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.
nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2528
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 13 Apr 2019 17:55

Another aspect, IAF really wants the 360 degree AWACS. 240 degree, though cheaper, needs to fly a very obvious flight path (just like Netra did in Balakot strike) and blind spots when looping back.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2137
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 13 Apr 2019 23:20

So keep waiting for the 360 degree AWACS. This is quite pathetic planning. The 360 degrees will come when it comes, they should have gone for additional Netras. Mindblowing poor decision making.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7827
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Mort Walker » 13 Apr 2019 23:35

Vivek K wrote:So keep waiting for the 360 degree AWACS. This is quite pathetic planning. The 360 degrees will come when it comes, they should have gone for additional Netras. Mindblowing poor decision making.


It isn't so much 360 vs. 240, but a larger airframe allows for a larger antenna, more power, scanning across more wavelengths, better resolution and clutter suppression. The IAF needs at least 8 full blown AWACS. Right now it has 3 Phalcons and is awaiting 2 more. With limited resources this is a difficult decision.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18436
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 14 Apr 2019 00:17

I have a simple question. Your opponent has AWACS coverage, you don't. Are you going to wait for a system that outmatches him completely, even if you can't afford it, or take what is available which matches what he has?
Get your 2 Phalcons but buy more Netras. PAF is soon going to have 9-10 AWACS vs our current 5, and even after 2 more Phalcons, it will be 9-10 vs our 7. You have one Netra with DRDO and just buy 2 more.

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 788
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby krishna_krishna » 14 Apr 2019 00:30

Karan M wrote:I have a simple question. Your opponent has AWACS coverage, you don't. Are you going to wait for a system that outmatches him completely, even if you can't afford it, or take what is available which matches what he has?


That is a never ending target, what if two days after you acquire the one that matches they go for something more advanced or worst they get it compromised through back door access from the suppliers who supplied you (case in point Rafale and scorpene subs). Our opponents have been given free bees we do not have luxury. AWACS that were destroyed were refilled for feee. They run a big drug/mafia enterprise to fund their wars/conflicts, what do you suggest we also start parallel enterprise ?

The current conflict should be eye opener for forces, I am sorry Karan but char@de done for indigenous systems is sickening to watch. Even after all this look at the step brotherly treatment mended to "Dhanush" meger peanuts and with ATAGS they got two guns from different Indian vendors/design houses, there is concentrated efforts to kill it through ATHOS (Elbit) who f'ed up in soltam upgrade (Oh upfront cost is cheaper, docent matter they will make up in the lifecycle costs), mind you this all after vetting that these system got is unimaginable to any "imported" system we procured. When they gave up like their shoulders on accepting ceremony they were forced to accept it because they did not have any flaws to point. Same to LCA Tejas and T-90 tincans.

Only when forces were denied "imported" maal either through sancations/suppliers they have accepted the Indian version. That is a fact.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2647
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby JTull » 14 Apr 2019 00:33

We can talk whatever we want, but big difference between AEW/AWACS aircraft and fighters is that there can't be any emergency purchases. There must be 10 year planning for acquisition after the services have charted a technology roadmap of how they see threats evolving.

EMB acquisition smacks of no planning on part of IAF. Even the best case scenario wrt Netra was hopeless. It was a case of:
1. Oh, DRDO cannot do it so why waste resources. Give them min possible.
2. If DRDO succeeds then we'll get 2 but what are the chances of that happening really!
3. One neighbour is buying half a dozen and other is building by the dozens, but let's spend some billions on Apaches and others in the meantime.

No bloody strategy. All emergency or toy purchases only.

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 788
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby krishna_krishna » 14 Apr 2019 00:35

JTull wrote:No bloody strategy. All emergency or toy purchases only.


Yup gravy train/ foreign trips should not stop at any cost.

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby VKumar » 14 Apr 2019 01:03

Mort Walker wrote:
Vivek K wrote:So keep waiting for the 360 degree AWACS. This is quite pathetic planning. The 360 degrees will come when it comes, they should have gone for additional Netras. Mindblowing poor decision making.


