Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 29 May 2009 16:20

rkhanna wrote:
Transfer this to

Humour Thread

or

Science Fiction Thread

Paki DDM aside They will be getting

4 SAAB Awacs
2-4 Chinese AWACs
4 HAWKEYE AEW Suits for their P-3s

Thats a decent 10-12 airborne AEW capability.

But will they get it by Oct as per PAF commander

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 29 May 2009 17:16

the answer is what if the TSPAF aircraft approach west of AWACS.
So with due respect to Jassoo M we need 360 degree azmuthal Scan from the chapathi. In addition to reasons mentioned by Shiv ji garu

sum · Post by **sum** » 29 May 2009 18:51

Paki DDM aside They will be getting
4 SAAB Awacs
2-4 Chinese AWACs
4 HAWKEYE AEW Suits for their P-3s

No doubt it sounds impressive but the problem is that half the AWACs work only with a few aircrafts of the fleet and the ther half work with few others with not much datalinking between different aircraft makes in the PAF...

Each will operate in their own silos ( Y-8s with Chinki maal, SAAB with F-16s, HAWKEYE with F-16s) making it tough for effective utilization...Also, if we go by recent statements of the retd Paki air-marshall, the Y-8 is a piece of junk which was force fed by the Chinese via Musharraf...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 May 2009 19:16

JMTs.

The width (of Pakistan) at around Lahore is around 500 Kms. Above that the width decreases and below it the width increases.

Even west of the border around Jaiselmer, the width of Pakistan is around 7-800 Kms.

Here is my thinking. Why would a salvo of Brahmos at their AWACS bases (and a few others) not prevent them from deploying their AWACS?

I think the best Pakis can do is actually operate from either Saudi Arabia or perhaps even China - granted there are associated risks.

The idea being that PAF should be under lock and key

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 29 May 2009 19:30

Time to Update the "AIR FORCE SQUADRONS AND ESTABLISHMENTS" page

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 29 May 2009 23:00

sum wrote: recent statements of the retd Paki air-marshall, the Y-8 is a piece of junk which was force fed by the Chinese via Musharraf...

Equipment capability never did anything for pakis because they've always had their ass kicked whether they had super-duper Pattons, Sabres, F-104s or whatever, so I'd discount the "force-fed by Chinese/mushy" canard as an excuse. Its really a matter of the pakis needing to strut around with a tandoori roti on their heads because the Indians are doing it, capabilities be damned. Purely a delusional Honour & Dignity issue as is normal for pakis.

Just how delusional and cowardly can be guaged by the paki air chief's assertion that he can make Aishwarya kiss him in public but since Abhisheck might become angry, this may have a high cost (like losing all their lives) so he'll leave the decision up to the politicians:

Pakistan Air Force Chief Rao Qamar Suleman has made it clear that Pakistan is capable of shooting down US drones but it could result in war between Pakistan and US, which we cannot afford....the decision has to be taken by the government and Parliament,

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 30 May 2009 01:28

Victor wrote:
Just how delusional and cowardly can be guaged by the paki air chief's assertion that he can make Aishwarya kiss him in public but since Abhisheck might become angry, this may have a high cost (like losing all their lives) so he'll leave the decision up to the politicians:

I feel that he's being very pragmatic. Pakistan's situation is very much like a helpless household living in a lawless town- the big boys (US in this case) can come home and bugger the pretty girls at home, while the rest at home can't do much about it except sit tight and occasionally show some bravado.

the PAF ACM is only expressing it in as much that while its possible to beat back maybe one of the bad boys, the rest would come back to punish them very severely, so its better to just keep getting buggered. Pakistani sovereignity is a joke as far as the US is concerned, and this is a tacit acknowledgement of that from the PAF ACM..shooting down unarmed UAVs is about all the PAF can do to harm the US..but the retribution could be much worse.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 May 2009 03:22

BTW, I was under the impression that the PAF had inducted the PL-12. Supposedly it has a range in excess of 100 Kms.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 30 May 2009 11:38

Dmurphy wrote:RIA Novosti:First Russian AWACS plane put in service with Indian air force
India dropped Russia from a $1-bln tender to supply six aerial tankers for the Indian Air Force due to poor after-sales maintenance services and is most likely to look for another manufacturer for future AWACS orders to satisfy its needs for early warning aircraft.
Just as I had expected. My bet's on the Israeli Gulfstream CAEWS 'Eitam'

Difficult to say... it will most likely be a JV between IAI for the CAEW Tech, to be incorporated into the AEW&C Phase 2 project. Both the present MoD (Top brass, not babus) as well as DRDO are pushing for this... and given a year, once IAF sees the final array for AEW&C, they will also be ok with it - right now, they aren't averse to something like that.

