As we know, the only AWACS system in the world purpose-built for naval use is the E-2 Hawkeye. Of all the fixed-wing AWACS it’s the one best optimised for maritime surveillance, and as such the US Navy(and presumably other naval operators) will be relying on it for all their AWACS needs for the next 40 years or so.
However, for those countries operating the Hawkeye from shore-based facilities it has the major drawbacks of a)Short range and b)Small size and only three operator controls; which are an acceptable compromise on an aircraft carrier but a waste on land.
So what would be the feasibility of integrating the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye mission suite on an MPA like the P-8 to provide a next-generation shore-based naval AEWC solution? Both the problems of range and operating consoles are solved, and the resultant platform would be very attractive for navies without aircraft carriers, like Australia.
By: StevoJH - 29th July 2010 at 18:19
We’d have been flying AEW Gannets, not A-1s, if we’d still had Ark Royal or Eagle. It replaced A-1s about 1960.
And the radar’s were still in service into the late 1980’s aboard the Lancasters ugly grandchild.
By: swerve - 29th July 2010 at 14:17
And while not perfect it would at least be some thing in a pinch – ie what the British would have done for just the old A-1 AEW aircraft operating off some old straight deck hook/cat carrier in 1982.
Jack E. Hammond
.
We’d have been flying AEW Gannets, not A-1s, if we’d still had Ark Royal or Eagle. It replaced A-1s about 1960.
By: obligatory - 29th July 2010 at 06:03
I’ve been thinking of the S-2 Tracker too,
but with the difference of instead mounting an EriEye.
By: jackehammond - 29th July 2010 at 05:34
Folks,
I always wondered why countries like Brazil, France and India never bought old S-2 Tracker airframes and rebuilt them to the turbo model and fitted that air to air radar that the British use on the Sea King in that big inflatable bubble. Actually to the surprise of many the Sea Search radar has some advantages over the Hawkeye’s radar. Yes, the Hawkeye is the superior naval AEW aircraft system, but it is very big and very expensive. It can barely operate off the Charles DeGaulle. And while not perfect it would at least be some thing in a pinch – ie what the British would have done for just the old A-1 AEW aircraft operating off some old straight deck hook/cat carrier in 1982.
Jack E. Hammond
.
By: Pioneer - 22nd July 2010 at 13:40
I would love to have sat in on the pitch for that…
“so let me get this straight, you want us to take a four engined prop patrol aircraft, make it even slower and less maneuverable and then use it as a fighter….?”
“yes Admiral”
With no disrespect my friend!
I would deem this aircraft as an Interceptor and not as a fighter!
The requirement by the navy would have been the engagement of Soviet long-range anti-ship / ASW / MP aircraft, which threatened its fleets way out at sea (at a range outside of land-based fighters and tactical attack/strike aircraft!). For example –
The CL-520 would have been used to intercept the likes of Soviet Tupolev Tu-16 Badger and Tu-95 Bear and Tu-22 Blinder(As per time frame I am not sure about the Tu-22M [I]Backfire[I] was yet a known threat?) at a stand-off range, using a combination of its long-range AWACS facilities 100`s of miles range detection capability with its AN/APS-96 and its battery of (up to ten) Eagle missiles.
At the extreme ranges these engagements would have occurred, it is very unlikely that the CL-520 would have seen, let alone been concerned with Soviet /Warsaw Pact fighter and interceptors, the likes of MiG-21, MiG-23 or Su-11, Yak-28P and Su-15 etc (the only interceptor threat I could picture being that of the Tu-28 Fiddler
It should also be taken into consideration, that the USN still would have its carrier-based fighters to deal with any leakers. Whilst the Soviet Navy would have lacked any credible carrier-based fighter/attack aviation at the time (until the arrival of the Kiev Class and its Yak-38`s!)
As a side note I view a difference in modern post-WWII terms an interceptor and fighter!
In post-WWII term an interceptor has become (and predominantly designed) around an aircraft designed for straight-line, high-speed and quick climb performance. Equipped with powerful, long-range air-search radars and armed with long-range AAM`s,> With the primary role of engaging bombers.
Where as the post-WWII fighter as (in most cases!) been designed with more manoeuvrability/agility incorporated into its design. As well as a more multi-role armament of shorter and medium range AAM and gun to fight other fighters and strike/attack type enemy.
P.S. pjhydro – if this design concerns you please consider the USAAF`s thoughts and research of such platforms!
Regards
Pioneer
By: pjhydro - 20th July 2010 at 14:07
Without doubt my favorite AEW/AWACS project utilizing an MP/ASW airframe –
The Lockheed CL-520 land-based Fleet Air Defense Aircraft study!:dev2:!Regards
Pioneer
I would love to have sat in on the pitch for that…
“so let me get this straight, you want us to take a four engined prop patrol aircraft, make it even slower and less manouverable and then use it as a fighter….?”
“yes Admiral”
By: Pioneer - 20th July 2010 at 07:51
Woops…………..
I forgot the drawing!
Regards
Pioneer
By: Pioneer - 20th July 2010 at 03:39
Without doubt my favorite AEW/AWACS project utilizing an MP/ASW airframe –
The Lockheed CL-520 land-based Fleet Air Defense Aircraft study!:dev2:!
