Airborne Early Warning Systems - A-50EI Phalcon, DRDO Netra AEW&C, DRDO AWACS

randomradio said:
Some wrong assumptions there.

A Netra+ cannot be designed and inducted faster than AWACS-India, since a new platform has to be chosen, modified, built, integrated and tested. It's going to take the same time.

We have plenty of AWACS in case of war, as many as 6 right now. Even the 12 P-8Is can perform the role. Aerostats are also a pretty good addition to SA.

IL-76s do not have maintenance issues, but do have spares issues. But the IAF has been doing a good job of making sure enough spares are available for the Phalcon and IL-78s.
Click to expand...
I thought we had this debate earlier which should've ended when the then newly appointed ACM Bhadouriya clearly stated he looked forward to inducting more Netras till such time as the DRDO AWACS weren't available.

The objections to the platform ( Embraer) are not something which prevents it from future participation should the GoI / MoD accept the case made to it by HAL / IAF.
 
_Anonymous_ said:
I thought we had this debate earlier which should've ended when the then newly appointed ACM Bhadouriya clearly stated he looked forward to inducting more Netras till such time as the DRDO AWACS weren't available.

The objections to the platform ( Embraer) are not something which prevents it from future participation should the GoI / MoD accept the case made to it by HAL / IAF.
Click to expand...

Actually the debate started 'after' the ACM wanted to induct 5 more Netras.

But even if the Emb-145 is used, considering MoD has decided to give an exemption, it will still take a long time to remove it from blacklist, place an order and then build it. It's also been long enough that a significantly upgraded radar will be required, so you can add R&D time as well. Don't forget that just building the aircraft alone will take 3 years. You can also expect stiff resistance from within the IAF itself. Those 5 Netra can easily eat into Phase II of the A330 AWACS.

Even the ACM has the sense to not put roadblocks on DRDO's AWACS-India roadmap.
 
Nikhil said:
360° vs 240° coverage.
Click to expand...
Phalcon is having 3 panel system with 120 deg inbetween the panels. Its having full coverage.
DRDO diagrams shows 4 panel awacs.
My logic says 3 panel must have better resolution, still why DRDO is pursuing 4 panel one, any specific reason?
 
Hydra said:
Phalcon is having 3 panel system with 120 deg inbetween the panels. Its having full coverage.
DRDO diagrams shows 4 panel awacs.
My logic says 3 panel must have better resolution, still why DRDO is pursuing 4 panel one, any specific reason?
Click to expand...
is it rotating ratodome ? I made a mistake in above post. i thought you were comparing 2 pannel netra to other ratodome AESA. 3 panel AESA will also have 360° coverage...yes you are right.
 
AbRaj said:
I think it’s to improve TRM number/density and orientation.
(Pure guesswork)
Click to expand...
But wouldn't 4th panel be a liability if ratodome is not rotating ? 4th panel won't be looking at enemy side but in its own airspace... it's a complete wastage of power and space doesn't matter if Put more TRM.... and even if it is rotating a 3 panel triangular configuration would have been better. There could be few possibilities.

• DRDO is confident that's there AESA technology is superior and they have enough power to spare and it's of no concern.... without undermining performance.


images - 2020-08-22T223858.847.jpeg


If you look at this presentation they were at 200W in L band for TRM many years ago & they are available in GaN now.
Gautam said:
Correct answer. Densification of EM waves lead to better resolution even if the radar is in lower power mode. Essentially it is more efficient.
Click to expand...
yes... But questions is what's the need for the 4th panel , if it is not rotating ?
 
Last edited:
Nikhil said:
But wouldn't 4th panel be a liability if ratodome is not rotating ? 4th panel won't be looking at enemy side but in its own airspace... it's a complete wastage of power and space.... and even if it is rotating a 3 panel triangular configuration would have been better. There could be few possibilities.
Click to expand...
Rotating radars are largely going out of usage everywhere because of some inherent flaws. The scan refresh rates is one of the primary contentions. We are likely to see rotating radars limited to long range volume scan purposes in the future. For targeting and tracking purposes everybody is switching to electronic scanning.

As for the other question, the 4th panel isn't useless at all. Remember the purpose of a AWACS is providing early warning and situational awareness. This would require looking everywhere, at enemy and friendly units alike. How else will you know of the situation ?

Targeting enemy from the AWACS is possible but that is not its primary role. A figther's radar can do the targeting, but it cannot provide the situational awareness of an AWACS. The entire USP of an AWACS is situational awareness.

As for power usage, most aircrafts do have auxiliary power units(APUs) producing surplus power to support the radar and the sub systems. In case it doesn't additional airborne generators can be mounted or the APUs can be upgraded. Power isn't really a problem. Also if the radar was rotating wouldn't the motor causing the rotation need power too ? With electronic scanning that motor is no longer needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker, Sathya, Nikhil and 1 other person
Nikhil said:
But wouldn't 4th panel be a liability if ratodome is not rotating ? 4th panel won't be looking at enemy side but in its own airspace... it's a complete wastage of power and space doesn't matter if Put more TRM.... and even if it is rotating a 3 panel triangular configuration would have been better. There could be few possibilities.