In fact, simultaneously, Eitam is also being pushed as a JV for technology, in case they aren't able to make a clean sale. Technologies we need/are looking at are - Battlefield management & Combat control, ground control and detection, interface between air and ground, better networking - in a nutshell, turning the AEW into a complete command centre, which can handle the war on the ground as well...

As of now, the operational doctrine that is being developed for AEW is to have Phalcons (6 nos) as Theatre level controllers, with the smaller EMB-145s weaving in around the Phalcon areas to provide continuous coverage for areas of importance, on demand by the local commander. This includes Army commanders as well (the joint op doctrine and heirarchy is being looked at - don't wait for it).

In wartime, they are expecting around 2 Phalcons in the air at all time (for 24 hr ops at 500 km, we need around 3 Phalcons and 5 crews, from the CAEW presentation calculations), with around 4 AEWs around them. That means that we'll need around 5-6 Phalcons, and 8 AEWs for 1 front. The rest will be handled by ground radars.

p_saggu wrote:Further,
Can a really big AESA be used as an offensive weapon? There are prelim reports about its useage in a high speed data transfer role.

Yes... it can... electronic steering means that you can direct the rf energy in one direction to jam or interfere with the enemy's radar return, which will make him effectively blind. Its like shining a torch into someones eyes. The problem is that your torch needs to be bright enough, or else, it willl only let the enemy know where you are (not that he already doesn't). The issue is whether ur algorithms and hardware supports it. WRT the Phalc, I don't know. But we are definitely looking for this capability in our AEW, especially in generation of custom waveforms and fast pencil-beam generation.

Just to let you know, as already mentioned, the info about AWACs is really guarded, but speak to a few people and you realize that everyone is working towards that little extra edge, given the furious pace of electronics and ECM development... our own guys are trying out stuff to get much higher accuracies, stuff that doesn't appear to be on present systems in Public Domain knowledge. Its just a continuous race to adapt and improve.

Coming to comm...The data rates from American Fighter AESAs are around 248 MBps (and thats only the reported number)....

Austin wrote:
Sumeet wrote:Austin AESA radar of Phalcon can only act as a transmitter. But you still need technique generator. Otherwise there is no ECM at all. All ECM systems have TG. The modern ones are based on latest DRFMs and have most up to date threat library available with them.
Ok fine let me understand this the so called TG is a combination of DSP and Software Algorithm . An AESA radar of Phalcon can act as Transmitter and Receiver , DRFM is again a combination of DSP and Signal Generator.

Now one can just use a small portion of AESA and generate the necessary ECM technique and DRFM type jamming , what can stop these AESA from being converted into Multi Function system ?

Nothing at all.... which is is the major advantage of AESAs in the first place. Ur AESA functionality is only dependent on the signal processing power at ur disposal. Do note that ur array and TRMs are quite versatile, but to actually get the interleaved modes, a lot of processing power is needed in parallel - this adds hardware. Its a trade-off.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 May 2009 14:28

NRao wrote:BTW, I was under the impression that the PAF had inducted the PL-12. Supposedly it has a range in excess of 100 Kms.

I suppose thay can solder the musharraf of one to the nose of another and get a range of 200+ km?

ajay_hk · Post by **ajay_hk** » 30 May 2009 23:44

A news clip from NDTV.

The golden catch: India gets AWACS

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 31 May 2009 01:45

ajay_hk wrote:A news clip from NDTV.
The golden catch: India gets AWACS

Why all this takleef about the AWACS being late, when we openly admit that it will take two more years for our fighters to be datalinked ?

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 31 May 2009 02:28

Anujan wrote:Why all this takleef about the AWACS being late, when we openly admit that it will take two more years for our fighters to be datalinked ?

I noticed that too.

So...here's a question: Why haven't the fighters been equipped yet?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 May 2009 07:10

He did say "most", so should have the connectivity.

And with the sat going up it will take a year or so to get better connectivity.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 31 May 2009 08:07

From:

Aircraft with AWACS inducted into Air Force

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major said: “We foresaw that future air operations will be conducted at a very high tempo, and this requires real-time control of all our combat assets. To dominate the aerial environment in our region, we need to fully exploit the capabilities provided by the very effective networking of AWACS, with other sensors and combat assets.”

He said the IAF had a robust network, AFNET, which was integrated with the Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) and the Operational Data Link.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 31 May 2009 11:38

Austin wrote:
Sumeet wrote:Austin AESA radar of Phalcon can only act as a transmitter. But you still need technique generator. Otherwise there is no ECM at all. All ECM systems have TG. The modern ones are based on latest DRFMs and have most up to date threat library available with them.
Ok fine let me understand this the so called TG is a combination of DSP and Software Algorithm . An AESA radar of Phalcon can act as Transmitter and Receiver , DRFM is again a combination of DSP and Signal Generator.

Now one can just use a small portion of AESA and generate the necessary ECM technique and DRFM type jamming , what can stop these AESA from being converted into Multi Function system ?

