India takes up AWACS programme, can penetrate enemy territory

[SQ8]

AWACS have rotating dome with 360 degree coverage and much higher tracking range and can track many more targets that AEW&C. So the prices of AWACS are much higher than AEW&Cs.

AEW&Cs are cheaper platform having coverage ranging between 150-240 degree, based on a lighter platform. And having some sort of SIGINT capabilities.

Im sorry , but that definition is based upon just guesswork and nothing else.
The word AWACS was a moniker applied to the E-3 Sentry system by the Boeing and Westinghouse in an effort to outline its higher capabilities vis-a-vis the E-2. It was never an official aviation designation nor does it diffrentiate between AEW platforms.
The official designation for the E-3 is STILL as an AEW&C aircraft.

The C adds to the Airborne early warning designation by adding the word Control, which means the Aircraft can control assets as well.
The AWACS moniker which means Airborne Warning and Control System is essentially the same meaning as Airborne Early Warning and Control. At the end of the day it was nothing more than a marketing ploy and not some differentiation as you would have us believe.
All AWACS are AEW&C and vice versa. The Boeing Wedgetail for eg actually has better capabilities than the E-3 in service with the USAF yet it is only called the AEW aircraft even though it features sophisticated control suites along with ELINT and SIGINT capabilities.



There may be capability differences between different models of AEW&C aircraft.. but they are not called by any different name

The only difference would be the addition or deletion of the "C" at the end to denote aircraft that can also act as airborne aerial warfare command centers.

Again..
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO TERMS OF AWACS AND AEW&C.. any claims of it are pure hogwash.

 

[Ayush]

good news .

 

[Safriz]

Lets see when the "Frankenstein" awacs becomes functional..It too has been bitten by indian "Indigenous" bug..

 

[DARKY]

IAF stated that they need around 15 AWACS aircrafts, without mentioning which size and as I said, when we talk about the Indo-Pak and the Indo-Chinese borders, as well as a useful number of EMB 145s, 5 Phalcons can be enough. Just imagine the Indo-Pak border, with 2 x EMB 145 DRDO AWACS flying at the same time + 1 x A50 Phalcon. The same combo at the Indo-Chinese border, which means 3 x AWACS providing good coverage alongside both borders, 2 x Phalcons in the air and 3 in reserve.

That's why I said, we don't need a new type for these borders, or a new plattform, unless we talk about shore based AWACS.

You completely forgot what I told you last time.

They are working on an L-band antenna similar to Phalcon.
Why wold IAF need them would be better answered by IAF and when the time arrives.. what can be said as of now is that... it would provide larger coverage as compared with EMB-145 AWACS which has S-band antenna.

Along with that it brings in dual band coverage of air space helps in providing clear picture in heavy ECM environment... If we combine both DRDO and new AWACS.
This new AWACS along with phalcons would have better resolution for LO and VLO targets like J-20 when their radar is off.

DRDO AWACS won't be enough at the eastern borders... IAF needs at least 9 Phalcon type AWACS and buying them from Israel is going to be time taking and as costly as it gets.

Besides that It would be interesting If navy adds a few such platform to their air wing... Hence the requirement is there and its more of a cost saving measure.

You might recall that the 3rd Phalcon was extensively reprogrammed for better efficiency at sea... and ground targets.

 

[DARKY]

Some more interesting news might come about our own desi JSTARS... however currently AWACS India is the priority.

 

[DARKY]

It is possible, but that won't be cost effective solution. While a rotating dome can cover the same area with a much smaller number of T/R modules. Also, with greater number of T/R modules, the number of onboard processors will increase too.

But comparing the life cycle cost for maintainance of the rotodome the triangular arrangement offers a fixed solution. So it is less maintainance intensive.

The best intermediate solution for cost saving measure against maintenance expenses was to have both triangular array arrangement and a rotating antenna.

The rotating dome wold work during peace time and training saving the maintenance on electronics part while the triangular array can be lit up full power during wartime.

Before coming to conclusion keep in mind that TRMMs and the transistors have been too-costly during the years and mechanical maintenance cost was considered low against it.

Israelis promoted one such design with had both triangular array and rotating dome.. for exports.

As for now the semiconductor fabrication factories increase and the cost goes low... hence the triangular array has been a safe and final solution... future design mid cut off the circular parts and leave the triangle instead for better aerodynamic performances... DRDO has been working on such designs.