It isn't so much 360 vs. 240, but a larger airframe allows for a larger antenna, more power, scanning across more wavelengths, better resolution and clutter suppression. The IAF needs at least 8 full blown AWACS. Right now it has 3 Phalcons and is awaiting 2 more. With limited resources this is a difficult decision.


We need one awacs and one refueller per fighter squadron. Also growlers, sead dedicated aircraft. Maybe similar for helicopter squadrons too. This will greatly leverage existing strength.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 14 Apr 2019 01:16

VKumar wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:
It isn't so much 360 vs. 240, but a larger airframe allows for a larger antenna, more power, scanning across more wavelengths, better resolution and clutter suppression. The IAF needs at least 8 full blown AWACS. Right now it has 3 Phalcons and is awaiting 2 more. With limited resources this is a difficult decision.


We need one awacs and one refueller per fighter squadron. Also growlers, sead dedicated aircraft. Maybe similar for helicopter squadrons too. This will greatly leverage existing strength.


In my opinion, we don't need to. We are fighting over our own territory at the moment as far as pakistan is concerned. It's easier and faster to refuel on the ground and change pilots if need be. It is also easier to task a relief plane on your own soil. The time that two planes refuel in the air, they are useless anyway and three platforms are sitting ducks. Every pilot needs to practice air refueling and be competent at it, so when the need arises he is capable. Fuel costs 10 times more in the air than on the ground. Plus pilots get tired after 2-3 hour sortie and should only be subjected to it if required.

7-10 awacs is plenty for IAF. What we do need is lots of jammers for every plane and escort jammers roughly at 4-6 per squadron and large wide area jammers. Jam communications in large swaths of pakistan if need be.

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby VKumar » 14 Apr 2019 01:27

Cybaru wrote:
VKumar wrote:
We need one awacs and one refueller per fighter squadron. Also growlers, sead dedicated aircraft. Maybe similar for helicopter squadrons too. This will greatly leverage existing strength.


In my opinion, we don't need to. We are fighting over our own territory at the moment as far as pakistan is concerned. It's easier and faster to refuel on the ground and change pilots if need be. It is also easier to task a relief plane on your own soil. The time that two planes refuel in the air, they are useless anyway and three platforms are sitting ducks. Every pilot needs to practice air refueling and be competent at it, so when the need arises he is capable. Fuel costs 10 times more in the air than on the ground. Plus pilots get tired after 2-3 hour sortie and should only be subjected to it if required.

7-10 awacs is plenty for IAF. What we do need is lots of jammers for every plane and escort jammers roughly at 4-6 per squadron and large wide area jammers. Jam communications in large swaths of pakistan if need be.


Thank you. I understand and appreciate the points you made. In case we need to take the fight to the enemy territory, fly long sorties, take off with more weapon load etc we will require better support. Just my view.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2528
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 14 Apr 2019 02:22

All important purchases and development were blocked to fund the "126" Rafale saga. It is only after the 2016 deal, IAF came to senses.

India AWACS was approved by DAC in 2015. If funding was allocated, it potentially could have been flying this year..

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18436
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 14 Apr 2019 03:11

In this case, I was actually agreeing with you. A bird in hand i.e. Netra is >> than perennial wait for expensive imports. At least get parity then think of overmatch.

krishna_krishna wrote:
Karan M wrote:I have a simple question. Your opponent has AWACS coverage, you don't. Are you going to wait for a system that outmatches him completely, even if you can't afford it, or take what is available which matches what he has?


That is a never ending target, what if two days after you acquire the one that matches they go for something more advanced or worst they get it compromised through back door access from the suppliers who supplied you (case in point Rafale and scorpene subs). Our opponents have been given free bees we do not have luxury. AWACS that were destroyed were refilled for feee. They run a big drug/mafia enterprise to fund their wars/conflicts, what do you suggest we also start parallel enterprise ?