Austin,

I am travelling so cannot reply in detail. But here is the thing, same AESA aperture can be used for Radar, IFF, ECM, Datalink however for that the AESA needs to be built from scratch keeping in mind all this. Special T/R modules should be made that work in multiple bands to form a ultrawideband array, so that EM transmission in different bands can be facilitated. Phalcon is L Band AESA, how can it jam radar seeker of active radar missiles that operate in X, K, Ku or Ka bands ?

Point to note even the latest AWACS from Northrop Grumann, MESA does not used AESA antenna for ECM.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 31 May 2009 11:47

Images: IAF’s AWACS

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 31 May 2009 13:36

Tilak wrote:Images: IAF’s AWACS

Well,
This one is not winning a beauty contest any time soon. Still better looking than Ka-27 though.

In the second picture, on the chappati, the black seems to be composite cover and the grey seems to be metal. Please note the orientation of the array.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 May 2009 14:23

Anujan wrote:
Tilak wrote:Images: IAF’s AWACS
Well,
This one is not winning a beauty contest any time soon.

Well to be fair - you've not see Aishwarya Rai through a fish eye lens have you?

Could be a cellphone camera - as you can see from the full-size images.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 31 May 2009 15:28

well to me she looks very sexy -maybe on the heavier side but then everyone don't go for aneroxic type

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 31 May 2009 16:33

Shankar wrote:well to me she looks very sexy -maybe on the heavier side but then everyone don't go for aneroxic type

She definitely is sexy

Shankorosky and more importantly she's ours and she aint on the heavier side sir just big boned that way she can take more punishment when the time comes...

(This statement is only related to the IAF Phalcon Awacs KW3551 and nothing else onlee and any inference there on is the readers responsibility...now to the kaves....

)

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 02 Jun 2009 02:34

next three phalcons will be g550/emb-145/b767/airbus aircraft but not il-76

IAF may replace Russian IL-76 with modern aircraft in future

New Delhi, May 28 (PTI) After inducting its first Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), the IAF is planning to replace the Russian IL-76 aircraft with some other "modern aircraft" as the platform for the system in future.
India is the first country in South Asia to own an AWACS, popularly called 'an eye in the sky'.

"The first three AWACS will be based on the Russian IL-76s but they are older aircraft and they will be replaced with modern aircraft, which have same endurance as the IL-76," an IAF source told PTI here.

Officials, however, said the process to look out for new platforms for AWACS will begin only after the remaining two systems are inducted in the IAF. The second of the AWACS is expected to be in India by early 2010 and the last one by the end of next year.

The aircraft being looked as a replacement for the IL-76 include Embraer and Gulfstream 550, which can carry out flying missions of over nine hours at a stretch.

On operations by AWACS, the source said, "all the equipment for the system to work will take another two to three months to arrive. So, it will take three months before they start operational flying." The aircraft will be deployed in Agra with IAF's 50 Squadron under Allahabad-based Central Air Command but will be assigned tasks directly by the Air Headquarters. PTI

http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.ns ... enDocument

Russia Cut Out Of Indian AWACS Plans

Now India is looking for three more Phalcon AWACS, to provide better warning of nuclear missile attack from Pakistan, or China. India is open to offers from other aircraft manufacturers, as it was not happy with Russia and the Il-76. Israel uses Boeing 707s, which are no longer manufactured. But Israel will install Phalcon in a Boeing 767, or an AirBus aircraft, both of which the U.S. Air Force considered for its new aerial tanker. Russia has irked India several times with late deliveries of military equipment, as well as warranty and pricing disputes. The IL-76 delay apparently had long term negative effects on trade relations.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/ ... 90527.aspx

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 02 Jun 2009 03:29

Isn't the Eitam more of a AEW rather than a full blown AWACS? And what role is the Eitam supposed to play considering that the DRDO-Embraer AEW is in the pipeline?

For an AWACS I would have thought that the IAF would look at either the B-767 or the Airbus A-330 as the platform.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 02 Jun 2009 03:49

The A-330 would make a lot of sense considering they are to be used for IAF's refueling tankers. Especially when it comes to maintenance facilities being utilized for both the AWACS and Tankers, a big win.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 Jun 2009 07:19

If the IAF can achieve the same with Embraer/Gulfstream 550, then the larger A-330 may not be needed. The former are certainly cheaper to operate than the A-330 as well.

From the official site of Embraer: EMB 145 AEW&C

Div · Post by **Div** » 02 Jun 2009 07:57

Anurag wrote:The A-330 would make a lot of sense considering they are to be used for IAF's refueling tankers. Especially when it comes to maintenance facilities being utilized for both the AWACS and Tankers, a big win.

