Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 27 Feb 2018 04:12

Kartik wrote:Netra AEW&C

No pics bro.. Reattach?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 27 Feb 2018 07:35

It is danged frustrating to see such paltry orders for this bird. ...

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 27 Feb 2018 09:46

^^^
why is there a disconnect between the maturity of this platform and the number of orders and the requirements of IAF.

someone please break it down to me in simple terms please.
(I understand that it not a proper AWACS like the Indian A-50)

Will · Post by **Will** » 27 Feb 2018 21:53

Khalsa wrote:^^^
why is there a disconnect between the maturity of this platform and the number of orders and the requirements of IAF.

someone please break it down to me in simple terms please.
(I understand that it not a proper AWACS like the Indian A-50)

Because the IAF always wants shiny new phoren maal .Embraer being accused of corruption in the first deal hasn't helped. The IAF has asked for the third bird which DRDO wanted to keep for testing. The only reason being that the addition Phalcon purchase has been delayed. If not who wants local products?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 27 Feb 2018 22:12

Khalsa wrote:^^^
why is there a disconnect between the maturity of this platform and the number of orders and the requirements of IAF.

someone please break it down to me in simple terms please.
(I understand that it not a proper AWACS like the Indian A-50)

Primarily it is because of radar limitations. The smaller platform won’t allow for a high gain antenna. This would need be an antenna with much greater surface area with more TX/RX modules, be able to generate more RF power and receive low power returns, better angular resolution to form a good beam (think of a focused flash light), and to TX/RX at longer wavelengths.

chola · Post by **chola** » 27 Feb 2018 23:11

Will wrote: Because the IAF always wants shiny new phoren maal .Embraer being accused of corruption in the first deal hasn't helped. The IAF has asked for the third bird which DRDO wanted to keep for testing. The only reason being that the addition Phalcon purchase has been delayed. If not who wants local products?

Our biggest problem is the lack of an indigenous transport platform that we can customize to our needs like what the chinis are doing with their Y-8 and Y-7. We need to go out and import a plane (and all of its attendant problems and delays ) for each and every AEW or any other force multiplier.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 28 Feb 2018 00:34

Boss what came first - the chicken or the egg? When you have a design for an AEWC system ready - what is the point or the economy of scale in producing only 2-3 aircraft? Embraer would gladly supply dozens of the aircraft type. Once all these specialty industries are functioning, one could graduate from the Saras to a HS-748 sized aircraft. But why stop at 2-3?

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Feb 2018 02:35

Vivek K wrote:Boss what came first - the chicken or the egg? When you have a design for an AEWC system ready - what is the point or the economy of scale in producing only 2-3 aircraft? Embraer would gladly supply dozens of the aircraft type. Once all these specialty industries are functioning, one could graduate from the Saras to a HS-748 sized aircraft. But why stop at 2-3?

probably the IAF wants a new version ., the Globaleye seems to be benchmark ?

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 28 Feb 2018 23:52

Here we go again on this bright idea

Indian Air Force Wants Home-Grown AWACS To Double As Tanker
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/02 ... anker.html

DRDO-Airbus AWACS

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 01 Mar 2018 00:05

While the idea is interesting, I don't think its worth wasting time and money and delaying this indigenous procurement by decades.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Mar 2018 00:16

Posted by BRF Member Chinmay

-------------------------------------------------------

SaiK wrote:https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/02 ... anker.html
Indian Air Force Wants Home-Grown AWACS To Double As Tanker

I assume the IAF wants the AEWCS to carry refueling pods. Gurus, is that really practical, given that no other nation has thought of doing this?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Mar 2018 00:16

sohamn wrote:While the idea is interesting, I don't think its worth wasting time and money and delaying this indigenous procurement by decades.

The idea is foolhardy. The only interest it serves is that of Roos. That is because this is one smart way to make sure that you buy nothing. Seems roosi inspired so that if IAF does not buy IL-78, they cannot also buy the Airbus offering.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 01 Mar 2018 00:16

Posted by BRF Member Vivek_K

----------------------------------------------------

Chinmay wrote:
SaiK wrote:https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/02 ... anker.html
Indian Air Force Wants Home-Grown AWACS To Double As Tanker
I assume the IAF wants the AEWCS to carry refueling pods. Gurus, is that really practical, given that no other nation has thought of doing this?

Are they serious? Merging two different mission profiles into one? During war, the tankers (IAF has practically none - 6 tankers is a joke) fly in a secure area safely away from the fight. Would one want the AEWC to fly in the refueling corridor? And what about the effect of this on the payload size?

Well, this is one way to make sure that you buy nothing. Seems roosi inspired so that if IAF does not buy IL-78, they cannot also buy the Airbus offering.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 01 Mar 2018 01:25

“We are weighing the possibility of giving it to a nearby country as a diplomatic gesture. Let us see if it works out,” Christopher says.

