AWACS Performance in electronic warfare environment?

Status
Not open for further replies.

birdofprey

Banned Member
1) ERIEYE is the first high-performance, long-range Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) system based on active phased-array pulse-Doppler radar. The radar's long range is 450km and can detect fighter aircraft at a range of 350km in a dense hostile electronic warfare environment, in heavy radar clutter and at low target altitudes.

2) Boeing Wedgetail MESA provides 360° coverage and a range of over 200 nautical miles. The radar has a system track capability of 3,000 targets and can track air and sea targets simultaneously. The system's variable track update rates and dedicated tracking modes allow the operator to track allied and hostile high performance aircraft while continuously scanning the area of operations.

3) The E3 The radar has a range of more than 250 miles (375 km) for low-flying targets and beyond the horizon (approximately 400 miles, although the actual range is classified) for aerospace vehicles flying at medium to high altitudes. The radar can detect and track air and sea targets simultaneously. In a tactical role, the E-3 can detect and track hostile aircraft operating at low altitudes over any terrain, and can identify and control friendly aircraft in the same airspace. In the strategic defence role, the E-3 provides the means to detect, identify, track and intercept airborne threats.

4) Hawkeye 2000 and the previous Group II version automatically detect, identify and track targets at ranges exceeding 300 miles. Hawkeye’s passive detection system clandestinely detects and classifies targets at distances beyond radar limits. The radar is limited to 350km in a dense hostile electronic warfare environment.

5) The Japanese 767 AWACS radar provides a 360-degree view of the area. At operating altitudes it can detect targets more than 320km away. Targets are separated and individually managed and displayed on situational displays.

6) Beriev A-50 Radar "Vega-M" designed by MNIIP, Moscow, produced by NPO Vega-M. "Vega-M" is capable to track up to 50 targets simultaneously within 230 km range. Large targets (ships) are tracked within 400 km range.

7) Y-8 It is not clear whether the “Balance beam” radar has any connection to the ERIEYE, but much of the ESA radar technology is available in the ‘off-the-shelf’ commercial market nowadays. Should it have similar performance to the Swedish radar, it would provide a maximum search range of 300~450km.

8) Phalcon similar to E-3.
__________________________________________________

please elaborate your thoughts about these systems.. which AWACS do you think would perform better in a dense hostile electronic warfare environment under range of 400 km?

Webmaster can you please open a poll on these AWACS?? i forgot opps..
 
Last edited:

Totoro

New Member
As far as working in high jamming, high clutter electronic enviroment, rule of thumb is that newer is better, due to software/hardware. In that regard, Wedgetail takes my vote. E3 should have power/range advantage in certain cases, though. And 767 seems like the best platform when it comes to loiter time/speed/space/cost. If those three could be married to each other, it'd make one hell of an awacs. Actually modernized E3 is gonna marry first two together so that'd be my vote for the near future.
 

contedicavour

New Member
I'm a bit astonished range of the systems mentioned above is limited to 350-400km (although you mention difficult conditions of ECM, etc). AFAIK a EH-101 AEW comes close in terms of range (250-300km) ...

How does a helo-based system compare with one based on jets (other than the obvious speed/range advantage of a Boeing 707-767 vs a helo) ?

cheers
 

Totoro

New Member
Most important difference would be in higher altitude offering greater radar horizon range. Helicopters flying up to 5 km would see low flying targets maybe 250 km away while awacs at 10 km would have a theoretical reach of some 430 km for same targets.

Other than that, i dunno, it depends on the helicopter, how big it is, how big of an array can it carry, how much space for equipment and operators there is, how much el. power can its engines offer, etc. Given the mentioned speed/flight endurance time advantage planes have, helicopters really seem to be only a last ditch resort, when plane based awacs are not available.
 

kams

New Member
contedicavour said:
I'm a bit astonished range of the systems mentioned above is limited to 350-400km (although you mention difficult conditions of ECM, etc). AFAIK a EH-101 AEW comes close in terms of range (250-300km) ...

