Doh...scrap that.andy B wrote:Those are AS-17/KH-31 Kryptons my friend, AFAIK the Moskit can only be employed on the centre pylon given its weight and dimensions compared to the Kryptons.Div wrote:If the Russians can put 2 Moskits(?) on the inner wing pylons, then 2 Brahmos shouldn't really be a big deal.
Its because of the choice of IL-76 platform by the IAF. The A50 mainstay version of the IL-76 has already been designed, integrated and structurally tested and proven, so it would be cost effective to go with what is already available unless there is some compelling need to change. IIRC both the radome and the bulb provide equivalent level of radar coverage.AdityaM wrote:Need a clarification:
Why is it that the radar is housed in a radome, while for other phalcons, the radar seems to be in the huge bulb like formation in the nose of the plane.
Are there any specific advantages of top mounted radome structure?
Hello Yusuf,Yusuf wrote:
As far as Indian Phalcons are concerned, its because we use the Il 76 platform that they are rotodome.
s sharma wrote:Hello Yusuf,Yusuf wrote:
As far as Indian Phalcons are concerned, its because we use the Il 76 platform that they are rotodome.
You are correct, the beam is electronically steered and hence it is not (does not need to) a rotodome as the chapati does not rotate.
Thanks!
I unable to see that because it is quiet dark and my location of standing is not good.gauravjkale wrote:If it had a rotodome over it fuselage then its a phalcon else it was an IL -76 / IL-78
Can we please stop referring the Phalcon Radar Disc or Radome as Rotodome. Rotodome signifies rotation of the dome (or radome).gauravjkale wrote:If it had a rotodome over it fuselage then its a phalcon else it was an IL -76 / IL-78
you can simply call it a domem mittal wrote:We can call it a "Chatri" or an Umbrella.....
My knowledge in this area is very limited but your statement on a Phalcon only being able to comm and control one squadron of IAF combat fighter aircraft seems a bit off to me....In a given theater of operation wouldn't an AWACS be expected to co-ordinate many squadrons at the same time over a given large area? Of course in IAF's context large strike groups would have air cover by MKI and possible in future MMRCA whose data links can pretty much be used to form mini AWACS co-ordinating within strike groups, so I would expect AWACS to just be able to co-ordinate more than one squadron..please clarify...Mort Walker wrote:I counted 4 VHF antennas on the top forward of the Phalcon and another 11 on the bottom forward. A total of 15 VHF antennas indicates that there are at least 15 discrete parallel voice/data comm links coming in for air-air or air-ground comms. I couldn't make out if there were any VHF antennas in the aft of the aircraft.
It also appears to have an ECM/ECCM emitter/receiver on the bottom forward.
CORRECTED LATER
I missed another 6 VHF antennas on the bottom of the fuselage. My bet is that 1 Phalcon can communicate and control one squadron of IAF combat fighter aircraft.
From shiv's second postSuKan wrote:The phalcons hasn't arrived yet,they will arrive in February.
http://www.zeenews.com/nation/2009-01-1 ... 1news.html
Shiv aroor of livefist blog also says the same.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/01/ha ... rived.html
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/01/ia ... -next.html
Nice find Kidoman!!!Ps:By the way check the comments on the 2nd blog.Esp of Anon at 9.30Am
Voice & data comms to approximately 20 a/c simultaneously, they do not have be all in the same squadron. Yes, you could communicate with more a/c and other ground stations, but the point is that the Phalcon can have at least 20 VHF frequency channels open in parallel (or so it would appear at first glance).Yogi_G wrote:My knowledge in this area is very limited but your statement on a Phalcon only being able to comm and control one squadron of IAF combat fighter aircraft seems a bit off to me....In a given theater of operation wouldn't an AWACS be expected to co-ordinate many squadrons at the same time over a given large area? Of course in IAF's context large strike groups would have air cover by MKI and possible in future MMRCA whose data links can pretty much be used to form mini AWACS co-ordinating within strike groups, so I would expect AWACS to just be able to co-ordinate more than one squadron..please clarify...Mort Walker wrote:I counted 4 VHF antennas on the top forward of the Phalcon and another 11 on the bottom forward. A total of 15 VHF antennas indicates that there are at least 15 discrete parallel voice/data comm links coming in for air-air or air-ground comms. I couldn't make out if there were any VHF antennas in the aft of the aircraft.
