Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 May 2009 09:16

The best time to knock down an AWACS is peacetime or shortly before any hostilities commence. An AWACS employed at peacetime is a continuous threat because it is continuously monitoring one's airspace.

When it comes to war, a philosophical question that might be asked is "Which is more important, Amritsar or an AWACS?"

It is definitely a stupid Catch 22 question, but one that can easily become reality.

Ideally any "escort" cover should be aiming at taking down any threat when it is deep within enemy territory, long before the threat even starts approaching the border. If any attacking aircraft break through this cordon, either you have assets available to protect both AWACS and Amritsar, or you protect only one. Or neither. Whichever way you cut the pie, Amritsar scores over AWACS when it comes to "escort" duties.

AWACS tactics must be tailored to situation in which it can take care of itself while all available assets are pressed into service to protect targets that are as valuable or more valuable than the AWACS. The enemy has the choice of a thousand targets. You have to protect a thousand targets, of which the AWACS is only one. An AWACS is a good and expensive tool that must be employed in the protection of assets that are far more valuable than itself, and in the destruction of threats to those valuable targets. In a situation of war the Air Force may just not have enough assets to have a dedicated 24x7 AWACS protection force flying around. And note that escort fighters will be able to do little about long range AAMs or SAM's. On the other hand you can bet that the AWACS itself will be flying 24x7.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 14 May 2009 09:42

Shiv and other Gurus here, I have query

If we can't take the AWACS into the Pak territory during peacetime and say we keep the AWACS a safe distance into India (about 100 Kms), then we are left with just 300 Kms of insight into the Pak territory. And that would also mean risking an asset like AWACS, shortening its life, burning a lot of fuel, raising the takes for the maintenance staff etc.

So during peacetime, why don't we deploy the Aerostat radars which seem to have a better range (500 Kms) than the AWACS (400Kms). The AWACS could be flown only during the war time.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 May 2009 09:51

Murphyji - I am no guru. Only an enthusiast and an ArmchAir Marshal. The 100 Km was only guesswork. I am sure an AWACS can fly right up to the border itself depending on how it is done.

In an analogy, an Indian submarine in the ocean can technically sink a Chinese or US ship if it can get close enough. It is upto the Chinese and US navies to ensure that this theoretical risk does not become reality in peacetime or wartime. In the same way - an Indian AWACS flying 10 Km inside the Indian border is technically at risk and it is upto the IAF to ensure that it does not get taken down.

Gaurav_S · Post by **Gaurav_S** » 14 May 2009 10:14

Dmurphy, as India is getting its first AWACS (out of 3) my belief is that IAF wants to get some hands on experience using AWACS during peacetime. AWACS being complex and sophisticated system its good idea for IAF to get required number of people fully practically trained itself in India during peace. Also IMO IAF will be operating 2 AWACS at maximum during no war.

Added later: Even if we know IAF have got required training in Israel IMO it cant be very well compared to circumstances of in India. The geography and surveillance range must be having some impact over any AWACS mission/sortie.

JMT

ChandraS · Post by **ChandraS** » 14 May 2009 10:19

Murphy,

To add to what Shiv said, the AWACS deployment in any sector will be based on IAF's perception of threats and the benefits of such actions. Remember the PAF Atlantique incident (Clicky). The risks are the same for our AWACS too, if we wish to fly close to or inside the Pak airspace.

Re: your intial post on utility of AWACS and preference of Aerostat radars - The saying 'Harder you train in peace, lesser you bleed in war' holds true for most part. Unless the AWACS is flown regularly and used, IAF cannot develop confidence in its capabilities and abilities or know any quirks or shortcomings. The crews will have to be trained and made familiar with the system so as to perform at the peak in war situation. The maintainence crews will similarly get trained and valuable data will be collected about the performance of sub systems and parts. This will all help to turnaround the plane faster in wartime, which is the key. Tactics, training and procedures are mostly what distinguishes one fighting force from another with a similar weapons systems. As far as Aerostat is concerned, despite the 500 km range it has the drawback of being static and thus predictable. One can figure out where the coverage is and plan accordingly. The AWACS with its unpredictable flight pattern will cover such gaps and shortcomings. Thus Aerostats and AWACS will complement each other to help obtain better situational awareness.