 

[karan21]

So the mush talked program has been approvd by the govt. Great

 

[GURU DUTT]

Why A310? Would be great to see it based on 787- putting recent issues aside!

well because A310 is one of the largest used commercial platfor m in india and some other reasons but in short there would be no less than 12 A310 based AWACS systems and almost same amount of the foreign ones along with a big nos of smaller AWE&Cs as mod is already finalising the order requirements nd wont be surprised to hear the news after the budget session

 

[sancho]

They are working on an L-band antenna similar to Phalcon.
Why wold IAF need them would be better answered by IAF and when the time arrives.. what can be said as of now is that... it would provide larger coverage as compared with EMB-145 AWACS which has S-band antenna.

First of all, where did you see IAF requesting a bigger Indian AWACS? This is DRDO asking MoD for the approval to develop a bigger radar, just like they are pushing AMCA, or FICV currently, although they didn't provided the current AWACS, fighters or tanks yet, while this is the more urgent need for the forces.
Secondly, that's a matter of the radar system only, if we would need L-band arrays, we could simply upgrade the current DRDO system on the available platform, but that is not what DRDO wants. They want a completely new developed radar array, on a new plattform, which only delays the induction into IAF even further, while we fall back in this field against our oponents. So not the radar system is important at the moment, but the numbers of aircrafts operational!

Besides that It would be interesting If navy adds a few such platform to their air wing... Hence the requirement is there and its more of a cost saving measure.

We have a requirement to cover the coastal area as well, but providing IN with shorebased AWACS is not needed, nor effective when IAF operates AWACS anyway, it would infact increase operational costs (training, logistics), rather reducing it.

You might recall that the 3rd Phalcon was extensively reprogrammed for better efficiency at sea... and ground targets.

Any source? Better Air to Sea modes were offered by Elta as part as their offer for the shore based AWACS and the G550 Phalcon once, but afaik that has nothing to do with out current A50 Phalcons, which doesn't make much sense anyway, when you look where they are operated.

The best intermediate solution for cost saving measure against maintenance expenses was to have both triangular array arrangement and a rotating antenna.

The rotating dome wold work during peace time and training saving the maintenance on electronics part while the triangular array can be lit up full power during wartime.

Buddy, one of the biggest advantages of AESA is, that you need less moving mechanical parts, since the radar beam is moving and not necessarily the dome, the radar array for fighters. That's why an fixed AESA radar is more maintenance friendly than a moving multi mode radar and why using the rotodome in peace time would increase the costs not decrease them.

 

[DARKY]

First of all, where did you see IAF requesting a bigger Indian AWACS? This is DRDO asking MoD for the approval to develop a bigger radar, just like they are pushing AMCA, or FICV currently, although they didn't provided the current AWACS, fighters or tanks yet, while this is the more urgent need for the forces.
Secondly, that's a matter of the radar system only, if we would need L-band arrays, we could simply upgrade the current DRDO system on the available platform, but that is not what DRDO wants. They want a completely new developed radar array, on a new plattform, which only delays the induction into IAF even further, while we fall back in this field against our oponents. So not the radar system is important at the moment, but the numbers of aircrafts operational!

DRDO doesn't get as much fund unless the Armed forces are interested in the project.. AMCA was pushed by Navy... same goes for Arjun Mk2... in its case Army.

They have move with the time too... the current is not what the Armed forces want hence they go for better... 5 years later the requirements would increase.

No we cannot do that the larger the wavelength gets the bigger is the size of Antenna for targets at higher frequency.. and larger Amplifiers are used... so more power required... Hence you don't see L-band antenna on EMB-145 types... Hence to use the capabilities with optimum level benefits a larger platform is needed for bigger antenna, generators, computers etc... the Command and control additional benefits.

This is development project... not even in PT stages... you can see it like Tejas MK1 and MK2 where MK1 should be more and MK2 is as important... although in small

We have a requirement to cover the coastal area as well, but providing IN with shorebased AWACS is not needed, nor effective when IAF operates AWACS anyway, it would infact increase operational costs (training, logistics), rather reducing it.

This is debatable... Or Navy would not have a carrier capable enough to operate an AWACS before 2025... all they can have is the like of Helo based ones or perhaps V-22 based ones.. on Carrier till then. Its like a 10-12 year before such requirement arises... now with such a heavy traffic in the seas around us and terror threats one can think about it... but as I said debatable and doubtful.