It also appears to have an ECM/ECCM emitter/receiver on the bottom forward.
CORRECTED LATER
I missed another 6 VHF antennas on the bottom of the fuselage. My bet is that 1 Phalcon can communicate and control one squadron of IAF combat fighter aircraft.
And what the...? I recall someone amongst us, actually sighted an AWACS in Bangalore. vishals, was it?kidoman wrote:From shiv's second postSuKan wrote:The phalcons hasn't arrived yet,they will arrive in February.
http://www.zeenews.com/nation/2009-01-1 ... 1news.html
Shiv aroor of livefist blog also says the same.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/01/ha ... rived.html
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/01/ia ... -next.html
"Oh, and from the horse's mouth (though this happened a couple of days ago!), the Phalcon hasn't arrived yet. And neither has the Gripen been eliminated in the MMRCA tech-eval "downselect"."
Wat the hell???
After so much news and discussion all around, here comes the news that the beauty has still not arrived!!
Grrrrr
Ps:By the way check the comments on the 2nd blog.Esp of Anon at 9.30Am
You are of course aware that the IL-76 model forms the basis of the Indian strategic transport fleet, the in-flight refueling force and even some ARC aircraft. The supporting infrastructure is tailored around this model. This includes spare parts, runway strength, runway lengths, trained maintenance crews, ground equipment etc.Yusuf wrote:Wonder why India did not go for the complete system with the Boeing 707 nose mounted system with the AESA radar, rather than go with the Il 76 rotodome system. Anyone having the cost difference of the two planes? That could be the only reason.
Not sure how you mean the above.Besides the nose mounted system would be more survivable in a war scenario as the Rotodome presents a bigger target than the nose system.
No we are just trying to discuss the reasons for Rotodome/Nose mounted systems and its merits/demerits.vivek_ahuja wrote:You are of course aware that the IL-76 model forms the basis of the Indian strategic transport fleet, the in-flight refueling force and even some ARC aircraft. The supporting infrastructure is tailored around this model. This includes spare parts, runway strength, runway lengths, trained maintenance crews, ground equipment etc.Yusuf wrote:Wonder why India did not go for the complete system with the Boeing 707 nose mounted system with the AESA radar, rather than go with the Il 76 rotodome system. Anyone having the cost difference of the two planes? That could be the only reason.
The IAF also has a good understanding of what the aircraft is able to do and what it cannot do in terms of operating from high altitude airbases to coastal airbases etc, range, endurance and payload capacity etc. This is not as trivial as it may sound.
In view of this, the IL-76 model serves more in terms of logistical nuances and allows quicker integration into the Air Force structure. Sometimes these issues far surpass the cost issue.
Not sure how you mean the above.Besides the nose mounted system would be more survivable in a war scenario as the Rotodome presents a bigger target than the nose system.
Nevertheless, as far as IR signature, Radar signature and visual signature (measured as size of aircraft) is concerned, the radar mounting hardly affects the overall scheme of things. Not to mention that the in terms of radar coverage without involving aircraft maneuvering is far better in case of the triangular arranged arrays on the radar disc on top of the Indian Phalcon.
Let's not insult the IAF as far as professionalism is concerned, shall we? They are bound to have looked at the issue more than us arm chair generals, right?
-Vivek
Dmurphy wrote: Ps:By the way check the comments on the 2nd blog.Esp of Anon at 9.30Am
And what the...? I recall someone amongst us, actually sighted an AWACS in Bangalore. vishals, was it?
