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.
PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Postby PaulJI » 09 Mar 2008 05:49

John Snow wrote:http://www.bmrexpress.com/IL76.htm

Probably because of STOL in case of emergency landings (in combat situations ) IL76 could be better?...


AWACS aircraft "in combat situations" (by which I presume you mean getting shot at) are dead meat. At that point, they've already failed, & the landing characteristics of the aircraft are unlikely to make any difference to its survivability.

Tactical transports may, in the course of carrying out their role, have to come within range of MANPADS & ground fire, & use short rough strips in danger zones. AWACS should never need to, & if they do, whoever is responsible for putting them in that situation should be in deep, deep trouble.

negi wrote:IL-76 too isn't a bad choice as the rugged airframe and STOL capability means it can be stationed at small airbases close to the border and in areas like leh/laddakh.

Actually imo IL-76 was a natural choice as any civilian carrier would have meant involvement of Unkil (Boeing) or EU(Airbus) and at the time when the AWACS programme was envisaged I don't think anyone would have thought of US/EU involvement in the programme (especially when Unkil was kind of unhappy with Israeli assistance to India's AWACS programme)


Why buy a big, long-range AWACS & station it close to the border? Even Ladakh - more likely to be socked in by weather up there, & high altitude take-off limits T/O weight. Probably better taking off lower down, further away from the border, on a nice long runway, with more fuel aboard.

I'm not puzzled by Indias decision to buy the Il-76 AEW. The radar, airframe, the radome & the mounting of the radome on the airframe had already been developed, & the Il-76 was already in service with the IAF, with obvious logistical advantages. The only competitors which had already been developed were US-made except for the Erieye, & the latter is a more limited system. A fairly obvious choice. My question is why the USSR chose to develop an Il-76 based AEW (& the Phalcon AEW uses the same radome & mounting, AFAIK, though of course the radar inside the radome is different), instead of one based on a Soviet-built airliner.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 09 Mar 2008 06:35

At that time an Airbus platform was the preferred Phalcon ride.

IAF had just test driven a RUian AWAC, and, preferred the Israeli one (US had also intervened to prevent a Phalcon sale to our friend up north). It took some pyar to convince RU to let the Il to be used as the platform with Israeli radars.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 09 Mar 2008 11:04

USSR siberian bases some of them were quite basic and very cold from
novels I read! and probably they expected their major bases to be under
heavy CM attacks. so in a WW3 scenario the IL76 can get in and out of
more places than a Tu/An jetliner.
or maybe it was just a political victory for IL over the other two. the "chief designers" of the leading bureaus didnt always get along well.

huge new MRO facilities for boeing and airbus will come up in next 2 yrs
though mainly for the 737 and A320.

Phalcon radar would need a A330 sized airframe to permit the throw-weight of fuel, people and equipment racks needed to dominate the smaller Ereyie type platforms. dont see why Airbus wouldnt have helped
on the A330 for a fee.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Postby geeth » 09 Mar 2008 15:11

>>>the structural work needed to make a civilian chassis strong enough fora few extra tons rotodome on its back is less than the penalty paid for
having a super strong cargo rated floor all along the hold, bulbous canoe
fairling for wheels and those high strong wings for rough strips, STOL and heavy loads.

The work needed to strengthen the structure for IL 76 would be less than that for a civilian a/c, because, as such the IL-76 is more rugged design.

If you tell Airbus to modify an airliner, how much are they going to charge for the design work and disruption to the production line?

If a super strong cargo rated floor is not required, why would one put it there in the first place? They would obviously opt for a normal floor - the a/c supplied is brand new, and not a converted cargo plane from existing stock.

Bulbous canoe fairings for wheels actually save precious space inside by avoiding the wheel bay in the main cargo area.

The very purpose of having High wings (in this case parasole wings) are to REDUCE the weight. It makes it much more lighter, because a single spar can be used through and through, thereby eliminating the need for extra strengthening at the wing roots. Contrary to the popular belief, the thicker the wing, the lighter it is (for the same lift). Additional advantage is that engines will have better ground clearance and less chances of foreign material to go inside. There are certain other advantages from design point of view for a high drooping wing. Understand big Russian cargo planes use Ground effect to get additional life during take-off.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Postby geeth » 09 Mar 2008 15:17

>>>AWACS aircraft "in combat situations" (by which I presume you mean getting shot at) are dead meat. At that point, they've already failed, & the landing characteristics of the aircraft are unlikely to make any difference to its survivability.

Your understanding is WRONG. in "Combat" situations, major airports and airbases are likely to be hit (atleast you have to think & plan accordingly). So, if your awacs is A-330, B-747 and the likes, it needs a much longers runway (all which could have already been bombed). So they risk the chance of crash landing somewhere...If the runway required is smaller, the a/c can land in some small airfields and still survive.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Postby geeth » 09 Mar 2008 15:22

>>>High-wing designs are inherently heavier than low-wing, & less efficient in cruise.

I don't think you are right about that statement. High wing design reduces weight and a parasole wing further reduces the interference drag.

