouldn't bet on decent operational availability for the Il-78 past 2035, if that. Not to mention, upgrading the A330 will be easier given its widespread usage.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 23 Jan 2014 13:16

I agree, in fact the usage for civilian a/c may be even higher as it makes money only when it is in the air

Taking an extreme example, New Delhi - Chicago direct flight has the plane in air almost 16 hours non stop.It spends little over 6 hours on ground and then heads back.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 23 Jan 2014 22:16

vic wrote:Civilian airliners need to fly 7-8 hours per day. While the average flying time of AWACS would be 1-2 hours per day.

No Offence meant, but you are wrong on both counts... a Civilian domestic airline typically will fly 5-6 short hauls or 2-3 long hauls and making 1 crew change they will easily clock 10-12 hours FLYING time. Taxiing would be another 1-2 hours. An international airline would typically clock 15-20 hours in a 24 hr period. Ex: a DXB-DFW Emirates flies a 14 hr non-stop to DFW and returns to DXB after a 4 hr halt (and change of crew). AWACS would required a on-station time of atleast 5-6 hr, top-up using MIR and return back to its AOR. This is precisely why they need longer endurance, backup crew and MIR... we need a bird which will have a significant loiter time, space for spare crew, long endurance and fuel efficiency. On all these counts, western birds score over IL-76 (or its siblings). Once we factor in uptime, spares and operating costs, the equation gets further skewed against the ILs...

vic · Post by **vic** » 23 Jan 2014 22:32

The average flying hours per day over lifetime of an aircraft is not the maximum flying hours in an operational day. Civilian flights spend lot of time on ground for refueling, cleaning, maintenance, taxing, overhaul, embarking, disembarking, loading, unloading cargo etc. Anyway if you want to say that any civilian aircraft can pull of 15-16 hours of actual flight time per day over it's lifetime then am impressed. Also an AWACS is supposed to pull 500-700 hours of flight time in a year on average over it's life.

If it helps:-

http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/workgroups ... t_FY09.pdf

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 24 Jan 2014 08:07

as per the link the avg hrs is between 8 to 10 hrs per day over the entire lifetime...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jan 2014 08:32

B767 has mostly been retired by airline industry due to some fuel consumption issues. the A330 is newer and expected to serve much longer.
plus we dont want our balls in the hand of khan that badly...albeit a 777-200LR based refueler / AWACS would bring awesome payload and loiter time into the field.
realistically even the B737-800/900 used for the Wedgetail solution looks capable enough of payload/range.

vic · Post by **vic** » 24 Jan 2014 14:51

Even 8-10 hours is for fleet with average fleet age of IIRC 8-10 years. If we take it over a lifetime of an aircraft it will be lower. Anyway on a side note the average flying hours of Indian Tu-142s is around 100-150 hours per years.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 24 Jan 2014 15:35

Singha wrote:B767 has mostly been retired by airline industry due to some fuel consumption issues. the A330 is newer and expected to serve much longer.
plus we dont want our balls in the hand of khan that badly...albeit a 777-200LR based refueler / AWACS would bring awesome payload and loiter time into the field.
realistically even the B737-800/900 used for the Wedgetail solution looks capable enough of payload/range.

Best we standardize on A330 then both for our new refuellers and AWACS after the EMB based tech demonstrators.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Jan 2014 16:03

The EMBs are actually full fledged AEWC aircraft (1 will be retained by DRDO for tech development but 2 are to go to the IAF), and (IMHO) its best we order at least 2-3 more till we wait for Project India to come about. That will (along with 2 Phalcons more as currently in progress) give India a reasonable AWACS inventory of 5+5.

Project India is far more ambitious than the EMB program and is likely to have advanced tech - eg some level of bistatic radar capability.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Jan 2014 16:17

merlin wrote:Best we standardize on A330 then both for our new refuellers and AWACS after the EMB based tech demonstrators.

That would have been best, but unfortunately the A330 doesn't have a AEW&C variant. The British and French operate the E-3 Sentry based on the Boeing 707.

For better or worse, the only platform we can really opt for is the 737 (also employed by Australia, South Korea and Turkey). There are almost 150 Boeing 737s in service in the civilian sector in India, so arranging basic support shouldn't be too expensive.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Jan 2014 16:52

It doesnt matter if there is no A330 variant as long as the OEM is willing to support a development of that variant.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 24 Jan 2014 16:57

Viv S wrote:
merlin wrote:Best we standardize on A330 then both for our new refuellers and AWACS after the EMB based tech demonstrators.
That would have been best, but unfortunately the A330 doesn't have a AEW&C variant. The British and French operate the E-3 Sentry based on the Boeing 707.

For better or worse, the only platform we can really opt for is the 737 (also employed by Australia, South Korea and Turkey). There are almost 150 Boeing 737s in service in the civilian sector in India, so arranging basic support shouldn't be too expensive.

Plus the possibly 24 Boeings P8I 737s to be operated by IN. Wish Boeing had offered an affordable 737 Aerial Refueller version. Would have made it a clincher.

As per this http://www.forceindia.net/Supreme_over_the_Sea.aspx, the IN P8Is retains its receptacle for Boom based refuelling. I assume so do the IAF C17s. I guess A330 gives the option to refuel them as well.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jan 2014 17:09

737 is a shade too small to be a successful refueler....when one talks of keep large a/c like AWACS on station...A330 crushes it in fuel load.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 24 Jan 2014 17:14

The Boeing 767 is an interesting alternative"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-767

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 61ab4a97cb

767s are also available used and lots of parts commonality. The JASDF E-767s have already proved the concept.

Overall, we just need to standardize. Just running the supply chain is a nightmare.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 24 Jan 2014 17:26

Karan M wrote:Project India is far more ambitious than the EMB program and is likely to have advanced tech - eg some level of bistatic radar capability.

I have a noob question here. Can our radars at present be bistatic. Means ground radar is an emitter and AWACS will be receiver and viceversa, enabling targets can be acquired at odd angles.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Jan 2014 17:56

Many issues sir.. timing ones (not synchronized), different radar characteristics (Tx vs Rx frequencies, pulse characteristics etc)...
MIMO radars are in the works but will be the next step after current plans (AESAs for AF/Army/Navy) are completed.