I meant to support Navy Air wing which keeps growing in spite of carrier delays.

Any source? Better Air to Sea modes were offered by Elta as part as their offer for the shore based AWACS and the G550 Phalcon once, but afaik that has nothing to do with out current A50 Phalcons, which doesn't make much sense anyway, when you look where they are operated.

I don't have source.. now I can't recall where I bookmark it.

IAF would use AWACS in the Arabian sea to support its sea based and coastal attack missions... and yes they would use Phalcons... may be flying say some where in Gujarat.

Buddy, one of the biggest advantages of AESA is, that you need less moving mechanical parts, since the radar beam is moving and not necessarily the dome, the radar array for fighters. That's why an fixed AESA radar is more maintenance friendly than a moving multi mode radar and why using the rotodome in peace time would increase the costs not decrease them.

There was a presentation on moving triangular array by Elta... and I saw that on this very form... It was proposed as the next Gen. cost saving AWACS.

 

[sancho]

DRDO doesn't get as much fund unless the Armed forces are interested in the project.. AMCA was pushed by Navy... same goes for Arjun Mk2... in its case Army.

But it shows that there is no requirement from IAF for this, also where did you get the idea that IN pushed AMCA? From all official statements so far, it is just like LCA developed for IAF requirements and IN will get just a navalised version. Infact IN officials statement on N-LCA show, that they are disappointed about this way, because ADA/DRDO completelly underestimated the changes required and that's why they prefered a fighter development like Rafale. But we are doing the same mistakes again, by not looking at what really is needed for our defence and then letting our industry build something according to these requirements, but let the companies come up with something THEY think would be a good idea. That only serves their puroposes, but not the security of our nation and LCA developed as a whole as proved that!

No we cannot do that the larger the wavelength gets the bigger is the size of Antenna for targets at higher frequency.. and larger Amplifiers are used... so more power required... Hence you don't see L-band antenna on EMB-145 types...

Says who?

The G550 Phalcon uses L-Band dual band antennas as well and that on a small plattform. All this is, is DRDO wants to show that they can do something, one of the best companies in this field can, although they just started in this field.
For India, the current system is more than an achievement and as soon as the radar is finally developed and inducted, we have some reasons to be proud and celebrate and think about how to make it more capable, but ONE STEP AFTER THE OTHER, NOT ALL AT ONCE!!!
Saab took years to go from the first Eyrieye system which is comparable to DRDOs in capability, to the current systems. So why don't we try to catch up with them first, before we take on the leaders? Same case with LCA and AMCA, or with with DRDOs fighter radar and engine developents.

This is debatable... Or Navy would not have a carrier capable enough to operate an AWACS before 2025...

That are 2 different requirements, the one is shore based and aimed on costal surveillance and control of sea lanes, the other is to protect and support carrier operations. If IN get catobar carriers, they might get E-2Ds too, but for the shore based requirement, IAF is clearly the way to go and even if you look around, there is no other navy that I know, that has AWACS for shore based roles, since that mainly is air force field.

There was a presentation on moving triangular array by Elta... and I saw that on this very form... It was proposed as the next Gen. cost saving AWACS.

Yes, that's their new JV with EADS, based on the C295:

But it's a cost-effective AWACS, because it uses a cheaper (but less capable) plattform, compared to the G550 or A50 Phalcons. The radar system is not more cost-effecvtive, combineing both, AESA and a rotodome just increase the rate of detections and that radar version was upgraded with better Air 2 Sea modes, because smaller countries would be able to afford this AWACS and use it for air and maritime surveillance, but is not the one we get in our A50 Phalcons.
So this is just a hi low mix that Elta offers for different customers, just like IAF already has a hi lo mix with the A50 Phalcon and the EMB 145 DRDO AWACS.

 

[DARKY]

But it shows that there is no requirement from IAF for this, also where did you get the idea that IN pushed AMCA? From all official statements so far, it is just like LCA developed for IAF requirements and IN will get just a navalised version. Infact IN officials statement on N-LCA show, that they are disappointed about this way, because ADA/DRDO completelly underestimated the changes required and that's why they prefered a fighter development like Rafale. But we are doing the same mistakes again, by not looking at what really is needed for our defence and then letting our industry build something according to these requirements, but let the companies come up with something THEY think would be a good idea. That only serves their puroposes, but not the security of our nation and LCA developed as a whole as proved that!