Are three any A-330 based AWACs operating today? If not, it may be expensive (time and $) to put the airframe through the necessary mods and testing.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jun 2009 08:05

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnUo1xew7-M

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jun 2009 08:09

CAEW EL/W-2085
CAEW = 3rd gen AWACS

sombhat · Post by **sombhat** » 02 Jun 2009 11:54

The A330 just lost its impeccable safety record

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 02 Jun 2009 14:40

saptarishi wrote:next three phalcons will be g550/emb-145/b767/airbus aircraft but not il-76 IAF may replace Russian IL-76 with modern aircraft in future

Some babu didn't get his bakshih...who will pay for the time and expense to certify phalcon on yet another platform?

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 02 Jun 2009 15:06

abhiti wrote:who will pay for the time and expense to certify phalcon on yet another platform?

So it all comes down to who takes more time and money - The Ruskies to deliver or the babus to "study and approve"? And nothing technical about the decision? Like better endurance, maintability etc..

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Jun 2009 15:06

Wouldn't a 4 Engine configuration like IL-76 is a better and fail safe option , than the twin engine A-330 ?

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 02 Jun 2009 16:44

^^^
While two engines are now accepted as safe enough for civilian airliners all over the world, we have to remember that this is a military aircraft, which will be close to a war zone, may have to land and takeoff from less than optimal airfields. Although clearly not an expert view, I would assume that four engines would indeed be much safer than two.

The large PS-90 high flow turbofans on the Phalcon we've got seem to me like they could fly the aircraft with even a few of them down.

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 02 Jun 2009 17:12

May be its not specifically about the Il-76. What most people seem to have missed is that around two years back
there were reports of delay in providing the modified Il-76 by the Russians.
Whatever the reasons, something which we are not aware of must have pissed off the IAF.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Jun 2009 17:15

I mean my thinking was the last thing we need is to loose expensive AWACS and irreplaceable crew due to engine issue.

If not IL-76 , how about other commercial 4 engine aircraft like A-340 ?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 02 Jun 2009 17:29

Austin wrote:Wouldn't a 4 Engine configuration like IL-76 is a better and fail safe option , than the twin engine A-330 ?

theoretically yes, although these days twin engines are pretty reliable for long haul. there must be a curve of twin engine reliability and quad engine reliability (and potential increased risk due to more mechanical parts) and possibly some sort of sweet spot where its all good

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Jun 2009 20:49

I mean if they loose one engine due to bird hit or mechanical/electrical failure , can they safely get the bird down in adverse weather ?

Plus the advantage of having a military aircraft like IL-76 or US ones are they are designed to take of from short unprepared strip or runways , may be civilian ones are not that tough nut.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 02 Jun 2009 20:57

Austin wrote:I mean my thinking was the last thing we need is to loose expensive AWACS and irreplaceable crew due to engine issue.

If not IL-76 , how about other commercial 4 engine aircraft like A-340 ?

Twin engine is safe enough.. it is designed to land with one engine off..

Anyway dont expect any missiles or gun shots in the engine bcoz AWACS will always operate safe distance from border..

Reg under-prepared runways etc -- remember, PHALCON will always fly 100km inside the border.. so semi prepared runways not a problem.. we have very good airbases mcuh closer to the border.. semi-prepared runways etc are more of a design criteria for An32 kind of ops..

Remember the Nishant story -- When Nishant was conceptualised, IA wanted something that doesnt require runways.. so lot of effort went into Hydraulic launnch & parachute-recovery... When the Israeli's wanted to seel their Herons Searchers, they told IA "you have forward bases close to border.. so runway is not a problem".. and IA obliged..

Now we are inventing the wheel backwards by making a wheeled-variant of Nishant..

Its all about how good you are at "marketing" -- well you market the advantages..

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 02 Jun 2009 21:42

Austin wrote:I mean if they loose one engine due to bird hit or mechanical/electrical failure , can they safely get the bird down in adverse weather ?

Plus the advantage of having a military aircraft like IL-76 or US ones are they are designed to take of from short unprepared strip or runways , may be civilian ones are not that tough nut.

Austin,

The A330 based aircraft is certified to fly on one engine and conduct landings in relatively adverse weather. So are most other twin engined civilian aircraft models.

Also, the massive difference between the endurance and range of the A330 based model versus the IL-76 model should allow the former to be based far into the rear and still not affect its operational deployment or duration.

-Vivek

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Jun 2009 21:56

In fact - I think modern twin engine jets that are certified to do one engine takeoffs after a bird hit, let alone landing. I believe the takeoff would be aborted if it happens early - but at a later stage the plane takes off - on one engine,

I have heard of one case of bird ingestion of an Indian jet that completed its takeoff and landed safely.

In the early years only 4 engine jets used to be certified for transatlantic flights. But when newer engines came with great power and even greater reliability the reduced complexity and weight and improved performance was recognised and twin jets were certified for long haul flights over oceans.