India takes up AWACS programme, can penetrate enemy territory

[ashok321]

India takes up AWACS programme, can penetrate enemy territory - Brahmand.com


BANGALORE (PTI): India has just taken up development of the Rs 6,000 crore Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) that will have the capability to penetrate "longer distances" enemy territory by way of radars and electronic warfare systems without venturing into the region physically, a top defence official said Friday.

Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister, Secretary in the Department of Defence (R&D) and Director General of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) V K Saraswat said DRDO just started the programme, after clearance from the Government recently.

Asked how it's different from the indigenous Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system, he said: "AWACS is a heavier and high endurance system, which can give you in terms of coverage about 360 degrees as against AEW&C which is about 270 degree coverage".

In addition, (compared to AEW&C) AWACS flies at a higher altitude and it can penetrate into the enemy territory -- not physically -- (but) by way of radars and EW (electronic warfare) systems to longer distances and it can be in sky for larger durations, besides giving better visibility.

"Both have a role. All over the world, people have AEW&C and AWACS in a tandem mode because each one does its role and that's what our country is also doing", Saraswat said.

He said two AEW&C aircraft would be ready this year, adding, "By 2014, we will complete delivery of all the three aircraft (AEW&C) to Indian Air Force".

Meanwhile, Saraswat also said that the DRDO has conducted a flight of "guided bomb". "It's a bomb which can fly for about 40-50 or even more kilometres in a guided mode and it can be released from an aircraft".

He said the guided bomb is a totally indigenous effort, from designing, development and realisation including explosive content in them, as also guidance and control.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Emergence of Airavat from the dead?

 

[ashok321]

Emergence of Airavat from the dead?

The Radar dome was not properly integrated with the fuselage.

 

[Tangent]

India takes up AWACS programme, can penetrate enemy territory - Brahmand.com


BANGALORE (PTI):


Asked how it's different from the indigenous Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system, he said: "AWACS is a heavier and high endurance system, which can give you in terms of coverage about 360 degrees as against AEW&C which is about 270 degree coverage".

In addition, (compared to AEW&C) AWACS flies at a higher altitude and it can penetrate into the enemy territory -- not physically -- (but) by way of radars and EW (electronic warfare) systems to longer distances and it can be in sky for larger durations, besides giving better visibility.

"Both have a role. All over the world, people have AEW&C and AWACS in a tandem mode because each one does its role and that's what our country is also doing", Saraswat said.

He said two AEW&C aircraft would be ready this year, adding, "By 2014, we will complete delivery of all the three aircraft (AEW&C) to Indian Air Force".

[/B]

..I would wait till the AEW&C planes take to air with DRDO's stuff and IAF (the most phoren premi service) accepts , put's in active service...
..otherwise they will use this for ferry service...
DRDO & IAF doesn't mix well...

 

[Major.]

sarswat is in Bangalore, is currently reviewing many strategic as well conventional programmes

 

[janon]

So where will these fit in vis-à-vis the phalcons? Isn't that a duplication of capabilities?

Is the IAF is going to operate 3 (!) different kinds of AEWAC planes? Damn!

Can somebody explain why the AEWAC and AWAC perform different ROLES, as emphasized by Mr Saraswat? I understand their capabilities are different, but what differing ROLES do play?

Does the USAF use anything other than E-3 sentries? He says that "all over the world AWACS and AEWACs are used in tandem". Can somebody give an example of that?

 

[Skull and Bones]

Can somebody explain why the AEWAC and AWAC perform different ROLES, as emphasized by Mr Saraswat? I understand their capabilities are different, but what differing ROLES do play?

AWACS have rotating dome with 360 degree coverage and much higher tracking range and can track many more targets that AEW&C. So the prices of AWACS are much higher than AEW&Cs.

AEW&Cs are cheaper platform having coverage ranging between 150-240 degree, based on a lighter platform. And having some sort of SIGINT capabilities.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

AWACS have rotating dome with 360 degree coverage and much higher tracking range and can track many more targets that AEW&C. So the prices of AWACS are much higher than AEW&Cs.

AEW&Cs are cheaper platform having coverage ranging between 150-240 degree, based on a lighter platform. And having some sort of SIGINT capabilities.

You dont necessarily need a rotating dome...a triangular arrangement will solve the problem of the 360 degree view.

 

[Skull and Bones]

You dont necessarily need a rotating dome...a triangular arrangement will solve the problem of the 360 degree view.

Yes, but that'd require larger number of T/R modules and more power output that a rotating dome.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Yes, but that'd require larger number of T/R modules and more power output that a rotating dome.

Well not a problem....The Phalcon systems are arranged in the triangular form. And most of the AWACS which has a command platform in it like the Boeing 737 or the A 50 platform dosent need to worry about the electrical output.

you can see the triangular arrangement in this pic if you look closely.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Well not a problem....The Phalcon systems are arranged in the triangular form. And most of the AWACS which has a command platform in it like the Boeing 737 or the A 50 platform dosent need to worry about the electrical output.

It is possible, but that won't be cost effective solution. While a rotating dome can cover the same area with a much smaller number of T/R modules. Also, with greater number of T/R modules, the number of onboard processors will increase too.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

It is possible, but that won't be cost effective solution. While a rotating dome can cover the same area with a much smaller number of T/R modules. Also, with greater number of T/R modules, the number of onboard processors will increase too.

But comparing the life cycle cost for maintainance of the rotodome the triangular arrangement offers a fixed solution. So it is less maintainance intensive.

 

[for truth]

AWACS have rotating dome with 360 degree coverage and much higher tracking range and can track many more targets that AEW&C. So the prices of AWACS are much higher than AEW&Cs.

AEW&Cs are cheaper platform having coverage ranging between 150-240 degree, based on a lighter platform. And having some sort of SIGINT capabilities.

skully, we have bought 8 P-8I Poseidon, but if you go through the 'Kawsaki P-1' long range maritime patrol aircraft, the P-8I Poseidon is comparably less capable, the Japanese Kawasaki P-1 has AESA radar and can carry 6 missiles, while the Indian P-8I is not based on AESA and can carry only 4 harpoon missiles, and even the range mentioned of P-8I is far less compared to Japanese P-1 Kawasaki, what do you think of those two, which would have been the best buy for Indian navy(although the Japanese don't sell their military hardware to foreign nations, i believe we should have requested the Japanese for the P-1)?. i believe the Japanese P-1 Kawasaki is more powerful than P-8I.

It is possible, but that won't be cost effective solution. While a rotating dome can cover the same area with a much smaller number of T/R modules. Also, with greater number of T/R modules, the number of onboard processors will increase too.

skully, on what platform they will build the AWACS, will it be European airbus, Boeing or the Russian IL-76?

 

[Skull and Bones]

skully, we have bought 8 P-8I Poseidon, but if you go through the 'Kawsaki P-1' long range maritime patrol aircraft, the P-8I Poseidon is comparably less capable, the Japanese Kawasaki P-1 has AESA radar and can carry 6 missiles, while the Indian P-8I is not based on AESA and can carry only 4 harpoon missiles, and even the range mentioned of P-8I is far less compared to Japanese P-1 Kawasaki, what do you think of those two, which would have been the best buy for Indian navy?--given the fact that Japanese don't sell their military hardware to foreign nations, i believe the Japanese P-1 Kawasaki is more powerful than P-8I

Japan doesn't sell offensive weapon platforms to any countries, their first offer to India is Shimawya US-2 Amphibious aircraft.

But comparing the life cycle cost for maintainance of the rotodome the triangular arrangement offers a fixed solution. So it is less maintainance intensive.

Life cycle cost mainly includes over hauling of the engine, upgrading processors and onboard computing equipments, replacing T/R modules with more efficient ones.

The cost involved in maintaining the rotodome will be minuscule to consider over the total platform cost.

 

[for truth]

Japan doesn't sell offensive weapon platforms to any countries, their first offer to India is Shimawya US-2 Amphibious aircraft.

i had heard that they were reconsidering this decades old ban on selling weapons, i don't know if this is true, but if they really do scrap that law and agree to sell weapons, what do you think, should we scrap the further orders for P-8I and go for P-1 Kawasaki?