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Postby PaulJI » 09 Mar 2008 19:44

geeth wrote:...
The very purpose of having High wings (in this case parasole wings) are to REDUCE the weight. It makes it much more lighter, because a single spar can be used through and through, thereby eliminating the need for extra strengthening at the wing roots. Contrary to the popular belief, the thicker the wing, the lighter it is (for the same lift). Additional advantage is that engines will have better ground clearance and less chances of foreign material to go inside. There are certain other advantages from design point of view for a high drooping wing. Understand big Russian cargo planes use Ground effect to get additional life during take-off.


The WING can be lighter, but all the weight gained on the wing - and more - is lost in added weight elsewhere. A low-wing design can use the central wing box as the mounting for the landing gear. This means beefing up the wing box, but the combined structure is still lighter than two separate structures. You should also think about the cargo floor, & how its weight is supported, & how the fuselage has to be designed to support the weight of cargo on both the ground & in flight, & the wing & engines when on the ground, in high & low-wing aircraft. There's a reason why airliners, the designers & buyers of which are obsessed with weight & fuel burn, have low wings.

The advantages of a high wing are all valuable for a tactical cargo aircraft, but of little value for an airliner or AEW aircraft - as I've already said.

strong enough fora few extra tons rotodome on its back is less than the penalty paid for
having a super strong cargo rated floor all along the hold, bulbous canoe
fairling for wheels and those high strong wings for rough strips, STOL and heavy loads.

geeth wrote:The work needed to strengthen the structure for IL 76 would be less than that for a civilian a/c, because, as such the IL-76 is more rugged design.


Probably true, but outweighed by the extra weight elsewhere.

geeth wrote:If you tell Airbus to modify an airliner, how much are they going to charge for the design work and disruption to the production line?


There is no disruption to the production line. They modify airframes elsewhere after build. That's standard procedure, because it's cheaper than messing around on the production line, unless you have a large order (e.g. the P-8). cf Wedgetail, Sentinel, etc. But agreed, in this case there would have been a greater design & development cost, since there was no Airbus aircraft with an already designed & tested radome, unlike the Il-76. As I said before, that's one of the reasons why I think the Il-76 was the right choice for the IAF despite its disadvantages.

geeth wrote:If a super strong cargo rated floor is not required, why would one put it there in the first place? They would obviously opt for a normal floor - the a/c supplied is brand new, and not a converted cargo plane from existing stock.


It is the normal floor for an Il-76. Replace it by something lighter (disruption to production line, design costs . . . :D ), & you probably have to redo stress calculations & re-test.

geeth wrote:Bulbous canoe fairings for wheels actually save precious space inside by avoiding the wheel bay in the main cargo area.


Space which is precious for a cargo aircraft, but more than is needed for an AWACS. Another one of the many ways in which the Il-76 is well-designed for a different role.
Last edited by PaulJI on 09 Mar 2008 20:15, edited 1 time in total.

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Postby PaulJI » 09 Mar 2008 19:48

geeth wrote:>>>High-wing designs are inherently heavier than low-wing, & less efficient in cruise.

I don't think you are right about that statement. High wing design reduces weight and a parasole wing further reduces the interference drag.


See previous post. What you're saying implies that every designer & buyer of airliners is doing it wrong. I'm afraid I think it more likely that you're wrong & they're right than the other way round.

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Postby PaulJI » 09 Mar 2008 19:56

geeth wrote:>>>AWACS aircraft "in combat situations" (by which I presume you mean getting shot at) are dead meat. At that point, they've already failed, & the landing characteristics of the aircraft are unlikely to make any difference to its survivability.

Your understanding is WRONG. in "Combat" situations, major airports and airbases are likely to be hit (atleast you have to think & plan accordingly). So, if your awacs is A-330, B-747 and the likes, it needs a much longers runway (all which could have already been bombed). So they risk the chance of crash landing somewhere...If the runway required is smaller, the a/c can land in some small airfields and still survive.


Unlikely, since that means that all your runways which are long enough (& BTW, nobody has suggested an A330 or B747 for AWACS - try the much smaller A320 or B737 - the B767 is the biggest) & in range are out of action, or shortened to the point of unusability, and that none of your tankers has survived on a runway it can operate from to refuel your AWACS so it can retreat to a more distant, & still usable, runway.

If you've been that badly hit, you've already lost the air war, & whether an AWACS has to crash land is the least of your troubles.

Just think for a moment. How many AWACS designs are there, & how many are based on STOL military transports? Why do you think that is? Why do you think so many air forces don't think this a major problem, & are happy with airliner-based AWACS?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 09 Mar 2008 21:17

Phalcon radar would need a A330 sized airframe to permit the throw-weight of fuel, people and equipment racks needed to dominate the smaller Ereyie type platforms. dont see why Airbus wouldnt have helped
on the A330 for a fee.


The Israelis did offer the Airbus (for the Phalcon), it was their preference. (The US option, then, was out of question.) India opted for the Il-76, for rather obvious reasons.

Rahul Shukla
BRFite
Posts: 565
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Location: On a roller-coaster.