JM2P.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 May 2009 11:46

afaik the E-3 always get a close escort of 4-6 fighters loaded for bear when
deployed into a hostile zone. due to its huge radar range, it will have ample
warning of approaching hostiles both to escape to the rear at 850kmph and
to vector interceptors to stop such an attack long before bvr missile range is
attained.

its really a tough target when its eyes are open.

aerostats are vulnerable to latest gen of ARMs which 'remember' the location
of past emissions. you can power it down and spool it back but will lose radar
cover precisely when needed the most for SAMs/GCI.

its also a matter of time before ARMs get IIR seeker - which means they can
hit descending aerostats or the trailer truck on the ground using library images.

I feel aerostats are best used as a rear area coverage to complement the
truck mounted SMART-S kind of radars....better visibility on low flying targets.
esp useful to protect cities, airbases and cantonments from cruise missiles
and unleash volleys of Spyder missiles.

the frontal belt (in wartime) is imo best covered with mobile CAR type radars & AWACS.

we need some "nato style" huge airbases in central and south india to
protect and disperse our assets in a flexible manner in wartime, well equipped
with underground AC hangers for upto Phalcon sized objects.

best awacs-killer/deterrence imo is a small very stealthy UCAV that uses
high lift U2 style sailplane wings to loiter at 100,000ft well out of reach of
most SAMs/AAMs ... passively it should locate the big radiation from awacs
and slowly 'drift' into the general area....then the bomb bay pops open and
out pops a stealth coated astra-2 that dives down at Mach5 using its
height to gain a superlative speed and no-escape zone

Should be coated with solar cells to recharge its batteries and power a
bank of small electric motors to sustain its flight (shut down the main piston
engine). at that height its strong sun all day. at night it can draw from batteries to the extent possible.

or am I talking outa my mush here and prop driven flight at 100kft is impossible?

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 15 May 2009 23:48

shiv wrote:The best time to knock down an AWACS is peacetime or shortly before any hostilities commence. An AWACS employed at peacetime is a continuous threat because it is continuously monitoring one's airspace.

Shiv garu this thought never came to my mind. You are BRF's resident Chanakya, Shushruta rolled into one

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 16 May 2009 02:38

Dmurphy wrote:Shiv and other Gurus here, I have query

If we can't take the AWACS into the Pak territory during peacetime and say we keep the AWACS a safe distance into India (about 100 Kms), then we are left with just 300 Kms of insight into the Pak territory. And that would also mean risking an asset like AWACS, shortening its life, burning a lot of fuel, raising the takes for the maintenance staff etc.

So during peacetime, why don't we deploy the Aerostat radars which seem to have a better range (500 Kms) than the AWACS (400Kms). The AWACS could be flown only during the war time.

It is actually quite hard to take the Awacs down. Firstly it has a huge range where it will get imideate warning of enemy activity. The moment it discovers any enemy activity, it will make a sharp turn and head away. Catching up with an Awacs flying at close to 1000 km per hour can be difficult if it is 3-400 km away.
Second issue is of course managing to get a lock on. The Awacs is loaded with counter mesures. Third issue is of course defeting the escort fighters.
The escorts will always prioritise the most important important target. I can't see that Amritsar or even Mumbai has a target more valuable then the AWACS.

Basic rule is, if you do not have air superiority, you do not opperate the Awacs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 May 2009 08:39

Rishirishi wrote:I can't see that Amritsar or even Mumbai has a target more valuable then the AWACS.

RishiRishi - this is a value judgement. In the 1971 war, the PAF decided that preserving it's own assets were more valuable than losing them while giving air support to the Pak army. This is the last thing that the IAF would do.