How does a helo-based system compare with one based on jets (other than the obvious speed/range advantage of a Boeing 707-767 vs a helo) ?

cheers
Heliborne AEWs are primarily meant for Naval Operations. Two of them come to my mind.

1. British Sea King ASaC Mk 7 with Thales Defence Searchwater 2000 radar and Cerberus mission system. The Searchwater 2000 has a link 16 datalink. I have no idea about detection/Tracking capability.

2. Russian Ka-31 - Has a E-801M Oko radar with a 6 m2 antenna with 360°C coverage. Can detect a fighter size target at 150 km and surface target at 200 km. Can track 40 targets simultaneously.

Merlin and NH90 also have surface surveilence radars, not AEW radar.

Here are some pics of KA-31 and Seaking ASaC Mk7
 

birdofprey

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
guys lets stick to fixed-wing aircraft AWACS... forget about the helis.

i would rank AWACS

for long range 400-600km
1) E-3
2) Phalcon
3) Hawkeye 2000
4) Boeing wedgetail

for medium range 350-450km
1) E-3
2) Erieye & The Japanese 767 AWACS
3) Phalcon & Boeing wedgetail
 
Last edited:

contedicavour

New Member
kams said:
Merlin and NH90 also have surface surveilence radars, not AEW radar.
Thks for your answer & pics.
I just beg to differ on the sentence above. Italy's Navy has 4 EH-101 AEW helos operational as we speak. Similar array to the UK's AEW Sea Kings.
cheers
 

contedicavour

New Member
birdofprey said:
guys lets stick to fixed-wing aircraft AWACS... forget about the helis.

i would rank AWACS

for long range 400-600km
1) E-3
2) Phalcon
3) Hawkeye 2000
4) The Japanese 767

for medium range 350-450km
1) E-3
2) Erieye & Boeing wedgetail
3) Phalcon & The Japanese 767 AWACS
Why would you rank the 767-base system inferior to older platforms/systems ?

cheers
 

kams

New Member
contedicavour said:
Thks for your answer & pics.
I just beg to differ on the sentence above. Italy's Navy has 4 EH-101 AEW helos operational as we speak. Similar array to the UK's AEW Sea Kings.
cheers
My Bad, you are right. Any idea about the radar capabilities?
 

birdofprey

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
contedicavour said:
Why would you rank the 767-base system inferior to older platforms/systems ?

cheers

for long range there is no dought for the E-3 and reversed engineered phalcon to be on 1st and 2nd place. then comes the new Hawkeye 2000, the most advanced AWACS operated by a navy and keeping the long range in mind it has over 500 km of detection range.. and opps i ment to rank Boeing wedgetail 4th under long range and The Japanese 767 AWACS 2nd with Erieye..
 

kams

New Member
birdofprey said:
for long range there is no dought for the E-3 and reversed engineered phalcon to be on 1st and 2nd place. then comes the new Hawkeye 2000, the most advanced AWACS operated by a navy and keeping the long range in mind it has over 500 km of detection range.. and opps i ment to rank Boeing wedgetail 4th under long range and The Japanese 767 AWACS 2nd with Erieye..
This article may be of interest to you.

Airborne Early Warning: An affordable necessity?

Bit dated but, good analysis.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I have to ask this question, is this thread supposed to be about the platform, or about the radar itself?

For example, the E-3 Sentry platform is based off the Boeing 707 airliner, while the Boeing Wedgetail platform is a militarized Boeing 737-700.


The radars the two different platforms mount are different as well. For radar, the E-3 has the AN/APY-2 in a radome, while the Wedgetail has an L-band MESA from Northrup Grumman.

Which of the two is being compared?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Going through my books I came across the following sources which might make selection a bit easier, or allow for more concise debate.