How did you conclude that IAF don't have such requirements ?... MOD funding the project is itself an indication of the requirements... If IAF don't have such requirement I don't think Army or Navy would be the primary users... wasting such money on a non-required project is stupidity at its best.

Somethings are read between lines.. Its obvious IN's disappointment over N-LCA.. It was below the requirements before the Navy ordered them... But that order gives financial support to the program.. for a better aircraft which would be advanced version of MK2 with perhaps a better T/W ratio output... weather or not Navy accepts the better version is another thing.. depending on the req. when the plane rolls out.... at the same time current N-LCA is what they needed to train their pilots for better planes like Mig29K... and replace sea-Harriers at the same time.

Coming to the point about the requirements.. current platform don't come up to the mark... so there are two options... integrate them in large numbers and support the staff to maintain such large numbers and Logistics... or integrate them in low numbers and support the better version... going by the trend followed by Armed forces it is more close to the 2nd option.

Says who?

The G550 Phalcon uses L-Band dual band antennas as well and that on a small plattform. All this is, is DRDO wants to show that they can do something, one of the best companies in this field can, although they just started in this field.
For India, the current system is more than an achievement and as soon as the radar is finally developed and inducted, we have some reasons to be proud and celebrate and think about how to make it more capable, but ONE STEP AFTER THE OTHER, NOT ALL AT ONCE!!!

I knew you'd mention G550... which cannot operate at the level which a Phalcon A-50 does... countries who integrate such planes have smaller air space to defend and to go with that a smaller battlefield... I mentioned you the technical difficulties with the L-band antenna... A Horse will remain a Horse and a Donkey a Donkey... G550 is like cross Horse and Donkey what can be called as Khacchar... which surely cannot beat a Horse.

Sure the EMB-145 would get inducted no-doubts... that depends on how much it comes up with the requirements of IAF and the
production lines.. mean while the engineers at LRDE can work upon the better version... It goes this way.. they don't wait for the previous project to be inducted in large numbers they work upon improving the better project.

Saab took years to go from the first Eyrieye system which is comparable to DRDOs in capability, to the current systems. So why don't we try to catch up with them first, before we take on the leaders? Same case with LCA and AMCA, or with with DRDOs fighter radar and engine developents.

Thomas Edison took around 1000 failed experiments to light a bulb long enough... doesn't mean others have to do the same.
We have to look what is the current developments going on and work upto that as far as the strength allows... and it doesn't necessarily mean becoming leaders in that department.

Had that been the case with LCA we would've stopped at the 1st few PTs and ordered production rather than pushing for better versions.

That are 2 different requirements, the one is shore based and aimed on costal surveillance and control of sea lanes, the other is to protect and support carrier operations. If IN get catobar carriers, they might get E-2Ds too, but for the shore based requirement, IAF is clearly the way to go and even if you look around, there is no other navy that I know, that has AWACS for shore based roles, since that mainly is air force field.

Keeping in mind the threat environment and coast line there isn't a country as Big as India either who don't have their Airforce with 10+ large AWACS operating in their service... 5-6 phalcon is not even enough for the two land borders... Don't mention China here they are a developing nation too and would have the numbers I gave... If not more.

An AWACS like A-50 Phalcon can keep an eye on large coast line at the same time know hat is going on in the sea lanes too... which smaller AWACS can't do... but as I said its debatable and doubtful.. and depends on the needs... we don't have to follow the rest specifically.

Yes, that's their new JV with EADS, based on the C295:

But it's a cost-effective AWACS, because it uses a cheaper (but less capable) plattform, compared to the G550 or A50 Phalcons. The radar system is not more cost-effecvtive, combineing both, AESA and a rotodome just increase the rate of detections and that radar version was upgraded with better Air 2 Sea modes, because smaller countries would be able to afford this AWACS and use it for air and maritime surveillance, but is not the one we get in our A50 Phalcons.
So this is just a hi low mix that Elta offers for different customers, just like IAF already has a hi lo mix with the A50 Phalcon and the EMB 145 DRDO AWACS.

Now It was a different version... similar to Phalcon in layout but with a moving antenna... I don't have the link.. once I get I'll post the video.. It was on You-tube.

The moving part was to keep keep the maintenance cost low... by operating lesser TRMMs at lower power and making up for the loss in coverage by moving the antenna... during peace time.

 

[sancho]

How did you conclude that IAF don't have such requirements ?... MOD funding the project is itself an indication of the requirements...

