DRDO Phalcon style AWACS

[Bhadra]

This was always on cards as Phase-2. There was time when people were arguing (at official level) why not jump start but i am glad they took it in phases. Phase-1 shall teach them enough regarding integration and they may not require any supervision by an experienced agency for Phase-2.

In the new fast time age, 40 years is hell of time to waste on stage 1. Almost all scientists working on it must have gone on retirement !!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

In the new fast time age, 40 years is hell of time to waste on stage 1. Almost all scientists working on it must have gone on retirement !!

1. How much time we got independent from Raj ?

2. 40 years sound legit for third world Nation with puny budget.. FACT

 

[Bhadra]

1. How much time we got independent from Raj ?

2. 40 years sound legit for third world Nation with puny budget.. FACT

If your logic is correct, we would take 100 years for stage II and by then the concept of AWACS would be dead.

We are thus destined that way...

 

[Kunal Biswas]

we would take 100 years for stage II and by then the concept of AWACS would be dead.

I am sure Bhadra Ji, you have dooor dristy..

 

[natarajan]

we should consider only after 1990's our research took speed and with economy we have now plus if we utilize alias recruit proper resources we will succeed

 

[Rahul Singh]

In the new fast time age, 40 years is hell of time to waste on stage 1. Almost all scientists working on it must have gone on retirement !!

I don't know how you are concluding it to be a 40 year project when project 'Eye in Sky' was sanctioned only in 2004-05? May be you are mixing it with project Airavat, which was completely entirely a project of different generation.

 

[Twinblade]

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/tenders/viewTender.jsp?paramMicro=4591

CABS has been entrusted with Design and Development of Airborne Surveillance Systems. The envisaged system will have uniform surveillance performance over full 360 degree coverage. The front end of the Radar and the Identification Friend or foe (IFF) systems shall be housed in an ellipsoidal radome on top of the fuselage installed using pylons. In addition suitable mechanical structures to transfer the air loads will be designed and housed in the radome. The radome also houses parts of the liquid cooling system(piping structure) and ladder system for maintenance.

Diameter of the radome (of the order of) 10.0 m
Height of the radome(of the order of) 2.0 m
Radome shape Ellipsoidal
Weight of the radome Shells (about) 1500Kg
Electromagnetically transparent in S and L band
Withstand aerodynamic loads on the radome as per flight envelope of wide body aircraft.
The radome shall have lighting detectors/dischargers and should have surface which will not permit ice accumulations.

The radome shall have 4 shells (3 in case of design change) and shall be easy to install /de-install as seen in figure 2.

The envisaged will have 4 faces arranged in a rectangular /square configuration (see Fig 3). The shells shall have suitable attachments to the antenna panels/supporting structures.

 

[arnabmit]

India to develop AEW&C aircraft

India's cabinet has approved a plan to develop an indigenous airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft.

In a written response to a cabinet query, defence minister AK Antony said the Cabinet Committee on Security had approved a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) plan to develop the system.

"The development of AWACS (India) is envisaged to be completed in 84 months (seven years) from the date of formal sanction of the programme," says Antony.

He adds that the programme will build upon New Delhi's previous efforts to develop AEW&C systems.

An Indian media report in February quoted an anonymous source as saying that New Delhi will require an aircraft roughly the size of the Ilyushin Il-76 for the new AEW&C programme.

One possible candidate for this could be the twin-engined multirole transport aircraft (MTA) being developed by United Aircraft Corporation and Hindustan Aeronautics.

At the Aero India show in Bangalore in early February, a brochure distribute by the MTA programme representatives listed AEW&C as among the MTA's future missions. The MTA's maiden flight is tentatively planned for 2017.

The February media report also suggested that the new aircraft will have an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar with 360Ëš coverage.

India operates six AEW&C aircraft, of which only half are operational. The three operational aircraft are Il-76s equipped with the IAI EL/W-2090 AEW&C radar system.

