During the same period under the same Antony,the IAF and the Navy have signed agreement after agreements on upgrades and new procurements. The army needs to take responsibility for it’s own failures too.

Single-vendor deals for upgrades is a different matter and generally involves a lot less room for bureaucratic wrangling. That said even those upgrades have been long in the coming: The MiG-29, Mirage-2000 and Sea Harrier upgrades were mooted for years before the deals were finally inked, and programmes like the Jaguar re-engining are still in the air after years of tendering, negotiations et al.

Likewise for new procurement. The Scorpene deal was delayed for years and nearly cancelled at one point, the C-17 and P-8 deals also took years from the initial RFI/RFPs to final deal signing and so on…

You can’t blame the armed forces for delayed procurement when they have hardly any power to initiate the procurement process.

1. No, but the Searchwater 2000s on the ASAC Sea Kings are.

2. Yes, they can be adapted. But why bother, when you have radars which have already been adapted?

This is the critical point. Why modify radar set A, which we can sell, or perhaps use elsewhere, to make it identical to very similar radar set B, in order to replace B? Why not just keep B?

I’m sure the RN doesn’t want to ‘just toss away’ several Searchwater 2000MR radars, but what’s done with them is not for the RN to decide. The RN can ask, but the MoD decides. At the moment, I believe they’re for sale.

BTW, nor would the RN want to just toss away 13 perfectly good Searchwater 2000AEW radars, which is implicit in your proposal.

How about the fact that the 2000MR radar sets are unused and still have their full service life while the 2000AEW ones will at least require a thorough overhaul in order to operate another 20-25 years?

BTW the folk who keep referring to how this is ‘gen 3’ of Erieye should also keep in mind that IAI/Elta are fielding their own third-generation AEWC system. The CAEW/Eitam has a new dual-mode radar(EL/M-2085) that operates in both L and S band. And probably newer onboard electronics, backend and so on…

SAAB says that sea coverage is limited by the horizon to about 350km, & “within
this area, everything from fighter aircraft, hovering helicopters and ships to small
missiles can be detected and pinpointed”. I’m sure that the imprecision of terminology is deliberate. Instrumented range is given as 450 km.

Elta gives no information whatsoever about the range of the EL/W-2085. G550 flies higher than the E-2C, or anything the Erieye is mounted on, which would give it an edge at detecting targets at sea level & low altitudes, presuming it can see far enough, which is suggested by what the Singapore Mindef sys, i.e. “The G550-AEW aircraft has a longer detection range than the E2C Hawkeye – more than 200 nautical miles.” The Elta brochure is dated June 2007.

None of this tells us anything at all about what size targets can be detected or tracked at 350km, or 370km (200 nautical miles), or any other range.

The nose & tail & both side antennae of the G550 CAEW give better coverage than the Erieye, being able to provide continuous 360 degree coverage. The multiple antennae do not increase range, as each one only covers a limited area. You can’t add them up & say “it has a bigger antenna, therefore greater power and range”. The nose & tail arrays are relatively small. It’d be interesting to know how the lateral arrays compare to the Erieye balance beam, but AFAIK we don’t have that information.

I’ve read instrumented range figures in excess of 500km for the IAF’s Phalcons.

Like I said, even assuming the two antenna/backend processing technologies as identical, the CAEW configuration’s lateral arrays are larger(hence more T/R elements) than the Erieye’s balance beam.

Ah that is stupid. Air=power has showed its worth since WW2 especially on the western front.

Still I think Indian Army is not getting the modernization drive that the Air Force and Navy are getting. Then again the Army screws up procurements and has only themselves to blame for it.

Please… You’re blaming the army?! All they can do is specify requirements, test and make recommendations. They have absolutely no power to order procurement.

Back in 2003 the Denel G-6 had been chosen as the army’s future self-propelled artillery and a domestic platform(Bhim-T6) was approved for development. Likewise it looked as though the Soltam ATMOS and Saab FH-77B would be chosen for the wheeled and towed artillery requirements, respectively.