As I already said, because they didn't come up with the need of such an aircraft, but DRDO did.
Arjun was also developed according to DRDOs requirements, not according to IA s since they prefer smaller and lighter tanks, that's why FMBT will be the next project.
We actually have a serious problem in making out what the real requirements are and what we really can do on our own!

at the same time current N-LCA is what they needed to train their pilots for better planes like Mig29K... and replace sea-Harriers at the same time.

Not really, since N-LCA is a very different fighter and the Mig has it's own twin seaters for training, not to mention that N-LCA can't replace Sea Harriers, since it can't land vertically too.
It's just a useless development, based only of the fact that IN supported the idea of developing an indigenous fighter. The idea however came from ADA / DRDO again, while IN knew from the start, that it's a low capable carrier fighter.

I knew you'd mention G550... which cannot operate at the level which a Phalcon A-50 does... countries who integrate such planes have smaller air space to defend and to go with that a smaller battlefield...

First of all that's wrong, since the G550 offers more unrefuelled range than the A50, secondly that has nothing to do with your claim that L-Band receivers requires a bigger plattform. It actually even confirms, that we simply could keep using the same EMB 145s as a platform and only have to use different radar arrays, which would even offer the advantage, that those AWACS that are on order now, could be simply upgraded later.

Thomas Edison took around 1000 failed experiments to light a bulb long enough... doesn't mean others have to do the same.

LOL, the point is, that he kept working on the same aim until he reached it! DRDO is not, they dream about things they can't do, while they haven't finished the things they have started (LCA, Arjun, Multi mode radar, Kaveri engine, AWACS, Astra/Nirbhay/HELINA...).

Had that been the case with LCA we would've stopped at the 1st few PTs and ordered production rather than pushing for better versions

Who is pushing for better version? The MK1 turned out to be less capable as expected and way too delayed, that's why radical changes were needed to meet the specs again and to make it technically up to date. So going to MK2 is a result of DRDOs failures, not of their success!

Keeping in mind the threat environment and coast line

I do and on what IAF stated so far with that regard, since they also consider only 15 aircrafts are needed to cover the Pakistani and Chinese border areas, of which 5 will be bigger A50 Phalcons, the coastal areas are not under consideration of IAF so far and even INs slight interest in shore based AWACS is not official yet.
That's why I said, the current threat environment makes the fast induction of sufficient numbers of AWACS the highest priority and not adding another type of aircraft or going for shore based AWACS!!!
If these border areas are fully covered, I have nothing against DRDO going to upgrade EMB 145s with L-Band arrays, or even developing a bigger AWACS radar on an other plattform for the shore based requirement, but mixing all things up and making it more complicated is a threat to Indias security and can't be justified by nonsense like, supporting indigenous industry. That's also why I think IN made a huge mistake with N-LCA, because that made the whole LCA project only more difficult and resulted into more delays and costs. All that for pride reasons and a modest carrier fighter!

An AWACS like A-50 Phalcon can keep an eye on large coast line at the same time know hat is going on in the sea lanes too... which smaller AWACS can't do.

Again wrong, even DRDO AWACAs can cover over 200Km area to both sides of the aircraft and that for a small target, while ships will be detected at even longer ranges. So it just need to fly alongside our coastlines, at a distance of lets say 300Km, can keep an eye on our coastline and 300Km into the Sea of Arabia, or the Bay of Bengal. More than enough for the coastal requirements!

IF DRDO for once would really look at what Indian forces needs, they would use the link with Embraer now to further develop new varients based on this platform. The Brazilians have the same aircraft as an intelligence and MPA version as well and IAF, just like RAW have officially requested for Sigint aircrafts. The perfect chance for DRDO to customize the Embraer aircraft with Indian systems again, just like they could further develop their AWACS with improved Air to Sea modes, to offer an indigenous answer for the shore based AWACS requirement, or for the MRMR requirement of IN. But they don't since they look only on their own interests to shine.

Embraer Defense Systems

 

[DARKY]

As I already said, because they didn't come up with the need of such an aircraft, but DRDO did.
Arjun was also developed according to DRDOs requirements, not according to IA s since they prefer smaller and lighter tanks, that's why FMBT will be the next project.
We actually have a serious problem in making out what the real requirements are and what we really can do on our own!