Postby Rahul Shukla » 10 Mar 2008 03:02

While none of us failed to notice the fat chapati on top of the SDRE AE&W aiyarcraft, folks here seem to have missed out on another greyish 'dome' just aft of the cockpit behind the 3 vertical antennas.

What's that for?

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2329
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 10 Mar 2008 04:58

While none of us failed to notice the fat chapati on top of the SDRE AE&W aiyarcraft, folks here seem to have missed out on another greyish 'dome' just aft of the cockpit behind the 3 vertical antennas.

What's that for?


I think that is the standard SATCOM arrangement as seen even in the Phalcon's desi counterpart.

Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Postby Kakarat » 10 Mar 2008 20:54


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 10 Mar 2008 21:39

NATO has around 25 E3 total and I believe the USAF has around 40.

can we realistically expect around 10 Phalcons for IAF in due course ?

chinese IRBM/SRBM and GLCM strikes are to be expected on major and
minor theater airbases in north india incase of a conflict. IAF doesnt have the
air dominance vs PLAAF that USAF/NATO can enforce vs any potential adversary so I guess IAF's decision is wise for our circumstance.

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Postby PaulJI » 10 Mar 2008 22:17

Singha wrote:NATO has around 25 E3 total and I believe the USAF has around 40.

can we realistically expect around 10 Phalcons for IAF in due course ?
....


NATO:
USA - 33 E-3, 75 E-2
NATO (joint) 17 E-3
UK - 7 E-3
France - 4 E-3, 4 E-2
Greece - 4 Erieye

Others -
Saudi Arabia - 5 E-3
Japan 4 E-767 (same systems as E-3), 13 E-2

Plus numerous E-2, Erieye, A-50, etc. around the world.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 10 Mar 2008 22:21

75 E-2

I am impressed. means each CVN has the luxury of upto 6 if need be.

shetty
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 15 Jun 2006 17:09

Postby shetty » 10 Mar 2008 23:21

From the above article...

10 AJTs supplied by BAE Systems have been inducted so far. Out of remaining 14 AJTs in flyaway condition, 13 aircraft are expected to be inducted by July 2008 and one aircraft is expected to be delivered in December 2009.


Why would there be a delay of 1.5 years for 1 AJT. Typo???

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 11 Mar 2008 00:50

Singha wrote:75 E-2

I am impressed. means each CVN has the luxury of upto 6 if need be.


i wonder if any of them operate from shore bases in support of coast guard and DEA across the florida waters? and indeed hawaii

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Postby PaulJI » 11 Mar 2008 00:55

Lalmohan wrote:
Singha wrote:75 E-2

I am impressed. means each CVN has the luxury of upto 6 if need be.


i wonder if any of them operate from shore bases in support of coast guard and DEA across the florida waters? and indeed hawaii


I believe some do operate like that, along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico & the Florida Atlantic coast - and maybe elsewhere. I have no idea how many, or from what bases.

Rahul Shukla
BRFite
Posts: 565
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Location: On a roller-coaster.

Postby Rahul Shukla » 11 Mar 2008 01:27

Lalmohan & Paul, here you go;

Clicky (Global Security)
The Nightwolves of VAW-77 based at NAS Atlanta, comprise the U.S. Navy's only fully dedicated counter-narcotics squadron. VAW-77's beginnings go back to 1995, when the U.S. Congress created the reserve squadron as a result of the United States escalating war on illegal drug trafficking.

VAW-77 received four specially modified E-2C Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft optimized for counter-drug missions. As part of the Navy's post-Cold War role, VAW-77 flight crews patrol the waters of the Caribbean in joint missions with the U.S. Coast Guard and other drug enforcement agencies in search of illegal aircraft and ships.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Postby geeth » 11 Mar 2008 10:56

>>>The WING can be lighter, but all the weight gained on the wing - and more - is lost in added weight elsewhere.

My response was to your statements “High-wing designs are inherently heavier than low-wing,â€

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 11 Mar 2008 12:04

iirc Israel does have some skill in airliner cargo conversion. but a rodome
for A330 will certainly need Airbus intervention from word go and perhaps
making the tail control surfaces bigger.

IAF saved 2 years minimum by going with IL-76

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Postby PaulJI » 11 Mar 2008 16:42

geeth wrote:The stress encountered by the aistle of passenger liner is much less when a 50 kg stewardess walks over it (though the strain on the fellas sitting in Aistle seats with roving eyes could be much more), than that encountered by the cargo floor of an IL-76 when a 50 Ton battle tank rolls over it. More over, the cargo floor of the IL-76 is at the bottom, ...


Airliners have cargo holds under the passenger deck. Didn't you know that? They often carry freight containers & pallets at the same time as passengers. The cargo deck of a military transport is stressed for heavier individual loads, of course, but not necessarily greater total loads. An A330-200 passenger aircraft, for example, can take 26 1588 kg LD-3 containers under the passenger deck.

geeth wrote:Yeah! They make a brand new plane, take it elsewhere, rip it open and re-do the structures…whom will they employ?