If you ask any serving IAF man whether he and his aircraft are more valuable than Mumbai or Amritsar, I am certain his answer would be an emphatic "NO". That does not mean that he would be suicidal, but a value judgement is always about a "last resort"/ "If worst should come to worst" action.

Basic rule is, if you do not have air superiority, you do not opperate the Awacs.

You operate the AWACS in an area of relative air superiority to gain air superiority over other areas. You cannot wait for absolute air superiority first and then tell the AWACS to enter the fray. It can then be used only to transport DDM to the war scene.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 May 2009 08:53

indeed awacs will help us wrest air superiority and impose our shape on things. it is a offensive weapon in that mode. static targets like dilli or mumbai can easily be covered by
ground based radars.

most fighters will run out of fuel long before it chases down a Awacs plane 400km away
while the awacs itself is receding at 850kmph.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 16 May 2009 18:26

an awacs platform with su30's on 'cap' and various mixes of Mig21, 29's and Mirage 2000s in different layers, rotating in and out of the active theatre is very much an air dominance posture - with varying levels of offense and defense. if done right, the paf wont get airborne - the shiv model is right - paf like eye-raq af will opt for survival post conflict rather than lose assets

one might even conclude that in this scenario, if they get airborne then they are trying a nuke mission

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 16 May 2009 18:32

If we have that kind of air dominance, why would they risk their nukes in an airstrike? They have missiles to do the job.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 16 May 2009 21:28

shameekg wrote:If we have that kind of air dominance, why would they risk their nukes in an airstrike? They have missiles to do the job.

there has been much debate on BRF about whether they do or not. there is considerable doubt as to whether they still have missile deliverable warheads, less doubt about air dropped versions

sum · Post by **sum** » 16 May 2009 21:54

there is considerable doubt as to whether they still have missile deliverable warheads, less doubt about air dropped versions

BRF theory is the Taller than mountain friend took away missile deliverable nukes leaving Pakis with only their late 80s vintage air dropped nukes(of course, bit redesigned for modern times)..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 May 2009 23:26

I can't see that Amritsar or even Mumbai has a target more valuable then the AWACS.

Politicians?

pkudva · Post by **pkudva** » 17 May 2009 13:05

Now as we will have a stable govt at the centre, we all have to hope all the pending deals will be signed and even pending order for phalcon will be signed at the earliest.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 17 May 2009 21:07

We have used i think its russian tu 126 with dom on top.(It was loaned to us from Russia during 1971 war). It was so effective as it was in news paper that all the like SU 7/HF 24 fighters/bombers was carring the bomb load then tu 126 was controlling to deliver on the deep target.So Awac will not be any problem to operate.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 17 May 2009 22:15

That canard was spread by porkis as an excuse for the ass whipping they got in 71. IAF never had the Moss.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 18 May 2009 03:05

shiv wrote:
Rishirishi wrote:I can't see that Amritsar or even Mumbai has a target more valuable then the AWACS.

RishiRishi - this is a value judgement. In the 1971 war, the PAF decided that preserving it's own assets were more valuable than losing them while giving air support to the Pak army. This is the last thing that the IAF would do.

If you ask any serving IAF man whether he and his aircraft are more valuable than Mumbai or Amritsar, I am certain his answer would be an emphatic "NO". That does not mean that he would be suicidal, but a value judgement is always about a "last resort"/ "If worst should come to worst" action.

I think they say something but do something. A war has to be won, at all cost, or you loose everything. Preserving an AWACS (which could be a game changer) is of outmost important. I support the PAF's desision to preserve their assets, as they were an very important factor. Had they lost PAF, they would have had no air cover to counter and IAF/IA thrust. Just having a capability in it self, is of vale. Just look at the TSP nukes and how much they are able to "milk" them.

kuldipchager · Post by **kuldipchager** » 18 May 2009 09:52

[youtube][i]That canard was spread by porkis as an excuse for the ass whipping they got in 71. IAF never had the Moss.