The Indian Air Force is embarking on a modernisation programme to enhance its capability, including putting in place an integrated air command and control system this year and launching its own satellite next year, Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal F H Major said here on Saturday.
In the next few years, IAF would acquire very complex grade radar facilities. The air command system would be in place by 2009. "With these capablities, IAF can apply a robust network of sensors and enable it to conduct operations with high flexibility, which is our aim", he said.
The IAF has already redesigned its training patterns and most of its inventory would either be upgraded or changed in the next few years, he said, while delivering the Air Chief Marshall L M Katre Memorial Lecture here today.
Stating that aerospace power would increase in future, he said IAF has put measures in place as far as aerial space was concerned. "We are ready to meet any situation", he said to a query on steps the IAF had taken in the wake of heightened tension between India and Pakistan.
On modernisation plans, he said induction of Jaguars, MIG-27s, MIG-29s and Sukhois with upgraded avionics have been accelerated.
Inter-govermental agreements for design and development of fifth generation fighter aircraft has been concluded, he said adding the LCA programme has gained momentum. The initial operations were expected to start by 2010-11,he said.
I was thinking spare parts issue, we have seen problems with spare supply/maintainence of Tu-142, Mi-26, Mig-25 etc. what if IL-76 goes down in the same path sometime in future? that would also affect operational readiness and no. of aircraft availaible at anytime. since these are special mission aircraft, it might also require regular maintainence of electronics.vivek_ahuja wrote:You are of course aware that the IL-76 model forms the basis of the Indian strategic transport fleet, the in-flight refueling force and even some ARC aircraft. The supporting infrastructure is tailored around this model. This includes spare parts, runway strength, runway lengths, trained maintenance crews, ground equipment etc.Yusuf wrote:Wonder why India did not go for the complete system with the Boeing 707 nose mounted system with the AESA radar, rather than go with the Il 76 rotodome system. Anyone having the cost difference of the two planes? That could be the only reason.
The IAF also has a good understanding of what the aircraft is able to do and what it cannot do in terms of operating from high altitude airbases to coastal airbases etc, range, endurance and payload capacity etc. This is not as trivial as it may sound.
In view of this, the IL-76 model serves more in terms of logistical nuances and allows quicker integration into the Air Force structure. Sometimes these issues far surpass the cost issue.
-Vivek
Any news on the Naval satellite?The Indian Air Force is embarking on a modernisation programme to enhance its capability, including putting in place an integrated air command and control system this year and launching its own satellite next year, Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal F H Major said here on Saturday.
I am hoping that decisions will be made taking into consideration whether or not France cntinues to supply offensive hardware and spares to Pakistan.p_saggu wrote:
One interesting observation I would like to make here is with the stroies of the IAF being much impressed with the A-330 based refueller, is it a possibility then that the second line of Phalcons could also go that way? As I understand the A-330 based system would outclass an IL-76 based system both in terms of endurance and fuel efficiency. It is way too early to speculate.
Understood. Thanks. So AWACS can control and co-ordinate more than 20 aircraft but can only simultaneously maintain live link with 20 aircraft.Mort Walker wrote:Voice & data comms to approximately 20 a/c simultaneously, they do not have be all in the same squadron. Yes, you could communicate with more a/c and other ground stations, but the point is that the Phalcon can have at least 20 VHF frequency channels open in parallel (or so it would appear at first glance).Yogi_G wrote: My knowledge in this area is very limited but your statement on a Phalcon only being able to comm and control one squadron of IAF combat fighter aircraft seems a bit off to me....In a given theater of operation wouldn't an AWACS be expected to co-ordinate many squadrons at the same time over a given large area? Of course in IAF's context large strike groups would have air cover by MKI and possible in future MMRCA whose data links can pretty much be used to form mini AWACS co-ordinating within strike groups, so I would expect AWACS to just be able to co-ordinate more than one squadron..please clarify...
