What to read next

27 Comments

  1. 1

    Sourav Paul

    an absolute waste of money…why run two parallel projects..why not invest your time and money into acelerating the existing one

    Reply
  2. 2

    Vikram Kumar

    Hello Shiv,
    DRDO AEW&C ERJ 145 was a AESA or PESA radar.
    Since it has no moving part it is claimed to be AESA in interviews but technological focus it mentions "active electronically scanned phased array technology" on
    "http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/2013/TF_April_2013_WEB.pdf"
    under "Long-Range Solid-state Active Phased Array
    Radar"
    But i have read it contains TR module and Dr Avinash Chander had told it is Passive array in interview with Bharat Kavach.

    Reply
  3. 3

    capital P

    Does IAF know this flotation by DRDO ??

    three platforms for three awacs !!

    Reply
  4. 4

    Anonymous

    Waste of money. We have 4 types of transport already , one of them can be used for AWACS : C130, C17, planned Russian m MRTA and planned AVRO replacement.

    Reply
  5. 5

    Anonymous

    Any bets when this one will crash??

    Reply
  6. 6

    Prahaar

    @Anonymous 8:37: Your comment is in bad taste. Not adding any value.

    Useless banter.

    Reply
  7. 7

    Anonymous

    one of these has already crashed in 1999….

    Reply
  8. 8

    Anonymous

    so no more CABS AWE&CS? Just 3?

    Reply
  9. 9

    Anonymous

    Oye.. charlataan….. picked from tenders… so what do you want to import these machines from israel and fck up local talent.Is this the next iteration of any tecnological organisation. Leave ur fcked up tv mind in the news room and think freshly!

    Reply
  10. 10

    Anonymous

    reorganise drdo, hal and all r n d facilities first. They r like beggars. They need every project to be called national project. Where is the experience gained from manufacturing so many aircrafts under licence. Not to mention designing a fighter. Have they forgotten it? Cant we manufacture a multi purpose aircraft to be used as transport, awacs, tanker, gunship/tactical bomber? Airforce is screwed up again as it has to deal with 3 awacs types. Why dont we develope a multi purpose engine first to avoid tejas like scenario. We should learn from chinese who are replacing russian engines in chinese made su 27 copies with a local one.

    Reply
  11. 11

    chuck jones

    pathetic Indians and their nonsense plans

    Reply
  12. 12

    Kana

    So the project explicitly specifies a 10m antenna, yet Dassault, Saab, Bombardier all have viable platforms just like Airbus and Boeing? WTF? And if Dassault and Bombardier are on that list, why not Embraer?

    You mention inventory and support costs, but there is also personnel training, due to different airframe and mission systems which require separate training regime. If Dassault and Bombardier are offering here, I don't understand why Embraer isn't, and why they shouldn't have an inbuilt advantage re: lifecycle costs considering the training/personnel issue. (Alternatively, the same mission system on Embraer AEW&C can be fitted to another airframe)

    Reply
  13. 13

    Kana

    UAC could bid either a Superjet based platform, or the latest Il-76 variant, the so-called Il-476 with newer engines and avionics.

    Il-476 currently uses the latest PS-90, but depending on when IAF wants this in service, they could integrate the latest Russian engine PD-14 which is on-par with LEAP-X. I believe PD-14 is now the planned engine for MTA, so that would allow broader commonality.

    Airbus could potentially offer an A330 NEO based platform but that is not even launched in it's civil version as of now, and doing so would mean less commonality with IAF A330 "CEO" based MRTT tankers.

    Reply
  14. 14

    Kana

    Re: your comment about new types, of course one of the mentioned bidders (Ilyushin) would not necessarily introduce a new type at all, or perhaps only a modernized version of the existing A-50, with at least some degree of commonality. Il-476 has different avionics of the platform itself, but the mission systems could be identical, or at least some basic commonality could be retained between them. The current I-476 uses PS-90 engines like India's current A-50, so that would be one basis. If it is offered with PD-14 though (breaking that commonality), that MAY even allow it to be competitive as a platform with A330 CEO.

    Reply
  15. 15

    Anonymous

    Correction, Antonov is not a part of UAC, and seeing present scenario, it might be, if Russians capture it's hq too.

    Reply
  16. 16

    Anonymous

    DRDO will be looking to draw interest from vendors include Boeing, Saab, Airbus, UAC (Ilyushin, Antonov, Sukhoi), Bombardier and Dassault Aviation.

    The Embraer KC-390, I think, could be adapt to a very good medium AWACS platform.

    Reply
  17. 17

    Kana

    Antonov design house is not owned by UAC, but UAC is a critical production partner of several Antonov products, including An-148 which I believe would be the relevant Antonov product in this context. Not to mention any AWACS variant would no doubt have even more Russian involvement for the radar and mission suite, thus associating Antonov and UAC is more than reasonable. To note, it is never stated that Antonov is owned by UAC.

    Reply
  18. 18

    Kana

    Why in the hell would India EVER induct Embraer C-390 to serve as AWACS? It is excessively optimized for heavy load unlike civil platforms like A320/MS21, and even disregarding that aspect, India is ALREADY heavily involved in an exact equivalent to it, in the form of MTA, a JV with UAC. C390 brings nothing to the table.

    Reply
  19. 19

    Kana

    MTA with PS90 engines will be comparable to C390 in range and related specs. With PD-14M engines, which are more than plausibe to see at EIS, it will easily be signifigantly superior, as in ~15% range/loiter advantage. And India is even centrally involved in the design/production of MTA, so why should it give up capability advantages, fleet commonality advantages, and local production advantages? Brazilian vacation for somebody?

    Reply
  20. 20

    Kana

    An A320/MS21 based platform would be interesting if IAF is apparently considering both wideboy 767/330 based AWACS and smaller business/regional jet based ones, a single aisle A320/MS21 platform would be a reasonable compromise… although some business jets have very long range/loiter the payload capability/radar size and onboard mission suite would be much less, while a single aisle could support a capability largely equivalent to a wide-body. The question is how much does IAF want to pay for integrating a bespoke product, vs. buying off the shelf.

    Reply
  21. 21

    Kana

    As Shiv's post discussed, proliferation of platforms irrespective of fleet commonality is absurd. Pursuing some level of commonality is just basic logic. What that level of commonality is unclear, purchasing the exact same platforms is forgoing the benefit of ongoing technology progress. But that still leaves fitting new radars/mission suites to identical platforms, using new platforms that are used for other purposes within India, or using new platforms that share some components with other platforms already used, e.g. engines, mission suite, etc. Any divergence from 100% commonality should ideally have some commonality with something else, e.g. broadly used commercial platforms that will persist for most of the life of the new AWACS.

    Reply
  22. 22

    Anonymous

    again the Russians

    Reply
  23. 24

    Anonymous

    Shiv, off topic

    Your TV news channel brazenly supporting AAP. Don't watch HT anymore.

    Reply
  24. 25

    bindya

    An absolute waste of money………..scrap the hunt for platform……….use existing platform……else will be nightmarish scenario for IAF dealing with logestics……….

    Reply
  25. 26

    Anonymous

    Shiv are you gone? you blog is not updated for more than 10 days….i am leaving you.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © . All rights reserved.