Yes, that's exactly what they do. The first Boeing E-767 for Japan, for example, flew 4th October 1994, but didn't fly with the radome installed until 9th August 1996.

geeth wrote:If they are going to use Airbus labour, why not do it in the hanger itself, at the time of building it? (afterall, a/cs are not built like cars), instead of taking it elsewhere, transporting the labour, tools etc to the new place and do it?


Because airliners are built more like cars than you seem to think. They're assembled on production lines, even if they don't have conveyors, carefully designed to optimise the production process. The A330, for example, is built at 7 per month, the A320 family at 30 per month. Disrupting that smooth flow for a handful of variant models is expensive. It's cheaper to build a bare plane & fly it to a specialist plant for modification.

BTW, it's clear you know nothing about aircraft manufacture. Labour, tools etc aren't transported to a different place, they're already there. They take the plane to them. Airbus (or Boeing, or Embraer . . ) doesn't have a single plant, with all its labour there. They employ many thousands, spread over many countries.

[quote="geeth"]
What do you mean by “it is normal floorâ€

sombhat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 21:59
Location: Kolkata

Postby sombhat » 11 Mar 2008 18:08

PaulJI, just to add to your list of reasons for choosing Il-76:

I dont think the Il-76 is a purely military transport platform. It is run as a civil passenger aircraft by many airlines (remember the 1996 mid-air mishap over Delhi).

Also the platform for the E-3, the Boeing 707, was conceived as a millitary design.
The prototype was conceived for both military and civilian use: the United States Air Force was the first customer for the design, using in the KC-135 Stratotanker midair refueling platform. It was far from certain that the passenger 707 would be profitable. At the time, Boeing was making nearly all of its money from military contracts: its last passenger transport, the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, had netted the company a $15 million loss before it was purchased by the Air Force as the KC-97 Stratotanker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707

So, I don't think the issue here is whether the designs are millitary transport or civilian airlines. It is rather the technical parameters that you have so correctly pointed out.
Also, in the minds of the IAF would be the fact that it now has a single platform for AWACS, Mid-air refuellers and strategic transports.
This is a welcome thing in an air force which has the distinction of flying anything and everything that was manufactured outside the US.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 11 Mar 2008 19:51

Specifications (A-50)

General characteristics
* Crew: 15
* Length: 49.59m (152 ft 8 in)
* Wingspan: 50.50 m (165 ft 6 in)
* Height: 4.80 m (15 ft 9 in)
* Wing area: 300 m² (3,228 ft²)
* Empty weight: 75,000 kg (374,000 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 170,000 kg (374,000 lb)
* Powerplant: 4× Aviadvigatel PS-90A turbofan, 157 kN (35,200 lbf) each

Performance
* Maximum speed: 800 km/h (500 mph)
* Range: 6,400 km (4,000 miles)
* Service ceiling 12,000 m (39,360 ft)

Specifications (IL-76)

General characteristics
* Crew: 5 – 7
* Capacity: 40,000 kg (Il-76), 48,000 kg (Il-76M/T), 50,000 kg (Il-76MD/TD), 60,000 kg (Il-76MF/TF)
* Payload: 45 – 47 tonnes (~50 tons)
* Length: 46.59 m (152 ft 10 in)
* Wingspan: 50.5 m (165 ft 8 in)
* Height: 14.76 m (48 ft 5 in)
* Wing area: 300.0 m² (3,229.2 ft²)
* Empty weight: 72,000 kg (Il-76), 92,000 kg (Il-76MD/TD), 104,000 kg (Il-76MF/TF) (159,000 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 157,000 kg (Il-76), 170,000 kg (Il-76M/T), 190,000 kg IL-76MD/TD), 210,000 kg (Il-76MF/TF) (346,000 lb (Il-76))
* Powerplant: 4× Soloviev D-30KP turbofans, 118 kN (26,500 lbf) each

Performance
* Maximum speed: 900 km/h (490 kt, 560 mph)
* Range: (with max payload) 3,650 km (Il-76), 4,000 km (Il-76M/T), 4,400 km (Il-76MD/TD), 4,200 km (Il-76MF/TF) (nm, mi)
* Service ceiling 13,000 m (42,700 ft)
* Rate of climb: m/s (ft/min)
* Wing loading: 566.7 kg/m² (Il-76M/T), 633.3 kg/m² (Il-76MD/TD) (116.05 lb/ft² (Il-76M/T), 129.72 lb/ft² (Il-76MD/TD))
* Thrust/weight: 0.305 (Il-76), 0.282 (Il-76M/T), 0.252 (IL-76MD/TD), 0.228 (Il-76MF/TF)

Boeing 707-320B
Passengers 147 (2 class) 202 (1 class)
Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) 333,600 lb (151,320 kg)
Empty weight 146,400 lb (66,406 kg)
Takeoff run at MTOW 10,840 ft (3,280 m)
Landing run 10,840 ft (3,280 m)
Operating range (Max Payload) 3,735 NM (6,920 km)
Cruising speed 525 kn (972 km/h)
Length 136 ft 2 in (41.25 m) 144 ft 6 in (44.07 m) 152 ft 11 in (46.61 m) E-3 varient
Wingspan 145 ft 9 in (44.42 m)
Tail height 42 ft 5 in (12.93 m)
Fuselage width 12 ft 4 in (3.76 m)
Powerplants (4 x) PW JT3D-3:18,000 lbf (80 kN)
PW JT3D-7:19,000 lbf (84.4 kN)
Last edited by p_saggu on 11 Mar 2008 20:05, edited 1 time in total.