I am sure we did have MOSS 126 in 71 war..I used to live in England in 71.After paki army give up in Bangladesh,Indian Airforce have some kind of air show in Banladash.We saw in that parade Moss 126.It might be mistake on indian air force but we saw two funny plane with this type of dome on top. I did try to follow up on Mass 126 then I have read some where in news paper that that those planes are return back to Russia.[/b]

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 18 May 2009 12:56

"Tu-126 was also leased by India in conflicts with Pakistan. "
Quoting excerpt from following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-126

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 18 May 2009 14:15

It is actually quite hard to take the Awacs down. Firstly it has a huge range where it will get imideate warning of enemy activity. The moment it discovers any enemy activity, it will make a sharp turn and head away. Catching up with an Awacs flying at close to 1000 km per hour can be difficult if it is 3-400 km away.

Quite true. This I learned while playing simulators on my computer

By the time the interceptor comes within firing a BVR weapon, either, he'll run out of fuel or be flying over Delhi!

Cheers....

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 May 2009 14:27

vavinash wrote:That canard was spread by porkis as an excuse for the ass whipping they got in 71. IAF never had the Moss.

IAF sources have always said that it was large numbers of aircraft flying CAP with VHF/UHF links - many eyes in the sky - and PAF attacks were few in number and perhaps along predictable routes

personally i doubt the soviets would have risked leasing a Moss out to us, never mind the training time of hundreds of aircrew... wouldn't have been able to keep it quiet. the rumours started from american sources who couldn't believe that the PAF was overwhelmed despite flying amrikan maal

SKrishna · Post by **SKrishna** » 18 May 2009 15:34

Link

Although the capabilities of the Tu-126 were often derided by the West who doubted the performance of Soviet electronics, one Tu-126 transferred to the Indian Air Force was highly rated as an exceptional platform during the nation's 1971 war with Pakistan. Nevertheless, the type was withdrawn by about 1990 and replaced by the much more modern A-50.

Here is further proof that the Moss was indeed in India

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 18 May 2009 15:35

[youtube][i]That canard was spread by porkis as an excuse for the ass whipping they got in 71. IAF never had the Moss

I think it was Chuck Yeager who said that.. The Pakis just went along with what thier masters thought.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 18 May 2009 16:00

rkhanna wrote:I think it was Chuck Yeager who said that.. The Pakis just went along with what thier masters thought.

And IIRC, the so called "Moss" were nothing other than high altitude patrolling Mig-21FLs that were used as UHF/VHF relay nodes for the strike packages heading into Pakistan at low altitudes during pre-dusk operations. These Mig-21FLs (Called "Sparrows", IIRC) would help provide a relay back for the returning aircraft in low light conditions.

The Pakistanis picked up these back and forth transmissions between the high altitude Mig-21FLs guiding their brethren back to base and mistook it for AWACS commands!!! But since the only AWACS that could have gone over to the Indians would have been a soviet type, and since the only soviet type available for that job was the Moss, the Pakistanis put 2+2 = 5...

And hence the story of the Moss

-Vivek

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 18 May 2009 18:53

Phalcon with IAF Markings

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 May 2009 18:57

SKrishna wrote:Link

Although the capabilities of the Tu-126 were often derided by the West who doubted the performance of Soviet electronics, one Tu-126 transferred to the Indian Air Force was highly rated as an exceptional platform during the nation's 1971 war with Pakistan. Nevertheless, the type was withdrawn by about 1990 and replaced by the much more modern A-50.