It has also taken delivery of three Embraer EMB-145, which will carry an AESA radar developed by the DRDO in a fairing above the fuselage. Following the DRDO's installation of a mission system, the aircraft will be handed over to the Indian air force.

 

[p2prada]

10m X 2m, that's BS, especially if it is L band. The radar should be bigger if it is to demonstrate better performance than Phalcon.

For S band, that will roughly put it in the same place as Erieye.

 

[Twinblade]

10m X 2m, that's BS, especially if it is L band. The radar should be bigger if it is to demonstrate better performance than Phalcon.

The first of these would not fly before the latter part of the decade, so its not too much to expect a better performance than current day Phalcon mounted on Il-76. Also at 10.2 meters, the antenna is about 13% larger than current Phalcon (diameter 9 meters)

For S band, that will roughly put it in the same place as Erieye.

1.24 KW antenna output in our local Emb-145 not good enough ? The power output was so significantly higher than the legacy FSR-890 mounted R-99 that they had to squeeze in an extra APU to make up for it.

 

[Twinblade]

1.24 KW antenna output in our local Emb-145 not good enough ?

correction, 124.44 KW, not 1.24 KW.

 

[p2prada]

The first of these would not fly before the latter part of the decade, so its not too much to expect a better performance than current day Phalcon mounted on Il-76. Also at 10.2 meters, the antenna is about 13% larger than current Phalcon (diameter 9 meters)

Diameter of the radome is different from the length of the chord within the radome. If Phalcon uses 3 radars against our AWACS-India's 4 radars, then the size of the Phalcon arrays are much much larger. If we use the same 10m X 2m radars like on the R-99, then the capability of the radar will be limited to what's on the R-99. Heck it will be the exact same copy, except that it will deliver more power on multiple sides.

Beamwidth factors in the size of the radar, L band needs a larger array compared to S band in order to provide the same beamwidth. Without beamwidth, AWACS is nothing. I don't know whether the AWACS's primary modes are in the L band or the S band, but if it is in the L band and has this 4 radar config, then it will be less capable compared to Phalcon.

1.24 KW antenna output in our local Emb-145 not good enough ? The power output was so significantly higher than the legacy FSR-890 mounted R-99 that they had to squeeze in an extra APU to make up for it.

Do you mean 124KW?

Anyway, a Phalcon requirement will need twice that and more, something only a wide body aircraft can provide. I heard MTA may be one of the platform contenders. I suppose we can judge the capability of the radar based on the platform chosen. IL-214 is way too small to be considered in the Phalcon class. Entirely different if IAF chooses A-330, IL-476 or C-17.

 

[drkrn]

looks like Isreali will reduce price of their awac after this news.

really you think so??

 

[drkrn]

One doubt i have is how come India can make indigineous things like missile and others which are restricted to us so armed forces dont have any choice so they are going for it But if it is available outside and because of kickbacks they are going to import

we have already made sufficient advancements wrt such technologies,just takes couple of years from now to reach western standards .of course russians are our main tech consultants..

why should we re invent the wheel??

 

[drkrn]

1. How much time we got independent from Raj ?

2. 40 years sound legit for third world Nation with puny budget.. FACT

to add for the fact we completed most projects at a fraction of west budget,and we achieved it at faster pace only next to china(of course their budget is huge)

 

[Twinblade]

Diameter of the radome is different from the length of the chord within the radome. If Phalcon uses 3 radars against our AWACS-India's 4 radars, then the size of the Phalcon arrays are much much larger.

7.12m x 4 arrays vs 7.79m x 3 arrays, for a small reduction in the size of individual array (neglecting clearances in either case), we are getting a much larger antenna. In any circumstance, the length of the array is several times larger than the L band wavelength ( 0.15 to 0.3 meters), so the resolution will not be affected.

 

[p2prada]

7.12m x 4 arrays vs 7.79m x 3 arrays,

Are you sure about this? If true then it's okay. Our AWACS will suffer from greater beamwidth than the R-99 version.