The current conflict should be eye opener for forces, I am sorry Karan but char@de done for indigenous systems is sickening to watch. Even after all this look at the step brotherly treatment mended to "Dhanush" meger peanuts and with ATAGS they got two guns from different Indian vendors/design houses, there is concentrated efforts to kill it through ATHOS (Elbit) who f'ed up in soltam upgrade (Oh upfront cost is cheaper, docent matter they will make up in the lifecycle costs), mind you this all after vetting that these system got is unimaginable to any "imported" system we procured. When they gave up like their shoulders on accepting ceremony they were forced to accept it because they did not have any flaws to point. Same to LCA Tejas and T-90 tincans.

Only when forces were denied "imported" maal either through sancations/suppliers they have accepted the Indian version. That is a fact.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18436
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 14 Apr 2019 03:13

nam wrote:All important purchases and development were blocked to fund the "126" Rafale saga. It is only after the 2016 deal, IAF came to senses.

India AWACS was approved by DAC in 2015. If funding was allocated, it potentially could have been flying this year..


This DAC approval has become a sad joke. If Fin Ministry is not allocating funds, these DAC approvals remain on paper onlee. And no 126 Rafale either, just 36 and at least S-400 later but Tejas, Akash orders yet to be placed.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3238
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Kakkaji » 14 Apr 2019 08:30

If we decide to build more Netras, I think the bribery taint on the previous Embraer purchase can be overcome by the GoI doing a G2G deal with the Govt of Brazil.

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Cybaru » 14 Apr 2019 13:23

If embraer is too difficult to acquire get g650 instead, that was the whole point of the analysis, that there are other options available which can help tide us over and might be better than the ej145.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3766
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 14 Apr 2019 13:49

Kakkaji wrote:If we decide to build more Netras, I think the bribery taint on the previous Embraer purchase can be overcome by the GoI doing a G2G deal with the Govt of Brazil.


We need a locally built platform like the C-295:
Image

A damn twin-engine turboprop should be well within our ability to manufacture. Having to buy an overseas aircraft for every development initiative is inefficient not least by providing the babus an avenue to phoren bribery.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Apr 2019 15:57

well they did try on the HS748 but the accident killed it.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6285
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Supratik » 14 Apr 2019 18:20


fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3034
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 14 Apr 2019 18:25

Okay - First disclaimer:- I am going against the grain of the discussion here -

Is the need for AWACS urgent? (Similar to re-fuelers, there is more than what meets the eye. We have 6 IL-78s, but also another 300 SU30MKI and Mig 29s that can refuel, more Big boys are good, but does the current scenario meet current needs?)

I am not at all advocating don't buy more or AWACS are any less effective. And please add more , but if it is not happening; could the reason be that it is okay against the reason being, lack of long term planning or bribery or whatever.

AWACS in NATO makes sense, because they are fighting at distance, in some other country (or during Soviet times, the ground based Radar of NATO was expected to be run over/destroyed).

In case of IAF, we have superb coverage with ground based RADAR, AFNET, IACCS (fusion, God like view). In 1971 it was bad, but perhaps now (speculation alert), with various ground based radars, we can see at least 100-200 KM deep in TSP all along the border, continuously and through IACCS have an integrated view along whole of the border. The amount of radar, processing powers, manpower, redundancy, will be equal to 50-100 IL-76 based AWACS. AWACS only complements it, it has some obvious advantages, it can see a little deeper (we though have very deep looking ground radar), can catch low flying planes (which ground radar will be hard pressed, a definite advantage), will be hard to kill (ground ones are mostly static, at least the command centers).

In Indo pak scenario (not talking China, remember, Tibet is no see level, and china after Dhoklam has grand total of 32 planes, all known ingress an egress points), the likely front of PAF action will be in Punjab and JK (as it was in the current crisis). That front is 200 KM wide, good for 1 AWACS (and 1 for rotation). The other active Air force front in case of a wider war will be in SWAC area, which can be handled by 1 AWACS (1 for rotation). In between (mostly Rajasthan), there is not much to write about for PAF, it is we because of higher numbers hitting them. And point not to be missed, all of that is additionally covered and integrated with multiple ground based radar.

Unless we are thinking of taking on PAF from Afghanistan border, or thinking of taking on some of the PAF supporter in the ME, where we do not have advantage of ground radar, an AWACS will help (then our requirement will be just like NATO).