Is there a link for this? When did the IAF get to use the A-330 MRTT ?p_saggu wrote: One interesting observation I would like to make here is with the stroies of the IAF being much impressed with the A-330 based refueller, is it a possibility then that the second line of Phalcons could also go that way? As I understand the A-330 based system would outclass an IL-76 based system both in terms of endurance and fuel efficiency. It is way too early to speculate.
berievs website mentions the range of A-50 Radar against a ground tanks is 250km.
- the aircraft was fitted with the fixed mushroom-shaped radome with a diameter of 11.5m (the A-50 features a rotating radome with a diameter of 10.8m, while the US E-3A features a radome with a diameter of 9.1m), and pylons for the new radome; the radome design envisions housing three EL/M-205 Phalcon radar phased arrays, forming a triangle;
- the operators' cockpit and the rest room were quartered in the pressurised part of the fuselage; the aircraft was equipped with racks for housing the Phalcon radar units, operators' workstations and resting places;
- the aircraft was modified to accommodate a five-man strong flying crew, ten avionics operators, and nine by-crew members;
- the aircraft was fitted with an emergency hatch for the operators to bail out;
- the rear fuselage design was improved and ventral fins were mounted to provide the aircraft with directional stability;
- the airframe mounted 71 antennae, including 44 aerials of the Phalcon system;
- the nose and the rear fuselage, as well as wingtips were modified to quarter antennae of the electronic systems;
- electric power, liquid- and air-cooling, air-conditioning, oxygen supply, communications, and other systems were modified.
I would like to repeat Mihir's request for link or some other material to substantiate the above.p_saggu wrote:One interesting observation I would like to make here is with the stories of the IAF being much impressed with the A-330 based refueller, is it a possibility then that the second line of Phalcons could also go that way?
As well it should, given the decades difference between the preliminary designs of the two. But really, any civilian aircraft modified for the refueller role is definitely more suited for the requirement given the need for endurance and fuel efficiency. Having said that, changing the IL-76 engine will do the job as well. Notice the Phalcon and its more efficient high bypass engines. Instead of saying that a new refueller will define the old AWACs, why cannot the reverse be true? Why cannot the new AWACS shape the old refueller and drag it along?As I understand the A-330 based system would outclass an IL-76 based system both in terms of endurance and fuel efficiency. It is way too early to speculate.
Isnt the converse also true?Mort Walker wrote:People use the term mini AWACS for aircraft sharing data and coordinating their tactics is really misleading. An AWACS essentially implies air traffic control in the sky with its own powerful 3D radar guiding aircraft to particular set of coordinates. Imagine a situation where aircraft are operating their radar in reduced power mode with minimal voice comms and the AWACS are guiding them to the coordinates.
Its a very powerful force multiplier. With the Phalcon the IAF and IN can successfully obliterate (with conventional explosives) the port of Karachi with a minimal number of aircraft.
Exactly right! People often forget that AWACS on both sides means that whether you operate in the reduced power mode or silent mode or fully active mode, it doesn't matter. To take a BVR shot, you still have to close the distance with the enemy. If the enemy has a AWACS with it that can see you coming, what difference does it make whether you are silent or active?sum wrote:Isnt the converse also true?Mort Walker wrote:People use the term mini AWACS for aircraft sharing data and coordinating their tactics is really misleading. An AWACS essentially implies air traffic control in the sky with its own powerful 3D radar guiding aircraft to particular set of coordinates. Imagine a situation where aircraft are operating their radar in reduced power mode with minimal voice comms and the AWACS are guiding them to the coordinates.
Its a very powerful force multiplier. With the Phalcon the IAF and IN can successfully obliterate (with conventional explosives) the port of Karachi with a minimal number of aircraft.
The PAF will be having quite a few AWACs themselves...the Y-8s, the SAABs and possibly, P-3s fitted with Hawkeye radars!!!
