TeerExcept that it’s almost exactly the same max T/O weight as a SAAB 2000 turboprop, & a bit over half the max T/O weight of a G550, i.e. not in between at all.
Did I mention the weight per se? No, what I meant by sweet spot, is platform performance mostly stuff around speed, and logistics based on both size (eg smaller Embraer vs larger Phalcon) and of course the types themselves.
Apparently, one of the big reasons the IAF prefers jets for the AEW&C mission is because of speed (though Saab claims jet level airliner speeds, I am doubtful). Anyways, a jet can usually reach its operating area faster than a turboprop and can get out of trouble faster.
The second thing is the operational cost, ie the logistics required and their cost. Turboprops like the SAAB should be cheaper than the jets, but the biz/regional jet will be far cheaper than the larger Phalcon. Also, the MMH/FH will be far lower for the Embraer based platform.
Trust that clarifies.
TeerWitcha, you have misrepresented my views entirely and I was fairly correct that I made no such post of the sort.
In fact, I supported the MMRCA and pointed out it would continue.
Here is my reply to your post:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1660138&postcount=804
Again, care to point where I said the MMRCA should be cancelled? As matter of fact, ever since I joined, I have been a firm supporter of the 3 tier IAF structure, HCA/MMRCA/LCA.
If not, all I can conclude is that you seem to be adept at making things up.
TeerA year ago I’d confided my fear of the MMRCA tender being cancelled due to one allegation or another and IIRC you stated that you sincerely hoped that’s what would happen so that the IAF would induct more Tejas instead. I’m glad you’ve accepted otherwise.:D
Please point me to the post because I don’t ever recall asking for the MMRCA to be cancelled for more Tejas orders to be placed.
I searched under my posts for “Tejas” and “MMRCA” and nothing of the sort pops up.
I am fairly happy the two best fighters in the MMRCA were selected.
Second, as I have mentioned several times over now, the Tejas is far too well funded and supported now to be bothered about the MMRCA anyhow. Different requirements, different needs.
TeerIAF wanted aircraft with higher endurance mid way as usual , DRDO selected Embraer after inputs from IAF on their requirements and after all negotiations was done and Embraer was all set to be ordered , IAF asked DRDO to select a bigger aircraft with higher endurance , but DRDO asked IAF if they were ready to face delays since again new aircraft needs to be selected and then negotiations and re-design and all other things , IAF asked for a Refueling probe which was added and agreed to settle for that , but asked DRDO to go for a bigger plane . So no one forced IAF to settle for this particular aircraft. they are happy with it for now but want some thing of Phalcon type awacs , and DRDO’s has worked with bigger aircraft’s for awacs roles particularly ill fated Hawker Siddeley HS 748
Ok, this makes much more sense. I do think though, they’ll fix on which particular platform to use once they have both the AWACS to compare with.
Numbers mentioned, as you say are upto 20+. In which case, both smaller and larger AWACS are an option.
TeerFirst you said
Then
If IAF is satisfied with the platform then why order only two and wait for the second tranche of AEW&C (6+) on much large aircraft?
The first statement I made is what is currently the plan (6 more will be ordered or rather 7, come to think of it, if 1 stays with DRDO) on a larger platform. The second statement I made, of the EMB-145I possibly sticking around, is my perception of the trade off between range and cost, and why the IAF may possibly change its official perception over time.
As to why two tranches, and not one block/set of orders,
Two reasons:
1.
To mature. The IAF always orders in blocks. They never order en masse at the beginning itself, unless its a mature product. Su-30 MKI, 50, then 140 etc etc.
2. Because its still up in the air whether the second tranche of 6-7 will be larger or not for sure.
An IAF guy has said recently that IAF requirement of DRDO AEW&C is 9 of its class, which mean the 6 or rather 7 more, could be at the same level of platform or he means 6-7 more DRDO suites scaled up! But point is its upto the IAF to decide once the first 2 enter service.
Also, going by memory, Pandit is wrong, its 300 km and 375 km, which is why I said 300-400 km range. Both against small fighter sized targets.