• DRDO is confident that's there AESA technology is superior and they have enough power to spare and it's of no concern.... without undermining performance.


View attachment 17389

If you look at this presentation they were at 200W in L band for TRM many years ago & they are available in GaN now.

yes... But questions is what's the need for the 4th panel , if it is not rotating ?
Click to expand...
As far as I can understand radars don’t like oblique waves. It makes calculations difficult

Non rotating dome is a possibility to avoid
mechanical issues.
Even if it’s rotating, 4panel setup will need less rotation to keep certain amount of modules in alignment to one sector.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nikhil
AbRaj said:
As far as I can understand radars don’t like oblique waves. It makes calculations difficult

Non rotating dome is a possibility to avoid
mechanical issues.
Even if it’s rotating, 4panel setup will need less rotation to keep certain amount of modules in alignment to one sector.
Click to expand...
The length of a single panel equilateral triangle arrangement must be larger than that of square type arrangement , if both enclosed in same circle i beleive. So logically triangular arrangement must have better resolution than square type. @Nikhil @Ashwin

Nikhil said:
But wouldn't 4th panel be a liability if ratodome is not rotating ? 4th panel won't be looking at enemy side but in its own airspace... it's a complete wastage of power and space doesn't matter if Put more TRM.... and even if it is rotating a 3 panel triangular configuration would have been better. There could be few possibilities.

• DRDO is confident that's there AESA technology is superior and they have enough power to spare and it's of no concern.... without undermining performance.


View attachment 17389

If you look at this presentation they were at 200W in L band for TRM many years ago & they are available in GaN now.

yes... But questions is what's the need for the 4th panel , if it is not rotating ?
Click to expand...
Can we use an X band radar instead of s band in awacs? Or atleast a combination of both. After all we are going for a giant platform a330.
Xband panels inside aircraft fuselage as we seeing in israel caew, and s band as dom type. A single aircraft give situational awareness and target designation for friendly aircrafts?

There is a rumour that we are planning to use single a330 for dual role at the same time refueling & awacs. Role. So i think aircraft is capable to handle the weight of both type of radars at the same time.
 
Hydra said:
The length of a single panel equilateral triangle arrangement must be larger than that of square type arrangement , if both enclosed in same circle i beleive. So logically triangular arrangement must have better resolution than square type. @Nikhil @Ashwin
Click to expand...
The focus is scanning maximum sectors at a given time with best resolution possible.

PS: I don’t know anything about modern Radar. All by knowledge is based of 12th
Physics NCERT. And I’m dwelling into uncharted territory here
@Gautam @Nikhil @randomradio @hellbent and many others members can explain with authority.
 
AbRaj said:
The focus is scanning maximum sectors at a given time with best resolution possible.

PS: I don’t know anything about modern Radar. All by knowledge is based of 12th
Physics NCERT. And I’m dwelling into uncharted territory here
@Gautam @Nikhil @randomradio @hellbent and many others members can explain with authority.
Click to expand...
I too made that conclusion based on 12th grade physics, larger antenna gives better resolution for a particular wavelength.
 
AbRaj said:
The focus is scanning maximum sectors at a given time with best resolution possible.

PS: I don’t know anything about modern Radar. All by knowledge is based of 12th
Physics NCERT. And I’m dwelling into uncharted territory here
@Gautam @Nikhil @randomradio @hellbent and many others members can explain with authority.
Click to expand...

Well, what @Hydra said is just basic geometry really and I had the exact same thought when I've been wondering the exact same thing.
 
AbRaj said:
The focus is scanning maximum sectors at a given time with best resolution possible.

PS: I don’t know anything about modern Radar. All by knowledge is based of 12th
Physics NCERT. And I’m dwelling into uncharted territory here
@Gautam @Nikhil @randomradio @hellbent and many others members can explain with authority.
Click to expand...
Hydra said:
I too made that conclusion based on 12th grade physics, larger antenna gives better resolution for a particular wavelength.
Click to expand...
ArgonPrime said:
Well, what @Hydra said is just basic geometry really and I had the exact same thought when I've been wondering the exact same thing.
Click to expand...
That rule applies for continuous wave propagation from a single undamped radiation source, basically an ideal doppler radar. Not for any other radars with more modern electronics.

With pulse doppler you will have damping and interference in the propagated wave. With AESA you'll have distributed aperture radiation source, as in hundreds of radiating elements sitting close to each other interfering with each other's EM waves. The end result will be a cluster of EM waves not a continuous wave as seen on doppler radars.

This is not to say doppler radars don't have advantages. But that's a different matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra
Hydra said:
I too made that conclusion based on 12th grade physics, larger antenna gives better resolution for a particular wavelength.
Click to expand...
But less time for a particular sector located at say 30 degrees Ckw. Then you will need higher rotations to scan that area at a finite frequency (say 1/sec)

Also my assumption is modern radars(TRM) are good enough to not need large numbers of TRM to scan an area. So dedicating excess TRM for only one sector is counterproductive.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom