You are focusing on the wrong details. It doesn't matter if it's not a "true" 360 degrees. Everything involves compromise, whether it be cost, endurance, range, weight, technical superiority, etc. You choose the best solution through give and take. More capable air forces choose "interm" because the concept of manned AWACS itself is becoming irrelevant.
Airborne Early Warning Systems - A-50EI Phalcon, DRDO Netra AEW&C, DRDO AWACS
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
The Russians are known for using large, high-power radars to achieve long range detection but that also makes them vulnerable to detection and countermeasures. The Ukranians picked off two A-50s recently using the antique S-200 SAM apparently. Of course, they would have had help from US ELINT assets but that doesn't take away from the fact that Russia has a lot of catching up to do with the West.
One reason why the IAF rejected the A-50 (back in the early 2000s) was because it lacked on-board data processing capabilities. The raw radar data needed to be down linked to a ground station and then sent back up again for the ac to transmit onward to the fighters. Sure, things could have changed since then, but to what extent, we don't know.
The AWACS plus tanker is a brilliant idea. The AWACS efficiency increases when escorts and other strategic aircraft can rely on it to stay in the air longer. The goal isn't to perform dedicated tanker duties but to enhance the AWACS' own operational efficiency.
A330 can manage 14 hours, but an AWACS needs to be operational for 8-9 hours. So there's enough fuel for other jets.
It can also act as an emergency refuelling station or even a pitstop for aircraft coming in from deeper inside the country, like Gwalior and Chabua/Thanjavur to North India.
All AWACS used high power radars and have the same drawbacks. The Russians simply went too close to the enemy. I guess they had become complacent 'cause the Ukr AF was practically non-existent. With that said, we don't know anything about the A-100, except that we know it's a proven platform.
The original A-50 was very old and useless to India, plus out of production. We were always on for the Israeli 2090.
The E-7, albeit smaller, is definitely more mature, whereas the production of the IL-476 is yet to be fully streamlined.
You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. We face a formidable IADS on our Eastern border and the IAF has been practising rapid dispersal tactics like operating from highways. By that same logic, smaller, cheaper aircraft provide redundancy and risk reduction.
Even the mighty USAF dropped the much more ambitious E-10 airborne battle management plattform (combined air+ ground surveillance) and settled for Wedgetail.
Command From the Air | Air & Space Forces Magazine
USAF’s premier airborne battle management systems often leave enemy forces nowhere to hide.
www.airandspaceforces.com
Granted, they are investing in space-based ISR but so can we and at much lower cost, at that. The Anvesha series of sats is just one example.
For border regions, it's best we use unmanned tankers like MQ-25 (local equivalent) imo, not large lumbering tankers which can't run or hide. They only need to be able to top-up fighters returning from cross-border strike sorties into Tibet, should the need ever arise. Ac on CAP sorties from bases located deeper inland can be refuelled over Central India imo.
Last edited:
You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. We face a formidable IADS on our Eastern border and the IAF has been practising rapid dispersal tactics like operating from highways. By that same logic, smaller, cheaper aircraft provide redundancy and risk reduction.
Even the mighty USAF dropped the much more ambitious E-10 airborne battle management plattform (combined air+ ground surveillance) and settled for Wedgetail.
Command From the Air | Air & Space Forces Magazine
USAF’s premier airborne battle management systems often leave enemy forces nowhere to hide.
Granted, they are investing in space-based ISR but so can we and at much lower cost, at that. The Anvesha series of sats is just one example.
It depends on what the IAF wants. Based on the RFI, 8-9 hours with 360 deg capability and 12 mission consoles means a large platform.
CAEW is 360 deg, although a mix of 2 radar bands, L and S band, and is much faster, flies higher and meets the endurance requirement, but has just 6 consoles. GlobalEye is in the same boat, but uses S and X band, and comes with 7 consoles.
The E-7's platform falls just below the 12 mission consoles with 10. I don't think it's a deal breaker, but at least it somewhat meets the 360 deg requirement and barely meets the endurance requirement. It's L band. But I don't know how excited GoI is about an American platform for this requirement after P-8I and Sentinel. Eggs in the basket argument.
Only the IL-476 and A330 provide everything in the list, as of now. And both provide L band.
We need both drones and regular aircraft for this purpose. And tankers can be operated close to the enemy anyway, even large ones. They do it below radar horizon.
I can't imagine that the A-50s didn't have fighter escort. A couple of MiG-31s in look-down radar mode could have averted the tragedy imo.
It's making a comeback
True but no existing system fits these requirements to the T. This could just be the IAF scoping the market before defining definitive specs for the DRDO+ industry to develop our own next-gen awacs.