AWACS is a great solution, but may not be for our problem.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18436
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 15 Apr 2019 12:44

Fanne, AWACS provides coverage against low flying targets which the average ground based radar, until and unless its mast mounted, does not and cannot. Furthermore they are limited by the horizon. It's not a small advantage but a decisive one. Also AWACS us essential to protect our low flying strike aircraft flying into Pakistan as well. Ground based radars are also limited by terrain. You can reposition AWACs to plug those holes easily. While IACCS looks deep into Pakistan, an AWCS provideds critical real time battle management capability.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2528
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 15 Apr 2019 18:44

fanne wrote:Okay - First disclaimer:- I am going against the grain of the discussion here -

Is the need for AWACS urgent?


Yes. We will not be fighting a full invasion with Pak. It will be lot of standoff fights and flanking ops like Balakot.

We will be on constant CAP, with the balloon going up anytime. We need AWACs on air to counter any Pak standoff response, post our attack.

We need to monitor Pak airspace, every inch.

IAF Chief said the same thing today.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/we-were-better-off-in-recent-air-duel-with-pakistan-iaf-chief/758716.html

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18436
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 15 Apr 2019 18:57

Gosh, my assumptions were validated. Feels good.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/natio ... 58716.html

Indian Air Force chief Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa on Monday said India were “better off” in the recent air duel with Pakistan.

He said the Rafale and S400 air defence missiles would restore the technological balance in favour of India, which existed at the time of the last stand-off, Operation Parakaram in 2002.
Speaking at a seminar ‘Aerospace Power in the 2040s: Impact of Technology’, he said air power is more sensitive to technology than the other forces.


I noted this exact point. And had some suspects start complaining. Here you have the IAF head making the same point, so enough cribbing!

“We had successfully hit a non-military target at Balakot (February 26). Did Pakistan achieve its military objective (attempting to hit military targets on February 27)? No.”


For all the congenital whiners spinning yarns about IAF on Feb 27th.

Next point I was making about limited conflicts and how we cannot bring our entire force to bear, i.e. by attacking the PAFs bases all out.

He said technology affected the IAF the most. Purchase of air-borne radars and intelligence gathering platforms would have to be fast-tracked, he said. “In such short skirmishes we cannot bring out numbers to bare, hence the need for more surveillance platforms,” he added.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2870
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 15 Apr 2019 19:04

Karan M wrote:Fanne, AWACS provides coverage against low flying targets which the average ground based radar, until and unless its mast mounted, does not and cannot. Furthermore they are limited by the horizon. It's not a small advantage but a decisive one. Also AWACS us essential to protect our low flying strike aircraft flying into Pakistan as well. Ground based radars are also limited by terrain. You can reposition AWACs to plug those holes easily. While IACCS looks deep into Pakistan, an AWCS provideds critical real time battle management capability.

karan apart from pakistaniyat, is there any reason why pakistan calls its SAAB AWACS whereas India calls Netra AEWCS?
My understanding is that AWACS must have the rotimatic on the top :-)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18436
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 15 Apr 2019 20:19

Its just the same thing. DRDO wanted to (for whatever reason) make a difference between its AEW&CS and the all-up-Phalcon, but actually theres literally zilch difference in practical terms between the DRDO AEW&CS and the SAAB AWACS. Both are the same..

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

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 15 Apr 2019 20:30

We already have 4 gs 650 on order.

Enlarge the order to 24 and be done with it.

Add netra rader on top on some, refueling line and drogue in a few and xv 2004 on the rest.

Where this is a will, there is a way.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3334
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 15 Apr 2019 20:38

nam wrote:Another aspect, IAF really wants the 360 degree AWACS. 240 degree, though cheaper, needs to fly a very obvious flight path (just like Netra did in Balakot strike) and blind spots when looping back.


