Indian EMB-145 AEW&C

[dvdiyen]

How about if the TR modules are placed on the curvy surface(lets assume in a circle), but 1/3rd of them are pointing at the single direction, rest one 1/3rd on the circle itself, but at 120 degree angle to previous ones and same for other 1/3rd part. I'm guessing that delay issue will be there as straight line distance for each TR module will vary for 1/3rd of the modules which are pointing at one direction(but should be negligible), another issue cloud be when receiving the reflected beam, it might not fall on the whole 1/3rd part of circle due to curvy nature.

Can be done but beamsteering will not be possible.

 

[dvdiyen]

Then that's a very badly designed radar and will not function as you want it to.

These are the beam shapes desirable for radars.

For AWACS, the cheese beam shape is desirable, because we need accurate azimuth data and range.

From what I understand, the polarization of the radar will be affected if we design a radar as you mentioned above. If the polarization is not adequate, then the radar will not be effective.



Were you referring to me, since that was the point I made too?

Needs 360 degree azimuthal and 90 degree elevation coverage.

 

[dvdiyen]

I know what he was talking about. I was pointing out that it is impossible.

By curving the radar the beam shape will get messed up. Beam shape is very very important.

So, the radar will remain flat and straight for years to come.

Its possible. But the problem is will increase the RCS since antenna is a metal. Requires more number of array elements for the same performance

 

[dvdiyen]

An oval, or more precisely an elliptical shape is feasible from the aerodynamic perspective. If anything, it will have improve the aerodynamics of the host aircraft. So, that cant be a reason for rejecting such a design.

But having said that, there might be problems with the TR modules and their associated subsystems at the sharper edges. Plus I'm not entirely sure we could get enough TR modules near the tips.

But all in all, its worth a study, even if it turns into an academic discussion.

Oval is fine but there will be blind spots at the curvature. Circle, square, hexagon, triangle would be best suited.

 

[dvdiyen]

Everybody is researching conformal arrays. Everybody. Raytheon claims it can deliver conformal arrays one inch thick to be mounted on the underside of UAVs once the technology is sorted out. Boeing was proposing aesa modules as a part of skin and structure for futuristic super hornet. Probably in 10 years or so we might see prototypes too.

We have conformal array which is 1.54 mm thick on the surface (for communication). With prototypes.

 

[JAISWAL]

hi............

its long been any updaate on indian emb-145 aew-c any news ....

 

[Neeraj Mathur]

hi............

its long been any updaate on indian emb-145 aew-c any news ....

hey

last i heard was about the first prototype, then there was a phalcon like prog. by drdo

i think this project has been shelved

 

[Twinblade]

hi............

its long been any updaate on indian emb-145 aew-c any news ....

Periodic updates are not forthcoming. News comes out only when program crosses some major milestones.

hey

last i heard was about the first prototype, then I didn't bother to check on the program and then there was a larger AWACS India prog. by drdo that I will preferably call Phalcon, because all large awacs mounted on large aircrafts are called Phalcon. SInce I haven't heard any news in a while I'll assume that the project has been shelved. Yeah, definitely shelved

Fixed your post for you sire

 

[p2prada]

Needs 360 degree azimuthal and 90 degree elevation coverage.

Normally AWACS radar don't provide 360 deg in azimuth constantly. That's on an operational perspective.

Phalcon is theoretically restricted using software while balance beam setup is practically restricted.

This is based on an idea that the loss of coverage will be compensated by other radar systems and that the probability of the enemy coming from a particular side is lower.

Meaning, if there is an enemy cruise missile headed towards Gujarat. The probability of the missile originating from Pakistan's side is much greater than it originating from the Indian side. So, coverage on Indian side is not needed. A 120-140 deg coverage on Pakistan side is plenty while bringing down the cost of the balance beam platform significantly.

Then there are other restrictions like aerodynamics requirement won't allow a radar larger than such and such size, that's around 9-10m x 2-3m for both Phalcon and balance beam.