Then 2004 came and the NDA government went out of power. AK Antony the ‘Mr. Clean’ became the Defence Minister. All three acquisitions were promptly cancelled(and eventually, all three contestants blacklisted) due to ‘allegations’ of corruption(didn’t matter if they were substantiated or no, Antony couldn’t risk another Bofors scam for Congress).

Fast forward over five restarted and cancelled artillery competitions and over half a dozen companies blacklisted (mostly on relatively flimsy grounds, all it takes is allegations to create doubt in Antony’s mind). Thanks to the policies of our esteemed Cabinet Committe of Security the Indian army remains without a single 155mm howitzer today.

For the Ereye, many sources give a 330-350 km detection range versus a fighter sized target, which is confirmed by SAAB: http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents%20and%20Images/Air/Sensor%20Systems/ERIEYE/ERIEYE%20EN%20Print.pdf.

Note: in past, swedish radars detection performances often referred to a 5 sqm RCS target.

Regarding the Phalcon, in 2009 the singaporean MoD quoted the G550 CAEW as having a longer detection range than the E-3C (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2009/feb/19feb09_nr.html) which, in turn, utilizes an APS-138 radar system.

The Naval Insitute guide to world naval weapons systems (http://books.google.it/books?id=4S3h8j_NEmkC&pg=PA212&dq=maximum+range+is+250+nm,+and+aps-138+can&hl=it&ei=wsXSTvq5HorFtAbw-7SvDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=maximum%20range%20is%20250%20nm%2C%20and%20aps-138%20can&f=false) says the APS-138 can track a cruise missile at a range of 150 nautical miles: if that cruise missile represents the same cruise missile target mentioned by Globalsecurity in a description of US AWACS radar system (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm), as it is very likely to do, it has a radar cross section of 1 square meter; the APS-138 could track a 1 sqm RCS target at 227 km and a 5 sqm target at 340 km, so. Even if you don’t consider this a tracking performance, consider it’s exceeded by the EL/W-2085.

Yes: Phalcon sees farther than Erieye.

Can you provide better data?

I think it’s telling that the Erieye is typically marketed on the ‘low end’ spectrum of the AWACS scale alongside the E-2 while the Phalcon and its derivatives are generally at the top alongside the E-3 and Wedgetail. If it were just a matter of the platform it would be simple to just integrate the Erieye balance beam on a larger airframe… But no one has bothered to ask, have they? They’re simply on different levels; Saab doesn’t try to compete with Raytheon or Elta.

In any case, even if you consider Saab and Elta’s AESA technology as identical in performance, consider that the Conformal AEW approach gives you much greater effective antenna size than a balance beam.

Well done on the research.:)

One of the sure shot ways of eliminating scam/bribes is to go via the FMS route.

Not with this govt.:rolleyes:

So far out of four FMS deals two have been rejected due to allegations of ‘irregularities’. Namely the army’s M777 howitzer deal and the navy’s proposed MH-60R purchase.

And voices have been raised against the C-17 deal on price grounds which almost caused its cancellation at one point. As a matter of fact I’m pretty sure that would have been cancelled if not for the fact that the C017 presently has no competitors in the market.

^ Only news I read was that MOD has disallowed purchase of a foreign ship design for the P17A.

————-

Navy gets ready to add more muscle

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Navy-gets-ready-to-add-more-muscle/articleshow/10876589.cms

5 vendors have responded for RFI/RFP. Guess that would be NH90, S70B/MH60 and what else?

It has also disallowed JVs between public and private shipyards from building them. Bloody Congressi Socialism. Now the navy will have to wait for up to a decade for each ship, with MDL and GRSE being the only constructors.:mad:

Probably the Ka-28, EH-101 and EC725.

I hope this doesn’t end up as another MMRCA ordeal. The Indian Navy only wants the NH-90 or S-70; Antony should just wait for the current 16-helo tender to get resolved and issue ‘repeat’ orders as necessary.