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Postby PaulJI » 11 Mar 2008 19:54

sombhat wrote:PaulJI, just to add to your list of reasons for choosing Il-76:

I dont think the Il-76 is a purely military transport platform. It is run as a civil passenger aircraft by many airlines (remember the 1996 mid-air mishap over Delhi).

Also the platform for the E-3, the Boeing 707, was conceived as a millitary design.
The prototype was conceived for both military and civilian use: the United States Air Force was the first customer for the design, using in the KC-135 Stratotanker midair refueling platform. It was far from certain that the passenger 707 would be profitable. At the time, Boeing was making nearly all of its money from military contracts: its last passenger transport, the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, had netted the company a $15 million loss before it was purchased by the Air Force as the KC-97 Stratotanker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707

So, I don't think the issue here is whether the designs are millitary transport or civilian airlines. It is rather the technical parameters that you have so correctly pointed out.
Also, in the minds of the IAF would be the fact that it now has a single platform for AWACS, Mid-air refuellers and strategic transports.
This is a welcome thing in an air force which has the distinction of flying anything and everything that was manufactured outside the US.


There's a difference between an aircraft designed as a military freighter and something like the 707, which was designed as an airliner, & that determines the technical parameters, which as you say, are what makes the difference. But I'd say those parameters are a result of the origin of the design, & the performance profile needed for its primary role.

Firstly, the civilian airliner. Air forces can and do use them as transports. For moving passengers or standard freight between airports, they're ideal. In those cases, the military use them for exactly the same purposes & in the same ways as civilian users. Any modifications are minor, usually interior fittings & the addition of military communications, & perhaps self-defence measures to make operating from forward airfields a little less risky. The airframes are also suitable, & widely used for, certain military purposes, such as airborne command posts, tankers, & AWACS. The flight profiles of these roles resemble those of standard civil transport roles, so the aircraft best-suited to them are adapted airliners.

Similarly, military transports can be and are used for civilian purposes. But the Il-76, like the C-130, C-17, A400M, etc, is designed as a military freighter, with design decisions having been made which would not have been made if they were intended for standard passenger or freight operations. They cost more to build and operate (high fuel consumption) than airliners. The rough-field landing gear, the high wing, the stern loading ramp, the open fuselage (the passenger deck of an airliner stiffens the fuselage & weighs less than strengthening it to make it as stiff without that deck) & heavy-duty cargo floor so you can load single large, heavy loads such as AFVs, - all these add weight and/or reduce fuel efficiency. And for civil air transport, cost efficiency is paramount.

Civil freighters are based on airliner airframes, because almost all civilian (& most military) air freight can be carried more cheaply & efficiently by them, and the small civil demand for shipping outsize loads is easily met by a small number of ex-military freighters adapted (slightly) for civilian use. Interestingly, a large proportion (most?) of the civilian-operated ex-military freighters are used for military charters.

BTW, it isn't true to say that "many airlines" use the Il-76 for civil passenger transport. The only civil versions are freighters, for bulk loads. Air Kazakhstan, (no longer operating - went bust a few years ago) the airline operating that Il-76, was highly atypical. It had a fleet inherited from the local branch of Aeroflot & ex Soviet Air Force aircraft. I think the plane in that collision was carrying its passengers in austere military seating, not outfitted as a civil airliner. It was economic (for a while - remember that airline went bust when it got competition from real airliners) because the airline had access to fuel at well below international prices, & had got the aircraft more or less for nothing.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Postby geeth » 11 Mar 2008 22:05

>>>Because airliners are built more like cars than you seem to think. They're assembled on production lines, even if they don't have conveyors, carefully designed to optimise the production process. The A330, for example, is built at 7 per month, the A320 family at 30 per month. Disrupting that smooth flow for a handful of variant models is expensive. It's cheaper to build a bare plane & fly it to a specialist plant for modification.

>>>BTW, it's clear you know nothing about aircraft manufacture

May I know your experience in a/c manufacture, before I post anything further. Also, please keep your temper cool, or else I will give it back in kind.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby Vick » 13 Mar 2008 08:27


gogna
BRFite
Posts: 118
Joined: 08 Oct 2007 19:02
Contact:

Postby gogna » 16 Mar 2008 18:46


PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Postby PaulJI » 16 Mar 2008 21:34

geeth wrote:>>>Because airliners are built more like cars than you seem to think. They're assembled on production lines, even if they don't have conveyors, carefully designed to optimise the production process. The A330, for example, is built at 7 per month, the A320 family at 30 per month. Disrupting that smooth flow for a handful of variant models is expensive. It's cheaper to build a bare plane & fly it to a specialist plant for modification.