A new electrical generation system with a second auxiliary power unit for the mission suite is indeed part of Indian AEW&C but do you think its enough to power both radars at full capacity and all the electronics onboard at sometime, I do agree with the part , 360 degree coverage is not really required. In simulations and modelling, 120 degree was considered reasonable and that’s what is provided. “
Let me reexplain, basically what it does is fly in a racetrack pattern, and the modules on one side are “on”, when it turns, the modules on the other side are activated. So it won’t be looking both sides at the same time, but only on side (towards the opfor area) and only in the rarest of rare cases, will both be switched on alternately (but will affect scan rates). Typically, this is how all AEW&C work. The Phalcon for instance, will switch from array to array to get its 360 degree scan. But in some situations may not even require all 360.
So power is sufficient.
Wouldn’t size be a factor in determining the number TRM modules? unless you are saying that DRDO has built something much more compact than used in Erieye. and What we know about the TRM modules and their power handling capacity of EMB-145I?
Its basically all about packaging and number of modules in each TRM, and how they are arranged in the array. The DRDO array appears shorter, but deeper. It could be that their modules can handle more power, but are fewer in number. Without knowing the Swedish module details though, its not definitive.
The DRDO Module is a quad pack (4 TRM sets in one packaged module). Overall, it had around 6 KW average power in an antenna which has much larger array size than the Irbis in terms of area. And that FC radar claims to detect 3 sq Mtr targets at 400 km and has an average power of 5 KW, so this AEW&C range should easily be in the 300-400 km range. Not exactly an apples to apples, comparison (different bands, PESA vs AESA, FCR vs Srvllance) but gives a decent idea that this radar will be able to detect relatively small targets at fairly useful tactical distances.
Teersome clarity on DRDO Awacs program
1 ) Yes current orders are only for three , but contract has mention of additional three follow up order which is most likely to be the case .
2) Total requirement for DRDO based AWACS over the decades will be more then 20 nos , that includes IAF/NAVY/ Coast Guard / and possibly R&AW more of intelligence gathering missions .
3) IAF wanted better aircraft from current Embraer aircraft selected , but settled to avoid further delays in the projects , so it is pretty clear that after 3 or possibly 6 aircraft , a bigger aircraft will be chosen and phalcon styled radar mount will be there
Your points 1&3 contradict themselves if you read them. If the IAF was unhappy with the Embraer it would ask for a larger aircraft in Phase1 itself, not settle for it. With an acquisition the cost of an AEW&C, the IAF would not compromise, and really, it never has in the past either.
The truth is more prosaic. The IAF wanted a platform that could not just back up the Phalcon but also handle all the activities its larger peer does. CABS’s mission architecture for the AEW&C does that, and after that the IAF has settled down.
All a larger aircraft will do is provide more radar range (useful in itself), more battle management capability (more OWS). But tradeoff is in terms of costs and engineering hours/flight hour. The smaller AEW&C like the EMB-145I hits the sweet spot between a turboprop one and a much larger Phalcon. This is what ELTA is pitching with the G550.
The IAF may well choose to stick with a smaller plane because the turn around times for each sortie, and operating costs keep them happy. The radar, onboard systems can be improved further as CABS keeps one testbed with themselves.
The basic point is that this DRDO AEW&C gives India options. The ability to field its own mission platform which can be scaled per requirement.
TeerZynda@BRF based on Aero India seminar transcript
Differences b/w Indian systems and some other comparable systems mounted on Embraer platform
• Has elevation scan to overcome aircraft banking problems – to 7-10 deg
• Has IFF Mk.12 with S-mode capability
• 360 deg coverage ESM
• COM Support Measure (CSM) and recording ability for offline analysis
• High capacity C-band datalink for Line of Sight air-ground & ground-air transmission
• Beyond LOS SatCOM of similar capacity
• 7 VHF sets…provides data & voice.
• Up to 5 operator Work Stations
• In-flight refueling probe…has seats for refueling crew as well AF has been involved in the project at grass roots level.IAF helped a lot to establish algorithms for detection, interception & pursuit protocols. A lot of ground systems to simulate, fabricate & validate avionics have also been established.
TeerI think Sign makes a very good point, Electrical power available in AWACS os not unlimited both radars and other electronics has to share it.
I think that even the Phalcon AWACS with three radars, will be not using all radars at fullest of their capabilities at the same time. Electrical generators mounted on each of the E-3’s four engines provide one megawatt of electrical power, Now Imagine the power requirements for a AWACS with 3 or 4 Radars. Moving the beam from one sector to the other is certainly much more faster but it requires lots of power which can only be generated by the bigger platforms
Is it confirmed that KJ-200 indeed have 360deg capability? Radomes at front and back seems to be very small for them to carry large radar for early warning operations.