 

[p2prada]

Oval is fine but there will be blind spots at the curvature. Circle, square, hexagon, triangle would be best suited.

Circle, square, octogon and oval are preferred antenna designs for fighter radar. AWACS, it is rectangle.

That's because fighter radars need more accuracy in all parameters compared to AWACS.

 

[dvdiyen]

Circle, square, octogon and oval are preferred antenna designs for fighter radar. AWACS, it is rectangle.

That's because fighter radars need more accuracy in all parameters compared to AWACS.

A limiting case of square is a rectangle (that is what i meant).

 

[Neeraj Mathur]

hey

last i heard was about the first prototype, then I didn't bother to check on the program and then there was a larger AWACS India prog. by drdo that I will preferably call Phalcon, because all large awacs mounted on large aircrafts are called Phalcon. SInce I haven't heard any news in a while I'll assume that the project has been shelved. Yeah, definitely shelved
Neeraj Mathur ↑


Fixed your post for you sire

first of all thanx for making "fixing" my post

second i am and was following this prog. from the beginning, so dont think that i dont bother.

third i am not calling drdo program phalcon. i wrote phalcon like program. so please correct ur self

thanx

 

[dvdiyen]

Normally AWACS radar don't provide 360 deg in azimuth constantly. That's on an operational perspective.

Phalcon is theoretically restricted using software while balance beam setup is practically restricted.

This is based on an idea that the loss of coverage will be compensated by other radar systems and that the probability of the enemy coming from a particular side is lower.

Meaning, if there is an enemy cruise missile headed towards Gujarat. The probability of the missile originating from Pakistan's side is much greater than it originating from the Indian side. So, coverage on Indian side is not needed. A 120-140 deg coverage on Pakistan side is plenty while bringing down the cost of the balance beam platform significantly.

Then there are other restrictions like aerodynamics requirement won't allow a radar larger than such and such size, that's around 9-10m x 2-3m for both Phalcon and balance beam.

True, but initially how do you know that missile is headed towards Gujarat? Thus initially 360 degree beam-scan is required but later may not. 360 azimuth might not be practical in some cases but around 290 degrees might be sufficient. What other radar are you talking about (subarrays??)

 

[p2prada]

True, but initially how do you know that missile is headed towards Gujarat?

The balance beam would be covering a 120 deg area facing Pak over Gujarat.

Thus initially 360 degree beam-scan is required but later may not. 360 azimuth might not be practical in some cases but around 290 degrees might be sufficient.

360 degree scanning is impossible on balance beam. The DRDO-CABS radar is restricted to 240 deg. Erieye does a little better at 300 deg. The front and aft regions of the aircraft are not covered.

Like I said, in practical situations there is no real expectation that the enemy would come from your own land, so 360 deg is not entirely necessary.

360 deg capability is necessary when you are operating outside the coverage of your ground radars, like on oceans or even enemy territory. But AWACS generally avoid such situations. Only P-8 would have to face this situation and that's why IN insisted on 360 deg capability for the P-8I.

What other radar are you talking about (subarrays??)

Other ground and air radars.

 

[dvdiyen]

The balance beam would be covering a 120 deg area facing Pak over Gujarat.



360 degree scanning is impossible on balance beam. The DRDO-CABS radar is restricted to 240 deg. Erieye does a little better at 300 deg. The front and aft regions of the aircraft are not covered.

Like I said, in practical situations there is no real expectation that the enemy would come from your own land, so 360 deg is not entirely necessary.

360 deg capability is necessary when you are operating outside the coverage of your ground radars, like on oceans or even enemy territory. But AWACS generally avoid such situations. Only P-8 would have to face this situation and that's why IN insisted on 360 deg capability for the P-8I.



Other ground and air radars.

Have my doubts about the figures that you have quoted. I think its 270 degrees and not 240.
In a balance beam 360 is not possible. But providing 360 is possible with conformal arrays and multiple switching between the subarrays. (Problem being the switching between the subarrays and coaxial cable length should be same).