DRDO will not be using the aircraft... unless the user insists on the project there is no point in further funding that in a big way... this is how the industry goes every where.
Arjun was selected by Army after the indications that PA will have M1A1 MBTs... why are you making stories of your own... who says Army prefers lighter tanks.. Light tank stops at 41tons.. rest are medium weight and heavy weight MBTs... Let Pakistan buy some ZTZ99A2G tanks from China and you'd see Arjun being one of the most favored MBT for Army.
Army prefers what logistics support back in 1970s.. only Soviet was our option.. Hence the Mig21s and T-72 was bought in a big way... it was not like Army/Air force was pleased or preferred them... the logistics came up accordingly and today it is hard to change that with what Arjun Mk1 presents as of now.

Not really, since N-LCA is a very different fighter and the Mig has it's own twin seaters for training, not to mention that N-LCA can't replace Sea Harriers, since it can't land vertically too.
It's just a useless development, based only of the fact that IN supported the idea of developing an indigenous fighter. The idea however came from ADA / DRDO again, while IN knew from the start, that it's a low capable carrier fighter.

Even Su30 is a twin seaters why have Hawk trainers for them.
Sea Harriers was never intended to be replaced by a vertically landing plane.... Virat expires in few years.
The new carriers are having arrestor cables.
As I said before.. money here are not spent on useless ideas... otherwise there are many such ideas waiting to come up... form armed forces itself.

First of all that's wrong, since the G550 offers more unrefuelled range than the A50, secondly that has nothing to do with your claim that L-Band receivers requires a bigger plattform. It actually even confirms, that we simply could keep using the same EMB 145s as a platform and only have to use different radar arrays, which would even offer the advantage, that those AWACS that are on order now, could be simply upgraded later.

My claim stands... Its plain physics.. larger wavelength requires larger antenna for greater ranges... If you can get someone to prove it wrong I would be much obliged.
Aircraft range matters a little when the primary objective is long range and better resolution for low RCS target.
Put the same number of TRMMs on EMB 145 Radar range figures come down and goes to 150km from 200km.
You cannot change the TRMMs that easily its not like changing the old LRUs on a fighter plane... the whole coding would have to be redone... they have different behavior to the clutter and resolution is different for different size targets.

LOL, the point is, that he kept working on the same aim until he reached it! DRDO is not, they dream about things they can't do, while they haven't finished the things they have started (LCA, Arjun, Multi mode radar, Kaveri engine, AWACS, Astra/Nirbhay/HELINA...).

DRDO is about 50 different Laboratories... add other agencies also like LRDE or ARDE or ADA etc..etc.. LCA is flying without a crash for 10 years... Arjun has already under gone many successful trails and beaten the MBT of IA on many different parameters... Multi-mode radar is being used on LCA Tejas... It was modified and used as the seeker for PDV.
You are being a plain civilian when blame DRDO as a single agency for any failure... or expect them to work on only one project at a time.

Who is pushing for better version? The MK1 turned out to be less capable as expected and way too delayed, that's why radical changes were needed to meet the specs again and to make it technically up to date. So going to MK2 is a result of DRDOs failures, not of their success!

Initial requirement for Tejas was to be a 3.5gen Mig21 type supportive plane to Mig21 and Mig29s now IAF wants it to be 4.5gen... BVR capable and highly maneuverable and supportive plane to Su30MKI or something similar to rafale.
Its like blaming the Tailor for not making a suit of a small piece of cloth which was barely enough for a shirt only.
Going to MK2 is a result of the Changing requirements of IAF... and not failure of MK1.

I do and on what IAF stated so far with that regard, since they also consider only 15 aircrafts are needed to cover the Pakistani and Chinese border areas, of which 5 will be bigger A50 Phalcons, the coastal areas are not under consideration of IAF so far and even INs slight interest in shore based AWACS is not official yet.
That's why I said, the current threat environment makes the fast induction of sufficient numbers of AWACS the highest priority and not adding another type of aircraft or going for shore based AWACS!!!
If these border areas are fully covered, I have nothing against DRDO going to upgrade EMB 145s with L-Band arrays, or even developing a bigger AWACS radar on an other plattform for the shore based requirement, but mixing all things up and making it more complicated is a threat to Indias security and can't be justified by nonsense like, supporting indigenous industry. That's also why I think IN made a huge mistake with N-LCA, because that made the whole LCA project only more difficult and resulted into more delays and costs. All that for pride reasons and a modest carrier fighter!