In any circumstance, the length of the array is several times larger than the L band wavelength ( 0.15 to 0.3 meters), so the resolution will not be affected.

Range resolution won't be affected, it will be shit anyway, but angular resolution will, especially if the radar is primarily L band.
If it is S band, then it is more than plenty.

Anyway, don't bother, I am thinking too much about this. Let's just hope this program succeeds.

Which platform do you think we should go for? IMHO, we need to pick A-330. Boeing 767 is also a good choice. If we want something smaller then there's A-400 and IL-214 to choose from. But I don't know if IAF will accept a turboprop.

 

[Twinblade]

Are you sure about this? If true then it's okay. Our AWACS will suffer from greater beamwidth than the R-99 version.


Range resolution won't be affected, it will be shit anyway, but angular resolution will, especially if the radar is primarily L band.
If it is S band, then it is more than plenty.

I don't see why it is such a major concern, nearly all L-band airborne AESA radars are in the same vicinity in dimensions, all maxed out to the size which can be safely carried on an aircraft (Wedgetail's L-band antenna is 7.3 meters long for example). For a small increase in horizontal beam width, theta, a greater decrease in vertical beam width, phi, would occur in this case as the breadth of the radome will be larger than Phalcon. The directional gain stands to increase the way I see it, regardless of the band that it uses. Besides, with a synthetic aperture radar techniques are already implemented in several aew&c to boost angular resolution beyond what the antenna offers, and they are only getting better with time.

Anyway, don't bother, I am thinking too much about this. Let's just hope this program succeeds.

Which platform do you think we should go for? IMHO, we need to pick A-330. Boeing 767 is also a good choice. If we want something smaller then there's A-400 and IL-214 to choose from. But I don't know if IAF will accept a turboprop.

It would have to be big, that's for sure. Il-96, A-330, Boeing 767.

 

[p2prada]

I don't see why it is such a major concern, nearly all L-band airborne AESA radars are in the same vicinity in dimensions, all maxed out to the size which can be safely carried on an aircraft (Wedgetail's L-band antenna is 7.3 meters long for example). For a small increase in horizontal beam width, theta, a greater decrease in vertical beam width, phi, would occur in this case as the breadth of the radome will be larger than Phalcon. The directional gain stands to increase the way I see it, regardless of the band that it uses. Besides, with a synthetic aperture radar techniques are already implemented in several aew&c to boost angular resolution beyond what the antenna offers, and they are only getting better with time.

My point was they can get better capability if they go for a three array design like on the Phalcon, 4 array design will make the radar smaller than the Phalcon. Elevation info is too inaccurate, it won't matter how broad the antenna is.

On the R-99, the array has 160 something T/R modules, that gives it slightly lesser capability than Erieye (192) even though the radar itself is big enough. It means less bang for the buck. In case the AWACS-India and Phalcon have similar differences, the overall capability of a single array will be lesser. In the end they will pass it off as being superior to the Phalcon just because it will end up illuminating two arrays at once.

 

[Twinblade]

My point was they can get better capability if they go for a three array design like on the Phalcon, 4 array design will make the radar smaller than the Phalcon.

In the end they will pass it off as being superior to the Phalcon just because it will end up illuminating two arrays at once.

A four sided array would be inherently superior to a three sided array as the performance of the beam reduces drastically at higher ranges of scanning angle. With a four sided array you reduce the sectoral coverage of each array from 120 degrees to 90 degrees and give a significant capability overlap at extreme angles mitigating the downgraded performance at higher scanning angles. The only reason why it was not done till date was due to the complexity involved with the bulk and weight of the system compared to three array antenna. With improvement in AESA technology, the weight of such a system can be reduced significantly due to lower cooling requirements and much smaller Tx/Rx module size. This is the first publicly declared airborne AESA project to use a four sided array.

In case the AWACS-India and Phalcon have similar differences, the overall capability of a single array will be lesser.

You are neglecting the possible advances in indigenous MMIC technology that will occur between the El/W-2090 of 2008 and Indian array a good part of a decade apart.