The IAF might pitch a co-developed version of either of these to the GOI. But the cost may be a barrier vs an off the shelf buy with ISE customisation (DRDO/BEL datalinks, ESM and IFF). Plus the timelines may not match expectations.
Indian naval aviation is now 90% US supplied so that must have been factored in already.
What I meant by 'eggs in the same basket' is combining AWACS and tanker in one airframe. Will the crew aboard an A330 so-configured spend time on station managing the air battle or lining up aircraft for refuelling?
The IAF could just as easily rotate escorts in need of fuel, no?
MKI UPG. with GaN radar would also work as mini-AWACS in contested airspace. We're going to put it on a repositioner which shall give over 100° azimuth coverage. So overall MKI UPG. will be able to scan almost 200°-240° azimuth area combined.
Both J-20 with PL-15 and J-16 with PL-17 would look to take out our AWACS at any cost. That's where MKI UPG. comes in.
I doubt there was enough time to react. The Russians should have been a lot more careful.
IAF develops requirements based on tech they already have. So this RFI is based on the Phalcon. Similarly, MMRCA RFP was based on MKI's specs, which only the Rafale and Typhoon exceeded, hence the shortlist.
Yes, it could only be a tech discovery RFI. Perhaps the IAF only plans on studying what others have before handing over the project to DRDO.
But you never know. It's all about what others are offering.
I think it can manage both. AWACS don't necessarily have to do battle management all the time, they can manage traffic too. They can even act as a refueller when they are on reserve duty.
It results in one less headache in terms of traffic management; escorts don't have to manage turnaround all the time. So a 1 or 2 hour mission can be extended to the full 8 to 9 hours required, this makes it easier on the ground crew and increases the overall efficiency of the squadron. And they can manage their fuel at their most efficient performance modes, like maintain 50-60% fuel capacity at all times. Furthermore escort rotations make the AWACS vulnerable due to the increased activity around it.
Not just escorts, but also other aircraft related to the mission, even future drones.
It's an X-band radar. It's okay, but not as useful as a large L band radar.
Our fighter jets will eventually need the support of large drones carrying UHF and L band radars to complement their X band.
2D measures range and direction.
3D measures range, direction and elevation (altitude).
4D is a buzzword for a 3D digital radar that uses digital beamforming and the image generated has far higher resolution than what you can get out of analog beamforming. Additional data is generated which creates a new dimension related to velocity, so you can compare one 3D image with another 3D image over time. And when you compare the time it took to generate the two images at different locations, you get speed. If the target RCS is small, and if the speed is higher than that of a bird, you can then assume it's a stealth aircraft or a false positive. Track the object for some more time, you can determine whether it's fake or not, then tell someone to go check it out to be sure.
Netra Mk1 is 3D, GaAs, analog beamforming.
Mk2 is 4D, GaN, digital beamforming.
In terms of kinematics, the Su-35 would have been at least on par with both imo. Avionics could have been MKIized. Imo the specs were drawn up after the IAF called for and got classified briefings (and field visits) from the respective manufacturers.
Reminds me of the time when IN evaluated the E-2C/D Hawkeye for organic AEW. NG apparently told them that a stripped down version could theoretically fly off a STOBAR carrier. That didn't pan out and the IN didn't want to operate it in a land-based role. That was the end of that.
The IAF similarly could have received a briefing from some company and decided to launch this RFI.
MKI's GaN radar will have a very large bandwith and digital beamforming. So even if X-Band, it'll be quite useful in theaters where our AWACS can't go.
Absolutely
Hence the 30T weight limit for MMRCA. It has been removed for MRFA, at least from what we know today.
Anyway, RFP specs were pretty much MKI. While the RFI gives clues, they judge everything according to a set standard. I'm betting MRFA will be judged according to Rafale and MKI, minus some specific aspects like Rafale's supercruise or MKI's additional payload.
I don't think it's like that. Both E-2 and F-35 were (paper) evaluated through different processes compared to the procurement process that involves RFI, RFP etc.
Yes, but that's not enough. This was expected with FGFA, and now Rafale F5, depending on the size of the radar and array placement. But MKI in its current form is quite limited for AWACS role. The main issue being it's not going to be a very powerful radar in comparison to what's required. So even if it's GaN, it will be limited to an output wattage of 10-15W, which is already more than the current upper limits of the engine. For AWACS role, you need more power.
MKI's new radar will be equal to what the Chinese operate and better than Pakistan's assets, but it's just a marginal increase in capability when the adversary also has very similar performance.
Furthermore, a lot more receiver antennas than what's going into the MKI MLU is required. So the F-35 and J-20 would be better at this than the MKI.
Once, ISR drones come in, then things will change. That second seat will become a battle manager.