Can you show me where they say that they consider 15 as enough.
The current threat environment is nothing compared to what will happen 5-10 years later.
I say here yet again... there is no stopping whatsoever on the induction of EMB-145 AWACS... Its upto.. IAF to buy the numbers they want.
Larger AWACS is for future and a different platform altogether will be selected having little or no relation to EMB-145 one... except the parent TRMMs developer being LRDE and some of the subsystems common.
Supporting indigenous industry is itself making self sufficient for defending our borders... today the defense market is open and every thing seems good it can be exactly opposite 10-20 years later... as evident from Past.

Again wrong, even DRDO AWACAs can cover over 200Km area to both sides of the aircraft and that for a small target, while ships will be detected at even longer ranges. So it just need to fly alongside our coastlines, at a distance of lets say 300Km, can keep an eye on our coastline and 300Km into the Sea of Arabia, or the Bay of Bengal. More than enough for the coastal requirements!

IF DRDO for once would really look at what Indian forces needs, they would use the link with Embraer now to further develop new varients based on this platform. The Brazilians have the same aircraft as an intelligence and MPA version as well and IAF, just like RAW have officially requested for Sigint aircrafts. The perfect chance for DRDO to customize the Embraer aircraft with Indian systems again, just like they could further develop their AWACS with improved Air to Sea modes, to offer an indigenous answer for the shore based AWACS requirement, or for the MRMR requirement of IN. But they don't since they look only on their own interests to shine.

Embraer Defense Systems

When its an AESA system its automatically considered that it can perform tracking on ground, in air and on the sea at the same time... when I say Phalcon types can do better I mean It can do-- 40-60 MBTs on the ground... 20-30 warships in the sea along with 30-40 different boats and 10 large ships aswell as keeping an eye on a formation of say 4 airplane approaching in the horizon with a stealth pane lukering around 200km... while what DRDO EMB-145 wold do at the same place is... do 10-20 warships 20-30 boats 10 large ships 10-20 battle tanks and 4 plane approaching.... the stealth plane is mistaken for an albatross.

 

[sancho]

DRDO will not be using the aircraft...

who says Army prefers lighter tanks..

Exactly and that is the problem, as I explained!

The army itself, check the reports about Arjun and their preference of T90s, or even the whole reason behind FMBT and you will understand it.

Even Su30 is a twin seaters why have Hawk trainers for them.

LOL, Hawks are no trainers for Su 30s, but for pilots that wants to fly jet fighters later. That are basic aircrafts for pilot training and you really think N-LCA is suppose to be the same? Personally I wouldn't even mind it, since it would make the project way less expensive and difficult, but that's not the way it is. IN, for silly reasons wants to have a fully fledged carrier fighter version of the LCA, that's why the fighter was navalised, why a MK2 will get incrased internal fuel, why AESA will be developed...
It is sadly meant to be more than a trainer or a tech demo version, but will have it's own trainers to train pilots to fly N-LCA, just like Mig 29KUBs train pilots to fly Mig 29Ks.

My claim stands... Its plain physics.. larger wavelength requires larger antenna for greater ranges... If you can get someone to prove it wrong I would be much obliged.

I already did with the G550 Phalcon, which has L-Band arrays on an smaller buisiness jet, but as you said, you only have a CLAIM that a bigger aircraft and more power would be needed.

Initial requirement for Tejas was to be a 3.5gen Mig21 type supportive plane to Mig21 and Mig29s now IAF wants it to be 4.5gen... BVR capable and highly maneuverable and supportive plane to Su30MKI or something similar to rafale.

Nonsense! The aim was always to be a 4th gen multi role fighter with a low RCS and BVR capability, since it should surpass the Mig 21s BISONs too and be more comparable to the Mirage 2000s. That's why a small airframe, composites and coatings and a delta wing design were chosen by the industy itself.
And if DRDO / ADA wouldn't have messed up the planning and radar/engine developments, we would see a 4th gen LCA flying today in squadron numbers.

When its an AESA system its automatically considered that it can perform tracking on ground, in air and on the sea at the same time...

Again, it's about intelligence gathering, that's why most AWACS manufacturers normally also are convert their aircrafts into intelligence gathering versions:

That's why I said, with the requirement of our forces, it would be more logical and helpful, if DRDO use this ready and available plattform again, to offer a similar combo with common and especialy indigenous systems. That's what helps India the most, because it adds capability, while beeing cost-effective!