120 degrees that you are saying is a sector of the area that is covered by the subarray in the balance beam radar.

 

[p2prada]

Have my doubts about the figures that you have quoted. I think its 270 degrees and not 240.

It is 120 degree for each array. 240 degree for both.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20120309290411800.htm&date=fl2904/&prd=fline&

Two radiating planar arrays assembled back-to-back and mounted on the fuselage in an AAAU will provide 120 degrees coverage on either side of the AAAU.

In a balance beam 360 is not possible. But providing 360 is possible with conformal arrays and multiple switching between the subarrays. (Problem being the switching between the subarrays and coaxial cable length should be same).

Conformal arrays won't be used because they won't conform to military specs for beamwidth and power. It defeats the purpose of being cheap also. Rather dump balance beam version and do what the Americans do, induct 20 or 30 Phalcon class AWACS. But we are not that rich.

360 degree is not possible without a third array.

Then there is weight issue as well.

It was a challenge for the CABS to integrate the AEW&C system components in the Embraer transport aircraft. While the aircraft's payload capacity was four tonnes, the AAAU alone weighed 1.5 tonnes. Besides, there were five OWSs with electronic systems inside, crew seats, special protection suites, and so on.

OTOH, IL-76 can carry 40-50 tons. That's Phalcon.

 

[Abhi9]

Self delete

 

[indiatester]

OK. Dumb question and not high quality picture.
Identify this

The pilot was really making it do a steep turn and climb prior to this pic!

 

[indiatester]

More.

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

Indian AEW&C at Baharin International Airshow

Bahrain: India is showcasing during the Bahrain International Airshow, its state-of-the-art airborne platforms and associated sensors & communication systems designed and developed by DRDO (Defence Research & Development Organization, Ministry of Defence, Govt of India). DRDO, along with some of its production partners is displaying India's strength and expertise in design, development and leading to production at the 'Bahrain International Airshow' being held at Sakhir Airbase, Bahrain from 16 – 18 Jan 2014, with the aim of exploring the potential of exporting these advanced systems to friendly countries in the region.

The show will witness flying demonstration of the 'AEW&C India' the latest and state of the art Airborne Early Warning and Control system that can detect, identify and classify threats present in the surveillance area and act as a command and control centre to support variety of air operations. The system with its multiple Communication and data links can alert and direct fighters against such threats while providing "Recognizable Air Surface Picture" to the Commanders at the Ground Exploitation Stations. It also comprises of electronic and communication support measures that intercept and classify unfriendly radar transmissions and communication signals. "AEW&C India" with Mission Systems developed by DRDO with modular design and seamlessly integrated on an Embraer 145 aircraft provides a very cost effective solution for C4ISR capabilities. It is based on modern state of art technologies and can be adapted to the needs of any country.

DRDO is also displaying models of Light Combat Aircraft 'TEJAS', the 'Four plus' generation and highly cost effective fighter aircraft designed and developed by the Department of Defence R&D of the Ministry of Defence and being produced by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. Models of trainer and the Naval versions are also on display. The other items include models of 'Expendable high Speed Aerial Target', 'NISHANT', the multi mission UAV with Day and Night operational capability for battlefield surveillance & reconnaissance, target tracking & localization, and artillery fire correction; and OBOGS (On Board Oxygen Generation System)

A high level DRDO delegation led by Dr Avinash Chander Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister and Secretary Defence R&D is participating in the event. The delegation includes Dr S Christopher Distinguished Scientist and Director 'Centre for Air Borne Systems (CABS), Mr Radhakrishnan, Outstanding Scientist and Director Industry Interface & Technology Management and Senior level officials from Indian Industries partnering DRDO in the production of various systems.

Read more: DRDO AEW&C aircraft flight displays at Sakhir Airbase for Bahrain International Airshow