>>>BTW, it's clear you know nothing about aircraft manufacture

May I know your experience in a/c manufacture, before I post anything further. Also, please keep your temper cool, or else I will give it back in kind.


I think my experience in aircraft manufacture is the same as yours :lol: On second thoughts, no, it's more - because I've worked on customising bill of materials software for an aircraft manufacturer (special requirements for tracking part which go into aircraft, so my then employers standard package needed modification). But so what? You've laughed at me for suggesting that aircraft would be built in exactly the way they are built, which is proof in itself that you have no knowledge of standard practice. After that ill-placed mockery, for you to tell me to keep my cool is quite hilarious. Pot, meet kettle. :P

Oh, I forgot to mention before. You thought the Phalcon system would not fit into an A320-sized aircraft. A version of it is now in service in a Gulfstream G550, which is less than half the weight of an A321.[/b]

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 16 Mar 2008 23:34

Brazilian R-99

Identical to CABS - DRDO's AWACS except for the satcom bulge and the refuelling probe?

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 785
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Postby k prasad » 17 Mar 2008 04:20

p_saggu wrote:Brazilian R-99

Identical to CABS - DRDO's AWACS except for the satcom bulge and the refuelling probe?


It should be identical - after all, we are going to use the same R-99a platform for our AEW&CS.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Postby geeth » 17 Mar 2008 16:36

>>>I think my experience in aircraft manufacture is the same as yours Laughing On second thoughts, no, it's more

Thanks for clearing the air...now, lets go back to basics.

>>>Airliners have cargo holds under the passenger deck. Didn't you know that? They often carry freight containers & pallets at the same time as passengers.

For the moment assume that I know it, though less experienced than you..Now, tell me, when we are talking about the deck loading, why are you going under the deck? Further, it is all the more obvious that, since the cargo holds are under the deck, the strength of the main deck would be just sufficient to take the weight of passengers and the seats, instead of heavy equipment like that in a military transport? So, don't you think the Military transport inherently will have a heavier deck, which should be made lighter when used as a AEW a/c? Did I say something different earlier?

>>>The cargo deck of a military transport is stressed for heavier individual loads, of course, but not necessarily greater total loads.

Thats truely a gem, which I could not understand... Please tell me how this 'heavier individual loads' (of the order of tens of tons per sq.meter) will make the deck of the military plane lighter than that of the passenger liner, the deck of which is designed for a stress limit of about one ton per sq.Metre...

>>>An A330-200 passenger aircraft, for example, can take 26 1588 kg LD-3 containers under the passenger deck.

Are you sure? I thought it is the cargo version...anyway I shall check it later.

Sorry, I am running short of time since I have to prepare for my travel..we shall discuss in more detail, once I am back. Until then, wish you a productive week ahead.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 17 Mar 2008 17:16

we need our domestic cargo airlines to flower for a while...everyone from RIL downward has plans...with a big fleet cargo 737 and A320s , our military maybe able to cheaply rent pallet space on regular routes freeing up the IL76 for more specialized work into fwd bases. Mil could even strike deals to lease some of these civilian planes under their original pilots to move stuff around.

outsourcing some of the cargo functions into std pallet model will heavily increase our time to buildup and logistics power.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1162
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Postby rkhanna » 18 Mar 2008 17:17

I need some clarification wrt the Phalcon AWAC that India is getting.


So it just uses a large L-band AESA only for the dome? The Chilean and Israeli versions use both L-band(side planar arrays) and S-band Aesas(front and back).

Which one is a superior config for the Radar or does it not matter.


Thanks in advance.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 22 Apr 2008 08:04

Folks I have some questions about AWACS systems in general.

Pliss exkyoos if naive..

I use the words "AWACS systems deliberately. From what I have gathered regarding AWACS systems, one important part of the system is the main AWACS aircraft itself. The systems on board the aircraft detect, monitor and track hostile and friendly activity over a vast area of three dimensional airspace and are also able to watch land based activity on the ground. The system is able to guide friendly forces in two ways.

One way is to warn friendly forces of threats, and the other is to vector friendly forces towards threats so that they can be neutralized.At a very high level, it seems to me that the current "idealized" method of warfare is "Network centric" warfare in which the eyes and ears of the AWACS are shared by a vast array of friendly electronic entities.

These electronic entities could be friendly aircraft in the air, the could be army commanders in forward ares, they could be anti-aircraft or anti-missile defences or even a central battle control room. An obvious requirement for this is reliable, secure jam-proof communication - perhaps via multiple channels. It should be, for instance, possible for Aircraft "A" to fire a missile at a threat using information detected by the AWACS but relayed to it by a ground link, or from aircraft "B", should the ground link be broken for some reason.

That brings me to the question of the nitty gritty of setting up network centric warfare in your armed forces and integrating an AWACS. The idea does not seem as simple and straightforward as merely acquiring an AWACS aircraft.