Here is further proof that the Moss was indeed in India

no sir, that is proof that americans thought of soviets as inferior, they thought that anyone trained by them and flying their aircraft would be superior to anyone flying soviet aircraft and therefore (automatically assumed) soviet trained IAF crews. therefore when PAF got their musharraf's ripped open, the american observers could not believe that soviet stuff was kicking butts in front of their eyes, so to save everyone's H&D they spun the story up to include what was supposedly an inferior awacs as the force changer for IAF...

yeah, what-ever!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 May 2009 19:08

Lalmohan wrote:

no sir, that is proof that americans thought of soviets as inferior, they thought that anyone trained by them and flying their aircraft would be superior to anyone flying soviet aircraft and therefore (automatically assumed) soviet trained IAF crews. therefore when PAF got their musharraf's ripped open, the american observers could not believe that soviet stuff was kicking butts in front of their eyes, so to save everyone's H&D they spun the story up to include what was supposedly an inferior awacs as the force changer for IAF...

yeah, what-ever!

Which is why I believe that the US and Pakis have a lot in common

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 May 2009 19:43

^^^ i disagree

, but the US obsession with anti-communism through the 50's-90's made them quite irrational from many other perspectives

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 18 May 2009 20:25

Dmurphy wrote:Shiv and other Gurus here, I have query

If we can't take the AWACS into the Pak territory during peacetime and say we keep the AWACS a safe distance into India (about 100 Kms), then we are left with just 300 Kms of insight into the Pak territory. And that would also mean risking an asset like AWACS, shortening its life, burning a lot of fuel, raising the takes for the maintenance staff etc.

So during peacetime, why don't we deploy the Aerostat radars which seem to have a better range (500 Kms) than the AWACS (400Kms). The AWACS could be flown only during the war time.

Current generation of aerostat radars have range of about 250 km (not 500km). Phalcon AWACS range is close to 450 km. So even 450-100 =350Km is more than Aerostat range. A 350KM radius circle around Adampur includes most Pakistan's strategic military airports. Also AWACS will supplement existing network of radars based on critical mountain tops in J&K in North. It will supplement aerostat network in Rajasthan and Gujarat. Ground based radars, aerostat, and AWACS have their own operational limitation and survivability at war time. So usually a mix of resources will be deployed.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 May 2009 21:04

May 20, and has the Phalcon reached India as yet ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 May 2009 22:25

aerostat = radars.

Phalcon = Radar, IFF, ESM/ELINT and CSM/COMINT

The "INT" has a LOT of value - specially in peace time.

Phalcons will deal with IAF + IN + IA.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 18 May 2009 22:38

Very interesting, one site above cites A-50 flying with India by 1990. (I had once stated that India declined later Russian aircraft in favour of the Phalcon because they already had that technology-funny how things can be deduced

).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 May 2009 22:41

My recollection is that India tried the A-50, at around the same time Israel "offered" the Phalcon to China. The US stepped in and forced Israel to stop the Chinese deal, when the Phalcon was offered to India. India, then, declined the A-50 and accepted the Phalcon (on a Russian aircraft).

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 19 May 2009 07:15

http://www.airteamimages.com/pics/83/83511_800.jpg

marimuthu · Post by **marimuthu** » 19 May 2009 07:40

Sanjay Any data on where and when the photo was taken?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 May 2009 07:51

http://airteamimages.com/83512.html

Aircraft Details:
KW3551
Beriev A-50 Shmel
India - Indian Air Force

Location:
Tel Aviv, Israel

Photo by: Yochai
Date: 2009-04-06
Image ID: 83511

Beriev A-50EI Mainstay based on the platform of the Ilyushin Il-76

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 May 2009 07:52

http://airteamimages.com/pics/83/83512_800.jpg

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 19 May 2009 08:27

abhiti wrote:Current generation of aerostat radars have range of about 250 km (not 500km).

Are u sure of that? No matter which source i referred, they all say 500 Km radius or range
Source 1
Source 2

NRao wrote:aerostat = radars.

Phalcon = Radar, IFF, ESM/ELINT and CSM/COMINT

The "INT" has a LOT of value - specially in peace time.

Raosaab, I was hoping the rest of the alphabets like IFF could be ground managed after receiving inputs from Aerostat radar.