A few points.
1. The EMB-145I if thats the desig., had Embraer put two APUs to handle the extra power requirements. Besides which Sign is correct. AWACS fly a racetrack pattern and even more complicated ones, and as such to look over Pak, PRC whatever, only one side of the array will be used. Those TRMs are on, the others aren’t. So power use is manageable, and 360 degree coverage is not really required. In simulations and modelling, 120 degree was considered reasonable and that’s what is provided.
2.The length of the Swedish Erieye vs the Indian one is only of use viz. trivia. Because what counts are the TRM modules and their power handling capacity, plus the Staff Requirements for range, which the former are supposed to meet. Also, the EMB-145I has an ESM and CSM suite. The range of the former, is usually double of the radar.
3.Per released data, radar can reach out between 300-400 km for a small sized fighter target. Significant anti jamming measures included.
4.The current Indian program is only for 3 DRDO AEW&C. 2 of which will be delivered to the AF, one retained by the AF for further work & continued research into AEW&C tech. A flying testbed.
5. The reason is the second tranche of AEW&C (6+) will be much larger, with larger antenna (think Phalcon class, with 360 degree coverage) and will require a new plane, beyond the Embraer 145.
TeerAlso much more fins and antennas on the indian variant.
Yes, RWR+MAWS+CMDS+ESM, CSM, radios + datalinks and SATCOM. Not just primary radar and IFF. Its actually got a total mission suite, as comprehensive as it gets. And with sensor fusion.
http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/CABS/English/index.jsp?pg=AreasWork.jsp
Anyone know what the side “randome” on the cabin is all about? (black area)
Direction finding interferometry antenna, for ESM systems
TeerCommon Sense, admirable patience but you are dealing with H177/Star49. Google that up and you’ll see why you have better uses of your time.
TeerStill, the finance people may wonder when they read stuff like this:
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories1068.htm
So all of them were good and “more or less close in performance”. OK they picked the two most-compliant, but was it because they met some key criteria that the others did not meet or was it because “some of them had to be out and some had to be in”?
Hopefully there were good reasons why the 4 others were excluded but reading the above text one does not get that impression, it seems more like an arbitrary (and very expensive!) decision. Perhaps the person giving the statement (Chief of Air Staff of the Indian Air Force) does not know what he is talking about?
I appreciate your wonderful, understated, sarcasm (Perhaps the person giving the statement, Chief of Air Staff of the Indian Air Force, does not know what he is talking about) but, it’s clear to anyone with reasonable interpretation skills that the Air Chief is being tactful in the above interview.
The reason he is being tactful is because the IAF was chary that the losing vendors would do everything to scuttle the competition, put political pressure and what not. So the IAF kept things on an even keel and answered all such questions with a smile and continued.
Everyone knows by now that the IAF evaluation was thorough and looked at various criteria, and the EF & Rafale were the ones that met the maximum criteria as set by the IAF.
What the CAS rtd is saying is that does not necessarily mean the other aircraft were bad, its just that they were not good enough for the IAF’s set of criteria. The IAF wanted balance across the criteria, not just that weapons and sensors be good, or that paper claims be made about cost effectiveness etc.
Unless of course you wanted him to come out and say openly that the Gripen really sucked, hard and in x specific areas. Whereupon you would have been outraged, and there would have been anguished replies in turn saying how unfair the process was etc etc. Netherlands, anyone?
The IAF evaluated the aircraft across six hundred plus odd criteria, encompassing aerodynamic performance, mission systems, weapons etc and the Gripen did not make the call. Nor did three other aircraft.
Its not surprising either, given the Gripen came last amongst the three in the Swiss evaluation as well versus the EF and Rafale.
All things looked at, the Gripen was not suitable for India.
It may be good enough for countries with more limited mandates, but for India, which may face a two front war scenario, every little bit counts, and frankly, India needs the edge that the Rafale or the EF may bring to the fight.
Besides which, with the Tejas, we don’t need something like the Gripen from the industrial perspective anyhow. And then there is strategy & offsets, I’d wager EADS & the Dassault consortia will offer better defence related offsets as well.
Now, the PR team is still hoping India is stupid enough to cancel the tender or come running back in their arms, but I wouldn’t bet on that happening. The MOF (Ministry of Finance) has been part and parcel of the process from day one.