It would appear that for serious network centric warfare, there has to be standardization of equipment shared among all the components of the network - be they on the ground in a tank commander's tank, an artillery unit, a Jaguar flying 100 kilometers away or in the AWACS aircraft itself.

Is it not true that while "acquiring an AWACS" is itself a great leap forward - the real McCoy lies in the total and secure integration of that AWACS as a single system working with everything else?

is it also not true that a degree of standardization of equipment ad supplier is essential so that disruption can be avoided?

To what extent would India be able to achieve standardization and network warfare involving dozens of entities on the ground and in the air as compared to say Pakistan?. Is it really possible to buy all systems off the shelf and then hope for the best or does an electronic engineering and innovative capability matter for the ultimate survival of the system?

A related question - if your AWACS is going to be based in a totally new aircraft that your armed forces or civilian entities do not operate at all, how do you make your AWACS secure against non supply of tyres or brake pads? Or against failure of the APU gearbox/transmission system?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 22 Apr 2008 08:23

shivji, are you talking about integration of multiple AWACs as a single system? if then, there are lot of work in terms of operation zone for each AWACs that needs to be shared on a peer-peer node network by thease awacs nodes at high speed jam resistent network.

btw, for ops against paki infantary, i doubt we would use an AWACs system, but a miniature helo based or our Ramba is good enough. Is it not our Sangraha one such system?

For mostly airborne multi-squadron, multi split configuration of enemy ops, that we mostly deploy AWACs system, that normally has a better tracking and scanning range than its firing buddy fighter a/cs. If their buddies can take inputs, can launch an op, just get in the BVR range, and enough range to attack, do the works return back to AWAC safe range, perhaps refilled by another refueller.

Besdies, AWACs system can be used for training air operations, and monitor how these little fighters and their pilots performed.. how they goofed up, and what moves they need to correct on their combats.

I am just a novice, but posting off from watching nat geo and special ops by aKhan network shows, and the hi-max armchair experiences. It is also interesting to note that if MKI can be fit with a high resoution and high bandwidth super duper AESA radar, it can also be integerated with a mini AWAC role as well. This was discussed earlier in BR.

Need to not only operate at safe distance, but also kill the enemy from safe distance.. Do we have enough missile system and the BVR techs to handle long range shooting?

Furthermore, we cant afford to burn one A-A brahmos for one enemy stupid f16 fighter. For p-3s, yes. Perhaps, we need a Multiple independedn warheads [say about at least 3-4], that despatches to fire that many f-16s from one single a-a brahmos., and thats a good one to have., but each of these homing MIVs should be able to tracked via sat based scanning systems, that would be interageted with mission computers on the AWACs for feedback on ops.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2329
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Postby vivek_ahuja » 22 Apr 2008 08:34

Shiv,

I have the following comments to your questions:

a) the AWACS as such cannot be used for ground surveillance. That is a entirely different set of technology and radar arrangement such as that being used in JSTARS type aircraft. To this effect I have a feeling the ventral bulge on the DRDO Aircrafts does in fact have some sort of ground surveillance capability, though they are not saying so.

b) The AWACS such as a Phalcon, is different from the AEW type aircrafts being acquired by Pakistan since the Phalcon is actually large enough to have its own independent processing of the data it is acquiring. This allows it for use as a ACP type aircraft wherein it leads an independent group of fighters in a hunter-killer format should the ground control break down. The PAF system does not allow this capability. You can very well knock out their ground control nodes and the AEW capability of their aircrafts drastically reduces.

c) The standardization question is exactly why the IAF should be wholeheartedly supporting the DRDO development. Even if the airframe is not Indian, as long as all communications, radar and ECM and ECCM equipment and so forth are home made, you can achieve a networked capability without that many problems. The Phalcon deal, even though crucial, should still be seen as a interim measure only. Unfortunately I doubt whether this is indeed the case.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20905
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 22 Apr 2008 11:49

We need a layered airborne defence comprising of Phalcon AWACS,medium range AWACS (Embraers or equivalent),aerostats and perhaps smaller turboprop AEW aircraft like the Hawkeye,which can also operate from medium sized carriers.Our locally built Dorniers also have an EW capability in service with the In,but we need larger numbers of largersized aircraft for the job.We have to sanitise both our island territories and the Indian landmass.

The IL-76 is an excellent aircraft and perfectly suitable for the AWACS role,in fact,the Russians should've also developed a LRMP version of it to replace the TU-142.In fact,the P-8I MMA version that we seemed so obsessed with is quite inferior in range,endurance and payload to the TU-142 which it is supposed to replace and also has similar performance in ASW eqpt. to late model P-3 Orions.Here is a small comparison.One wonders whether we should;ve instead gone in for a fuller upgrade of the TU-142 of which Russia has several dozen aircraft still in service and available!