So what , have two of those in station, better than one 360 high end awacs if that gets shot down and for Pakistan that should be enough given the lack of tactical " depth"

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66600
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Singha » 15 Apr 2019 21:15

as data points, russia has 28 a50 awacs in its kitty, NATO (europe) has around 16 E3, france has 4, UK has 5 and USA has 32.

so India probably could top it off @ 5-6 phalcons and 10 Netra types. will guarantee backups when we need it. they need not fly always, because ground simulators can also be used. but entire IAF can be trained up with these awacs large packages.

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

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 15 Apr 2019 21:29

Any sane operator will choose one middle of the ground aircraft, build relationship with the manufacturer, push for local MRO and depo level maintainance and life extension and order in bulk. Sort of like what Indigo did.

Then put all kind of COTS equipment (equivalent to FOSS from IT world) on it for different missions, be it different kind of radars on top, different kind of sensors on belly, on side, refueling equipment and so on.Sort of like what IA did with BMP.

But noooooooooooooooooooo. We need the best of breed in every category.

Honey, we bought a zoo. IMDB rating 7.1, Ind Mil rating 15 out of 10.

And be perennially unprepared vis a vis our enemies.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby negi » 16 Apr 2019 16:27

Guys who negotiated for Emb got their cut and have moved ; new guys have new relationships to honour . Here relationships govern the purchase not logic.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3334
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 16 Apr 2019 16:58

ArjunPandit wrote:
Karan M wrote:Fanne, AWACS provides coverage against low flying targets which the average ground based radar, until and unless its mast mounted, does not and cannot. Furthermore they are limited by the horizon. It's not a small advantage but a decisive one. Also AWACS us essential to protect our low flying strike aircraft flying into Pakistan as well. Ground based radars are also limited by terrain. You can reposition AWACs to plug those holes easily. While IACCS looks deep into Pakistan, an AWCS provideds critical real time battle management capability.

karan apart from pakistaniyat, is there any reason why pakistan calls its SAAB AWACS whereas India calls Netra AEWCS?
My understanding is that AWACS must have the rotimatic on the top :-)


AEW and C is the correct term, AWACS is the American lingua for the (the original rotimatic :mrgreen: ) Boeing AEW&C, the E3

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4204
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 16 Apr 2019 17:16

Which of these 2 types would be more available in uptime and less expensive in maintenance?

One side Military Cargo planes like C17 & Il-476 types.

VS

Opposite side A-330 or Boeing 767 type commercial passenger aircraft type.

Wiki is giving cruise speed for both il-76 and a330 as 758 kms per hour

Airbus A330neo ("neo" for "New Engine Option") is a wide-body jet airliner developed by Airbus from the Airbus A330 (now A330ceo – "Current Engine Option"). A new version with modern engines comparable to those developed for the Boeing 787 was called for by owners of the current A330. It was launched on 14 July 2014 at the Farnborough Airshow, promising 14% better fuel economy per seat. It will exclusively use the larger Rolls-Royce Trent 7000. Its two versions are based on the A330-200 and -300: the -800 has a range of 8,150 nmi (15,090 km) with 257 passengers while the -900 covers 7,200 nmi (13,330 km) with 287 passengers. The -900 made its maiden flight on 19 October 2017, received its EASA type certificate on 26 September 2018, and was first delivered to TAP Air Portugal on 26 November. The -800 made its first flight on 6 November 2018, aiming for type certification in mid-2019 and first delivery in the first half of 2020.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo

Also lifetime cost of operating can be brought down by using new fuel sipping engines for a330 neo.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2647
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby JTull » 16 Apr 2019 18:56

While we're debating which new OEM we should pay to modify their aircraft for DRDO AEW, there are indications that Saab has delivered 3 sets of Erieye radars and other equipment to Pakis on Apr 9.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1461
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby yensoy » 16 Apr 2019 19:25

chola wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:If we decide to build more Netras, I think the bribery taint on the previous Embraer purchase can be overcome by the GoI doing a G2G deal with the Govt of Brazil.


A damn twin-engine turboprop should be well within our ability to manufacture. Having to buy an overseas aircraft for every development initiative is inefficient not least by providing the babus an avenue to phoren bribery.