All said and done, your post comes across as an exercise in misplaced snark. If you really want to learn more about the MMRCA process, then read here:
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/military-&-aerospace/MMRCA-and-the-Indian-Air-Force.html
The IAF evaluated the six competitors for the MMRCA contract against 660 technical benchmarks and narrowed to two aircraft-the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale. Besides the extensive tests in their home locations, the competitors were also subjected to rigorous tests in three locations- Bangalore, Jaisalmer and Leh to evaluate the comparative performance under conditions of humidity, extreme heat and high elevation.
These two aircraft have qualified on the basis of their technical superiority in aerodynamic efficiency and high altitude operations. Priority for the IAF is to select the aircraft with the right mix of technology, sensors, avionics, weapons, aerodynamic effectiveness along with favourable Transfer of Technology (TOT) provisions. The IAF clearly recognises that the success of operations would be greatly enhanced by the ability to attack a wide range of targets with precision munitions, especially at night and in adverse weather. The important characteristics that the IAF emphasised as essential in the RFP were-Aerodynamic Effectiveness, Sensors and Avionics, Defensive Countermeasures Suites (DCS) and finally weapons.
The Gripen and the other’s did not make that cut, pure and simple. Their teams have received briefings as to why, and the Americans for one, have moved on.
They have been busy winning mega deals for airlifters, and now helicopters. The F-35 was hinted at, the GOI said, thanks but no thanks, the MMRCA is continuing.
If Saab wants to do business with India, its best served in not trying to keep hoping for a slice of the MMRCA pie but focus on realistic projects like the MRMR for the Navy (Medium Range Maritime Recc) and others.
TeerIf they do not take Rafale, they should cancelthe whole think and take more SU-30s.
Why not the Eurofighter? Its a decent platform as well.
Teerin the early years significant portion of this thread did say that IAf would be better served by Su-35’s MKI’d!
Over reliance on one vendor is NOT what the IAF wants. Second, the IAF rejected the Su-35 option way back. Third, with the Su-30 upgrades, the IAF will get Su-35 equivalents, in several if not all respects, by 2016 and thereafter, or even better. The current plan is to begin D&D by 2012, with deliveries by 2016 with the first 50 Russian delivered and the last 42 also probable with Phase 1 upgrade. The rest (178) will be upgraded with tech derived from the FGFA.
An IAF with Su-30s, MMRCAs and LCAs will be very balanced, fairly powerful and can compensate for any delays with the FGFA.
TeerGiven the high costs of both Rafale and Typhoon, what are the chances that the beancounters stops this deal?
Isn’t 22 billion much more than the original budget?
If that had to happen, then it would have happened by now. The IAF needs these planes, and the Govt and bureaucracy has dithered enough. Of the five contenders only the EF and Rafale meet the required specifications. The rest, really did not. They revised the benchmark also to reflect the costs.
Look, India is willing to spend on its modernization, which BTW is overdue by almost a decade.
Take a random look at Indian programs and you’ll see…C130J’s, 9 more to be ordered, C-17 orders 10 placed, 7 more likely, Navy intends to double P-8I orders to 20+…over a hundred radars ordered for the IAF from local, French, Israeli sources…ballistic missile program being advanced…multi-billion SAM order for IAF placed with locals (Akash), another more expensive long range one codeveloped with IAF…
Point is in each of these, IAF/services went for capability. Not just cost, that was considered after certain standards were met.
In the ONE deal, that got cancelled due to price escalation, that was apparently because the IAF did not write the specifications stringently enough (for flight refuellers) so the Fin Min, pointed out that the cheaper IL-78 met those standards too….guess what, the IAF did not order the IL-78, but has thrown open the revised deal again, where the A330 and Boeing refuellers can both compete.
Point being, the MMRCA is as good as done now. It will not be cancelled or revised, and that’s my honest opinion.
India is facing severe security challenges and the IAF needs these planes.
TeerMIG-35 was no show at AeroIndia when all others were there. Real MIG-35 was not created. more like trials of MIG-29K. so alteast for a year i think they gave up.
$20b on 4th genertation figher is considered waste of manpower (To train expensive pilots). and there is no commonality with existing fleet. There is no unique capability about adding another 4 generation fighter.
Yeah right, if it was a MiG-35 selected & the cost had gone up, you’d have been the first to claim how justified it was. 😀
LOL! Just checked up on what this guy said and your statements were apparently bizarre before, and remain bizarre now.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1799488&postcount=643
Sign In