P-8 Multimission Maritime Aircraft (MMA)
Specifications
Primary Function Anti-Submarine and Anti-surface Warfare
Contractor Boeing Company
Propulsion Two high-bypass turbofan engines (CFM-56) and advanced digital aircraft design.
Length 129.5 feet (39.47 meters)
Wingspan 117.2 feet (35.72 meters)
Height 42.1 feet (12.83 meters)
Weight Max Fuel Capacity: 75,169 pounds
Max Zero Fuel Weight: 138,300 pounds
Maximum Take Off Gross Weight: 184,200 pounds (83,550 kilograms)
Max Taxi Weight: 184,700 pounds

Speed Max Cruise Speed: 490 KTAS (True Air Speed) (564 mph, 789 kmh)
Max Range Cruise Speed: 440 KTAS (True Air Speed)
Range 1200+ nautical miles
Endurance four hours onstation (1,381 miles, 2,222km)
Ceiling 41,000 ft
Runway Length Required
Crew Nine

Operational First squadron is planned for 2013

TU-142 specs.
General characteristics
Crew: Seven - two pilots, one tailgunner, four others
Length: 49.50 m (162 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 51.10 m (167 ft 8 in)
Height: 12.12 m (39 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 310 m² (3,330 ft²)
Empty weight: 90,000 kg (198,000 lb)
Loaded weight: 171,000 kg (376,200 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 188,000 kg (414,500 lb)
Powerplant: 4× Kuznetsov NK-12MV turboprops, 11,000 kW (14,800 shp)[30] each

Performance
Maximum speed: 925 km/h (500 kt, 575 mph)
Range: 15,000 km (8,100 nm, 9,400 mi)
Service ceiling 12,000 m (39,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 10 m/s (2,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 606 kg/m² (124 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 235 W/kg (0.143 hp/lb)

Armament
Radar-controlled Guns: 1 or 2× AM-23 23 mm cannon in tail turret
Missiles: Up to 15,000 kg (33,000 lb), including the Kh-20, Kh-22, Kh-26, and Kh-55 air-to-surface missiles

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20905
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 22 Apr 2008 11:53

We need a layered airborne defence comprising of Phalcon AWACS,medium range AWACS (Embraers or equivalent),aerostats and perhaps smaller turboprop AEW aircraft like the Hawkeye,which can also operate from medium sized carriers.Our locally built Dorniers also have an EW capability in service with the In,but we need larger numbers of largersized aircraft for the job.We have to sanitise both our island territories and the Indian landmass.

The IL-76 is an excellent aircraft and perfectly suitable for the AWACS role,in fact,the Russians should've also developed a LRMP version of it to replace the TU-142.In fact,the P-8I MMA version that we seemed so obsessed with is quite inferior in range,endurance and payload to the TU-142 which it is supposed to replace and also has similar performance in ASW eqpt. to late model P-3 Orions.Here is a small comparison.One wonders whether we should;ve instead gone in for a fuller upgrade of the TU-142 of which Russia has several dozen aircraft still in service and available!

P-8 Multimission Maritime Aircraft (MMA)
Specifications
Primary Function Anti-Submarine and Anti-surface Warfare
Contractor Boeing Company
Propulsion Two high-bypass turbofan engines (CFM-56) and advanced digital aircraft design.
Length 129.5 feet (39.47 meters)
Wingspan 117.2 feet (35.72 meters)
Height 42.1 feet (12.83 meters)
Weight Max Fuel Capacity: 75,169 pounds
Max Zero Fuel Weight: 138,300 pounds
Maximum Take Off Gross Weight: 184,200 pounds (83,550 kilograms)
Max Taxi Weight: 184,700 pounds

Speed Max Cruise Speed: 490 KTAS (True Air Speed) (564 mph, 789 kmh)
Max Range Cruise Speed: 440 KTAS (True Air Speed)
Range 1200+ nautical miles
Endurance four hours onstation (1,381 miles, 2,222km)
Ceiling 41,000 ft
Runway Length Required
Crew Nine

Operational First squadron is planned for 2013

TU-142 specs.
General characteristics
Length: 49.50 m (162 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 51.10 m (167 ft 8 in)
Height: 12.12 m (39 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 311.10 m² (3,348.76 ft²)
Empty weight: 90,000 kg (198,000 lb)
Loaded weight: kg (lb)
Max takeoff weight: 185,000 kg (407,848 lb)
Powerplant: 4× Kuznetsov NK-12MV turboprops, 11,033 kW (14,795 shp) each

Performance
Maximum speed: 925 km/h (500 kt, 575 mph)
Cruise speed: 711 km/h (384 knots, 442 mph)
Range: 15,000 km (8,100 nm, 9,400 mi)
Combat radius: 6500 km (3,454 nm, 3,977 mi) (operational)
Service ceiling 12,000 m (39,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 10 m/s (2,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 606 kg/m² (124 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 235 W/kg (0.143 hp/lb)

Armament
Radar-controlled Guns: 1 or 2× AM-23 23 mm cannon in tail turret
Missiles: Up to 15,000 kg (33,000 lb), including the Kh-20, Kh-22, Kh-26, and Kh-55 air-to-surface missiles


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dnivas, Google Feedfetcher, kumarn, Thakur_B and 204 guests