That is precisely the problem. Anyone with an aviation industry can build a fine 2 engine turboprop. There is no barrier to entry, and unfortunately since the aerospace industry is often viewed as a blue chip worthy of all sorts of state support, this is exactly what happens around the world. So there are excellent, proven designs being manufactured and sold at very low prices. Would we want to set up an entire R&D facility from the ground up to reinvent the wheel when the wheel is available for a few dollars from multiple sources?

The pseudo-commercial deal with Tata/Casa is a good one in my opinion to build relevant knowledge in-house and bring in up-to-date designs from the world.

Our R&D base is better applied to solutions which are denied to us or are super expensive. Space technology, nukes, ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, fighter jets, EW, that is where GoI/DRDO should focus.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2137
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 16 Apr 2019 22:28

JTull wrote:While we're debating which new OEM we should pay to modify their aircraft for DRDO AEW, there are indications that Saab has delivered 3 sets of Erieye radars and other equipment to Pakis on Apr 9.

The decision to not go for 12-15 Netras will be one that India will pay for in the long run.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2137
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 16 Apr 2019 22:33

yensoy wrote:
chola wrote:
….
Our R&D base is better applied to solutions which are denied to us or are super expensive. Space technology, nukes, ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, fighter jets, EW, that is where GoI/DRDO should focus.

That would be the view of a small country like Pakistan. With its manpower numbers and size and its vast territory, it is surprising to see this mindset from Indians. India needs easy industries like this not only for its defense but also for its economic growth. And then these types of aircrafts will be needed by India in numbers and would be supported by local industries in terms of spares etc.

It is foolhardy to think like Pakistan. India must think like China.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18436
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 16 Apr 2019 22:34

Manish_Sharma wrote:Which of these 2 types would be more available in uptime and less expensive in maintenance?

One side Military Cargo planes like C17 & Il-476 types.

VS

Opposite side A-330 or Boeing 767 type commercial passenger aircraft type..


Key factors for airframe selection, purely technical (not considering strategic or maintenance aspects).

- Decent Cruise speed (cover larger distances fuel efficiently)
- Airframe volume (more operator work stations the better)
- Power generation capacity (more the better)
- Dash speed (to get to station)
- Operating height (correlate with cruise speed, and also high is good for line of sight advantage)
- Climb speed (moderate-high are ok, low is not)
- SFC of engines (time on station)

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 16 Apr 2019 22:39

Karan, have Phalcon radars gone any sort of upgrade since its induction in to IAF? Further, does Israel itself offer any newer versions of the radar? Was not able to find any info on open sources about upgrades.

I remember reading that Saab's GlobalEye is based on GaN AESA modules and hence is able to offer up to 150% increase in performance over Erieyes sets.

The 2 Phalcon radars which India intends to order, are they of the same versions as existing ones?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4204
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 16 Apr 2019 22:44

^ Thanks Karan

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3334
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 16 Apr 2019 23:11

If I remember right the 3 face DRDO aesa AWACS comes with a higher requirement of raw power requiring an additional engine ( cant find the link) ..not sure those 2 engined planes would fit the requirement

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3766
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 17 Apr 2019 04:39

Vivek K wrote:
yensoy wrote:

That would be the view of a small country like Pakistan. With its manpower numbers and size and its vast territory, it is surprising to see this mindset from Indians. India needs easy industries like this not only for its defense but also for its economic growth. And then these types of aircrafts will be needed by India in numbers and would be supported by local industries in terms of spares etc.

It is foolhardy to think like Pakistan. India must think like China.



Exactly, Vivekji. We need to build an industry. It cannot be a few high powered projects here and there which leads to a lab environment where prototypes come from researchers that the industry might or might not be abke to manufacture.

@Yensoy ji, if you think about it there is really nothing that we can't theoretically buy -- from a light turboprop to a fifth gen fighter (SU-57) if we wanted. So what is there that we must build for our own if the philosophy is to put resources only on those we cannot buy?

The fact is almost everything in the industrial pyramid could be bought easily so that things we could have built like turboprops and turbojets and the range of aircraft they power are paid for to someone else.

Let's build what we can too. Not just what we can't.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avinandan, Chinmay, darshand, g.sarkar, TushS and 29 guests