Regards
Pioneer
By: Witcha - 19th July 2010 at 18:31
Sides, nose & tail.
Just like the old Condor(and almost as ugly). Looks like one thing Elta will always lag behind in is style.;)
So what’s the difference between the Eitam and Phalcon? It seems it uses a different radar(S-band instead of L-band).
By: swerve - 19th July 2010 at 18:03
Sides, nose & tail.
By: Witcha - 19th July 2010 at 14:18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EL/M-2075
Singapore Air Show 2010: An operational G550 CAEW of 111 Squadron Republic of Singapore Air Force on display
Not much of looker, is it? Are the antennas on only the sides or inside the nose as well?
By: Wanshan - 19th July 2010 at 09:08
Agreed.
But the RSAF and other Asian E2 operators used it as an AEW. So it is relevant to them.
All I’m saying is that an enhanced E-2 derivative with an APY-9 radar and C3 capabilities on a different aircraft platform would have been another contender.:rolleyes:
The Israeli Air Force has purchased 3 Gulfstream G550 aircraft to serve as the new IDF platform for its new generation of AEW systems.[4] The system is called Eitam. Extensive modifications made to the Gulfstream’s fuselage, such as the addition of protruding composite radomes, are intended to allow for the housing of the radar arrays. In 2007, 4 similar G550-Phalcon aircraft were also purchased by the Republic of Singapore Air Force, to eventually replace its upgraded E-2C Hawkeyes. All 4 G550s are expected to be in-service by 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EL/M-2075
Singapore Air Show 2010: An operational G550 CAEW of 111 Squadron Republic of Singapore Air Force on display
By: docrjay79 - 19th July 2010 at 03:03
Irrelevant to the question of maritime surveillance capability.
Agreed.
But the RSAF and other Asian E2 operators used it as an AEW. So it is relevant to them.
All I’m saying is that an enhanced E-2 derivative with an APY-9 radar and C3 capabilities on a different aircraft platform would have been another contender.:rolleyes:
By: Wanshan - 18th July 2010 at 23:20
You didn’t get the connection? Erieye in standard platforms only has a few operators and is dependant on ground control, so Pakistan chose a bigger platform(Saab-2000) for greater capability. I proposed the same thing for the Hawkeye.
duh! WHY DID YOU THINK i POSTED ABOUT ERIEYE IN THE FIRST PLACE? (YES, BECAUSE OF THE VARIABLE NUMBER OF OPERATORS, RELATED TO THE AIRFRAME ADOPTED AND THE USE OF GROUND CONTROL) wHAT DOES 360 DEGREE COVERAGE HAVE TO DO WITH THAT?
By: Witcha - 18th July 2010 at 20:29
Irrelevant to the question of maritime surveillance capability (what does it – coverage – matter when you fly racetrack patterns, mainly looking sideways anyway). Also irrelevant to the question about the number of operators.
You didn’t get the connection? Erieye in standard platforms only has a few operators and is dependant on ground control, so Pakistan chose a bigger platform(Saab-2000) for greater capability. I proposed the same thing for the Hawkeye.
By: Wanshan - 18th July 2010 at 16:17
The Erieye does not offer 360 deg coverage.
Irrelevant to the question of maritime surveillance capability (what does it – coverage – matter when you fly racetrack patterns, mainly looking sideways anyway). Also irrelevant to the question about the number of operators.
By: StevoJH - 18th July 2010 at 03:40
@ djcross: The days of airborne sensors are certainly far from over! I would even say that the large platforms will gain tasks, mostly as relay and for UAV control.
Boeing got in trouble from the RAAF for releasing the ability of the Project Wedgetail airframes to control UAV’s in flight.
By: StevoJH - 18th July 2010 at 03:38
The Erieye does not offer 360 deg coverage.
To the OP, I wondered too about other platforms that can replace the E-2D in the non carrier form like the ones used by the RSAF, ROC and RCAF. With the new APY-9 radar. It could offer competition to the other alternatives (Phalcon/Erieye).
Maybe mount it on a C27 or any turboprop MPA or maybe converted regional jets or the large business jets G550/Bombardier global express with more consoles to do C3 roles and offer better operational range/on station time.
Why hasn’t Lockheed at least tried that market that? :confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgetail
The RAAF’s AEW & C. Aircraft was later Ordered by a number of other Countries as well.
Turkey & South Korea have placed orders, with possible future orders from Italy and UAE.
By: obligatory - 18th July 2010 at 00:31
at 25,000 ft., it can track jet skis to the horizon.
Well, what more can you ask for ?
By: docrjay79 - 18th July 2010 at 00:30
Good question
The Erieye does not offer 360 deg coverage.
To the OP, I wondered too about other platforms that can replace the E-2D in the non carrier form like the ones used by the RSAF, ROC and RCAF. With the new APY-9 radar. It could offer competition to the other alternatives (Phalcon/Erieye).
Maybe mount it on a C27 or any turboprop MPA or maybe converted regional jets or the large business jets G550/Bombardier global express with more consoles to do C3 roles and offer better operational range/on station time.
Why hasn’t Lockheed at least tried that market that? :confused:
Sign In
July 16, 2010 at 7:32 pm