Airborne Early Warning Systems - A-50EI Phalcon, DRDO Netra AEW&C, DRDO AWACS
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
you need to look at how stealth technology is rapidly evolving , US is moving towards ELO aircraft ( B 21 raider) & beyond with RCS in range of 0.000001 m2.... For F 35 0.0001 m2 RCS criteria was met. In lower band say L band where most AWACS operate same RCS value would be higher but it will still be a very stealthy plane & even if you mange to detect the target somehow.... accuracy and resoulution would be pathetic.
advancement in digital signal processing technologies today allow to negate radar clutter to large extent compared to past but it's not enough.
If you want to put an X band radar... Power demand, technology requirement will increase exponentially....it won't be a early warning system anymore.
I once made a post about putting THAAD AN/TYP 2 X Band radar on a plane given it's power & cooling requirements are met somehow & using it as an airborne FCR.
25,344 GaAs antenna elements each rated 50W probably more.
Thing can detect and provide firing solution for a golf ball size target 470 km away.
That will be 200 km for F 22, F 35 class target and 60 km for upcoming B 21 raider. More than 2000 km for PAF F 16 & bundar. You can fly your plane over over MP and can still see a F 16 flying clearly over Pak Afghan border....all under Ideal conditions though.
now American are shifting towards GaN so sensitivity will be many folds. range probably will increase by 50%....that's roughly 300km range for F 22 , F 35 & 100 km for raider & 3000 km for bundar and F 16.
Israeli CAEW use 2 L band side panel & 2 S band panel....one in nose & one in tail not X band.
Last edited:
360 degree coverage, I suppose.
My guess is they rotate to change radar slats from one angle to another so that they can scan entire 360 degree area effectively.
Otherwise we have NETRA type AWACS with blind spots at certain angles
Last edited:
Its totally confusing, israeli CAEW aircraft doesn't have any rotating parts, but its have 360deg coverage.
They use distributed aperture ?
ie separate modules at different places to cover max possible angles like pakfa does at limited and smaller scale
It has 4 radars... 2 L band side panel & 2 S band radar....one in nose...one is in tail.....360° coverage achieved.They use distributed aperture ?
ie separate modules at different places to cover max possible angles like pakfa does at limited and smaller scale
So large side panels are for volume scan and terminal small modules for search and tracking?
Ship-based radars are also moving to four flat panels. Not three.
It's true that the length of a side in a triangle will be larger than the length of a side on a square, provided both figures are inscribed in the same circle. However, the square will still have a larger circumference. There will also be more overlap in the diagonals, increasing precision in the areas where a single panel suffers. (Perimeter of a regular triangle inscribed in a circle: 3/2*sqrt(3)*circle diameter; or approx 2.598 * diamater; perimeter of a regular square inscribed in a circle: 2*sqrt(2)*circle diameter or approx 2.828 * diameter. The more faces you add to your inscribed polygon, the greater the perimeter, until at infinite faces you get the same perimeter as the circle itself, π * diameter.)
Also looking in the back of the plane is very useful. Because usually an AWACS will fly in circles instead of always flying towards the enemy. Looking all around is how it can keep an eye on the action without having to come dangerously close to it.
It's true that the length of a side in a triangle will be larger than the length of a side on a square, provided both figures are inscribed in the same circle. However, the square will still have a larger circumference. There will also be more overlap in the diagonals, increasing precision in the areas where a single panel suffers. (Perimeter of a regular triangle inscribed in a circle: 3/2*sqrt(3)*circle diameter; or approx 2.598 * diamater; perimeter of a regular square inscribed in a circle: 2*sqrt(2)*circle diameter or approx 2.828 * diameter. The more faces you add to your inscribed polygon, the greater the perimeter, until at infinite faces you get the same perimeter as the circle itself, π * diameter.)
Also looking in the back of the plane is very useful. Because usually an AWACS will fly in circles instead of always flying towards the enemy. Looking all around is how it can keep an eye on the action without having to come dangerously close to it.
But what’s the use of rotation?
Do they have asymmetrical distribution of some sensors like some S wave modules at specific angles or something like that?
I have asks this earlier, may be a dumb query also. Why can't we move in this direction? We can uses X band radars in CAEW configuration and a S BAND RADAR in conventional dome structure. I think the massive a330 is capable to carry heavy loads.
@AbRaj
Rotodome looks so 90ish.
Body embedded sensors are future. I think we are just catching up.
Just imagine a C7 with entire body (skin) made of TRmodules
What i am telling is that dual band radars in a single platform. S band dome for area covered and 4 x band on either side of the same aircraft, which can give accurate firing solution to the aircrafts.
Read my question to @A Person
I suspect the EL/W 2090 do have some components of short band along with L band. Otherwise why rotate the whole dome when you have only L band radar on all 3 panels.
Your idea is not bad but Power & technological requirement will be massive though....and there is basically no need.
....Ok let say you put an X band FCR like AN/TYP 2 on a bigger plane like A330 ( with RCS of 100 m2 give or take ) and all your power requirements are met somehow.
your adversary is flying F 22 ( RCS 0.0001m2 ).
AN/TYP 2 under Ideal condition will track F 22 at 200 km range. While F 22 can use Its ALR 94 EW system to target your Glowing slowing moving AWACS even without using it's main radar before you even notice it.
F 22 radar if on will see glowing fatty from more than thrice the distance.
The way stealth is going and US going for ELO aircraft.... the mess will be 100 folds.
the day is not far when IRST will have better chance of detecting planes than radar themselves.
For the antenna? None. With three or four flat AESA panels, the dome isn't supposed to rotate since it can already see in all directions anyway. The rotation is only for a single panel across the diameter of the disk, like in the aging E-2 and E-3 which largely predate AESA technology.
With 4 faces and if you fly in a figure of 8 pattern, you almost always get 2 faces looking into enemy territory. You basically get a 14m array with a 10m radome.
With 3 faces, the array face is just 7-8m, even 12m if your dome is big enough. The Phalcon radome is merely 9m in diameter whereas the Chinese KJ-2000 has a gigantic 14m dome giving it an overall superior performance compared to the Phalcon. So the Chinese may continue with such a design, but it's a really expensive design.
With 2 faces, you can get a pretty large 9m array on a 9m dome, obvious, but it has to be placed on a rotodome, which can lead to increased chances of mechanical failure. But it's much cheaper than the other two options (half the cost of the 14m dome) and does the job anyway. The Russian A-100 should have a 9m dome with 2 faces on a rotodome, like the A-50, but I don't know for sure.
A 9 or 10m dome is safer than a 14m dome and you get better capability with 4 faces than 3 faces even though the 14m version is far more expensive.
With 3 faces, the array face is just 7-8m, even 12m if your dome is big enough. The Phalcon radome is merely 9m in diameter whereas the Chinese KJ-2000 has a gigantic 14m dome giving it an overall superior performance compared to the Phalcon. So the Chinese may continue with such a design, but it's a really expensive design.
With 2 faces, you can get a pretty large 9m array on a 9m dome, obvious, but it has to be placed on a rotodome, which can lead to increased chances of mechanical failure. But it's much cheaper than the other two options (half the cost of the 14m dome) and does the job anyway. The Russian A-100 should have a 9m dome with 2 faces on a rotodome, like the A-50, but I don't know for sure.
A 9 or 10m dome is safer than a 14m dome and you get better capability with 4 faces than 3 faces even though the 14m version is far more expensive.
IAF needs to decide if 2 more A50 mounted radars are worth 2 billion usd. Or in their place 3 slightly less capable but cheaper and with high availability rates emb145 drdo ones will do the job?
Because it's not like the Israeli ones will come quick. First the airframes will need to be assembled then transported to Israel for fitment etc. It will take minimum 3-4 years before both are into service. Emb line is more established and for the radar we will not have to depend on a foreign entity. We may be able to put 3 more in emb145s in service in 3 years.
Because it's not like the Israeli ones will come quick. First the airframes will need to be assembled then transported to Israel for fitment etc. It will take minimum 3-4 years before both are into service. Emb line is more established and for the radar we will not have to depend on a foreign entity. We may be able to put 3 more in emb145s in service in 3 years.