This is fking incredibly stupid.

nam · Post by **nam** » 01 Mar 2018 01:27

The requirement is about refueling escorts, not general refueling. It is an interesting idea.

Fighters will not have station time similar to a AWACS and it will prevent switch overs. Even LCA can then be used as escorts for AWACS.

May be they also want drop tanks as well for A330?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Mar 2018 02:12

Okay, like someone pointed out earlier the reporter got it wrong. It just means the same platform will be used for both roles. A330 for AEW and A330 for refueler increasing commonality. It ain't possible for many reasons to do both. ALL radars are off during refueling for many many reasons.

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Mar 2018 02:12

Katare wrote:“We are weighing the possibility of giving it to a nearby country as a diplomatic gesture. Let us see if it works out,” Christopher says.

This is fking incredibly stupid.

Sounds interesting. Who would be the neighbor?

Sikkim?
Nepal?
Afghanistan?
Maldives?
Sri Lanka?
Bangladesh?
Iran?
Burma?

First four would hardly have any use for it and the diplomatic gain would be irrelevant. The bottom sfive would be at risk of having chini engineers comb over it.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Mar 2018 02:31

chola wrote:
Katare wrote:“We are weighing the possibility of giving it to a nearby country as a diplomatic gesture. Let us see if it works out,” Christopher says.

This is fking incredibly stupid.
Sounds interesting. Who would be the Neighbor?

How about China

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Mar 2018 02:50

Katare wrote:“We are weighing the possibility of giving it to a nearby country as a diplomatic gesture. Let us see if it works out,” Christopher says.

This is fking incredibly stupid.

It is monumentally stupid.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 01 Mar 2018 02:52

chola wrote:
Katare wrote:“We are weighing the possibility of giving it to a nearby country as a diplomatic gesture. Let us see if it works out,” Christopher says.

This is fking incredibly stupid.
Sounds interesting. Who would be the neighbor?

Sikkim?
Nepal?
Afghanistan?
Maldives?
Sri Lanka?
Bangladesh?
Iran?
Burma?

First four would hardly have any use for it and the diplomatic gain would be irrelevant. The bottom sfive would be at risk of having chini engineers comb over it.

Sikkim is a part of India. Are you a Chinese poster in disguise to include Sikkim amongst our neighbors?

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Mar 2018 02:59

Kartik wrote:
chola wrote:
Sounds interesting. Who would be the neighbor?

Sikkim?
Nepal?
Afghanistan?
Maldives?
Sri Lanka?
Bangladesh?
Iran?
Burma?

First four would hardly have any use for it and the diplomatic gain would be irrelevant. The bottom sfive would be at risk of having chini engineers comb over it.
Sikkim is a part of India. Are you a Chinese poster in disguise to include Sikkim amongst our neighbors?

Yes, you’ve found me out. I would have said Bhutan but years of commie schooling had kicked in and I wrote Sikkim in spite of my need to conceal my identity.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 01 Mar 2018 03:41

commie chola!! 佐拉
Is there any reason you missed out on vietnam or Taiwan? Both would require ordering of monumental amount of pain. After all they would be neighbours of chola empire

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Mar 2018 03:52

^^^ Yes Comrade, Vietnam and Taiwan would be neighbors if the Cholas had kept their empire intact. But those are not nearby countries today. I will rectify once I restart dynasty in the pattern of Democratic Lepublic of North Korea.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Mar 2018 07:16

chola wrote:
Katare wrote:“We are weighing the possibility of giving it to a nearby country as a diplomatic gesture. Let us see if it works out,” Christopher says.
Sounds interesting. Who would be the neighbor?

Sikkim?

Whaa?

Sikkim? Wow! Try and beat that for a historic post on BRF

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Mar 2018 07:33

15 of the emb145 could handily cover our needs from today instead of hanging everything of 5 hyper expensive a330 in ten years ... tankers and awacs dont really mix . Kc45 and mett are already tankers+flex cargo/pax so will supplement transport fleet if needed

Iaf/ia want to be usaf/usarmy on a indian budget thats the problem!! We end up with 5% of their holding and pat ourselves on back for iphone11 ownership as cheen floods the market with iphone7

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Mar 2018 07:37

shiv wrote:
chola wrote:
Sounds interesting. Who would be the neighbor?

Sikkim?
Whaa? Sikkim? Wow! Try and beat that for a historic post on BRF

Eh, all those northeasterners look alike.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 01 Mar 2018 10:52

The neighboring country is probably a middle eastern country, may be Oman.

chola · Post by **chola** » 01 Mar 2018 11:05

abhik wrote:The neighboring country is probably a middle eastern country, may be Oman.

A muzzie nation? Anything sent there will find itself swarmed by chini engineers first and paki beggars after.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1BG1WJ

Oman counts on Chinese billions to build desert boomtown

https://www.thenational.ae/world/beggar ... an-1.10574

Beggars flock to Oman from Pakistan

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Mar 2018 15:01

sri lanka perhaps. i dont see bangladesh getting it.
if we are to export arms, we should learn from the best how to blackbox and tamper proof certain parts of it.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 01 Mar 2018 15:27

Rakesh wrote:Posted by BRF Member Vivek_K

----------------------------------------------------

Chinmay wrote:
I assume the IAF wants the AEWCS to carry refueling pods. Gurus, is that really practical, given that no other nation has thought of doing this?
Are they serious? Merging two different mission profiles into one? During war, the tankers (IAF has practically none - 6 tankers is a joke) fly in a secure area safely away from the fight. Would one want the AEWC to fly in the refueling corridor? And what about the effect of this on the payload size?

Well, this is one way to make sure that you buy nothing. Seems roosi inspired so that if IAF does not buy IL-78, they cannot also buy the Airbus offering.

Might as well add Anti Awacs, Anti Ship, Anti Satellite weapon modules to it...

nam · Post by **nam** » 01 Mar 2018 16:03

Cybaru wrote: ALL radars are off during refueling for many many reasons.

Sure, they have to switch off the radar while refueling the escorts. Switching off the radar on AWACS is a usual defensive process, so nothing new.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 01 Mar 2018 16:18

Sorry.. couldn't resist

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 02 Mar 2018 01:07

Singha wrote:sri lanka perhaps. i dont see bangladesh getting it.
if we are to export arms, we should learn from the best how to blackbox and tamper proof certain parts of it.

I don't know why Srilanka and Oman would need a AWACS, it doesn't make sense considering they have a tiny airforce.

I would bet on Vietnam - as a deterrent to China and giving Xi the middle finger.

kit · Post by **kit** » 02 Mar 2018 01:11

Rakesh wrote:Here we go again on this bright idea

Indian Air Force Wants Home-Grown AWACS To Double As Tanker
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/02 ... anker.html

DRDO-Airbus AWACS

The airbus tanker is also a troop carrier cargo /air refueler ..maybe IAF wants a dual capability ..but risky carrying all those electronic stuff with fuel tanks ??

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Mar 2018 01:49

It ain't happening. Multi tasking for HVAA is a stupid idea.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Mar 2018 02:31

Giving it to Nepal, lets us see 200 kms closer. I presume IAF will have staff for every flight and will man it for them under their colors.

Giving it to Afghanistan and flying it under their banner also serves the same purpose.

Straight out of USAF 1980s SOP! sign 4 letter treaties and staff em with IAF.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Mar 2018 14:12

Cybaru wrote:It ain't happening. Multi tasking for HVAA is a stupid idea.

Then why have they made such a demand? I think the IAF has simulated these scenarios/tactics thanks especially to their experience with buddy refuelling with the MKI, which too is quite multirole - with nominal refuelling and AEW features. This might also be the reason that they have not made so much noise about urgency of more specialist IFR assets and view the induction of more fuel hungry fighters instead.
End result = Multi-role AWACs cum Tanker.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Mar 2018 14:23

You are assuming that the reporter and his report got it right. IAF probably did not make such demands as this would violate sop. They probably asked for common patform for both.

So if the platform is down for whatever reason then all missions fail? It increases the risk of failure dramatically..

nam · Post by **nam** » 02 Mar 2018 15:22

This is what the DRDO chief has stated

Speaking exclusively to Livefist, DRDO chief S. Christopher said, “While we are developing the complete AWACS system based on the Airbus A330 platform, the IAF has asked us to add the refueling capability. This could be for escort aircraft or other situations where such a dual role functionality could be critical. We are in discussions with Airbus regarding this.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/02 ... anker.html

There might be technical issues, however if they overcome it, I think it is a interesting idea. They would probably attach Chobham fuel probes. I don't know if they plan to install fuel tanks in the cargo bay or if it is feasible.

Baseline A330 can fly up to 15 hours and probably carry large amount of fuel. Being an AWACS, it is not really carrying a heavy load. It can definitely fuel escorts. If AWACS should not do anything with "fueling", then someone forgot to mention that, with our Netra flying around with a fuel probe.

How different will be a process of fueling a AWACS against fueling from a AWACS?

It is a good thing IAF is thinking out of the box. Nothing wrong is trying it out and DRDO is a R&D agency. It's job is to try things and give our forces a advantage.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Mar 2018 16:20

awacs refueling its own escorts is a nice idea. it could even help stragglers from recovering strike pkgs who burned lot of fuel in escaping, top them off and send them home.