Here goes the list of AEW&C:
Beriev A-50 Mainstay with Vega-M Shmell-II radome
Beriev A-50 Mainstary with IAI Phalcon ESA
Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS with Northrup Grumman AN/APY-2 radome
Boeing E-767 AWACS with Northrup Grumman AN/APY-2 radome
Boeing 737-700 Wedgetail AEW&C with Northrup Grumman MESA
Embraer EMB-145SA with Ericsson Erieye ESA
Boeing 707-320C Phalcon with IAI Phalcon ESA
Lockheed Martin EC-130H/J Hercules with LM AN/APS-145 radome
Northrup Grumman E-2C Hawkeye AWACS with LM AN/APS-145 radome
Saab 340B (S100B Argus) AEW&C with Ericsson Erieye ESA

As can be seen, the platforms tend to be similar, and fall more or less into two different categories. They are either large, long-range aircraft, or smaller, mid-range/regional aircraft. Also, the radars themselves come in two types, the standard radome or the more recent electronically scanned array.

From what I understand about radar, a solid-state ESA is better than a radome in the following areas, scan rate and reliability. Because the radar beam from an ESA is electronically steered, it is able to cover an area without being moved, whereas a radome has to turn to sweep the same area. Being electronically steered, the beam can cover the same area faster than a radome can turn, and there also isn't the danger of mechanical failure which can effect the radar. From what I understand, the IAI Phalcon ESA is able to scan a given area in 30 sec, the AN/APY-2 radome aboard an E-3 or E-767 would take up to 2 minutes to scan the same area.

A few other areas which I believe impact radar performance.
These are:
1. Operating frequencies
2. Output of radar array
3. Onboard computing power
4. filtering algorithms used

Granted, I don't know enough about radar to say for certain, but I would expect that the more recent the array, the greater the capacity in categories 3 & 4, at least for an aircraft of a given size.

In terms of radar, I would rank them as follows.
1. Northrup Grumman L-band MESA (once software issues are resolved)
2. IAI Phalcon ESA
3. Northrup Grumman AN/APY-2 radome
4,5 & 6
Lockheed Martin AN/APS-145 radome
Ericsson Erieye ESA
Vega-M Shmell-II radome

Not quite sure which one of the last three has greater range or computing power
 
Last edited:

birdofprey

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
Todjaeger said:
I have to ask this question, is this thread supposed to be about the platform, or about the radar itself?
For example, the E-3 Sentry platform is based off the Boeing 707 airliner, while the Boeing Wedgetail platform is a militarized Boeing 737-700. The radars the two different platforms mount are different as well. For radar, the E-3 has the AN/APY-2 in a radome, while the Wedgetail has an L-band MESA from Northrup Grumman.
Which of the two is being compared?
dude the thread is about AWACS not platforms..
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
birdofprey said:
dude the thread is about AWACS not platforms..
AWACS is the name of the USAF program which led to the E-3 Sentry. The mission role is that of an AEW or AEW&C for Airborne Early Warning (& Control). I brought up the question with regards to radar or platforms because the difference between the E-3 Sentry and the E-767 used by Japan is the platform, not the radar.

Hope this clears up what I was :confused: about...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
birdofprey said:
for long range there is no dought for the E-3 and reversed engineered phalcon to be on 1st and 2nd place. then comes the new Hawkeye 2000, the most advanced AWACS operated by a navy and keeping the long range in mind it has over 500 km of detection range.. and opps i ment to rank Boeing wedgetail 4th under long range and The Japanese 767 AWACS 2nd with Erieye..
I'm curious as to how you come to the conclusion that the E3 and RE Phalcon come 1st and 2nd. esp when none of the data in the public domain is valid.

in fact, I can assure you that publicly declared data is nowhere near actual figures.

eg the figures for absolute range are rubbish - and are no way indicative of actual depth of field.

your comments about Hawkeye 2000 and E2C's are more than curious as I know that they are nowhere near the range of Wedgetail.

any comments about capability if based on public information are basically meaningless.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
birdofprey said:
dude the thread is about AWACS not platforms..
If thats the case then the discussions are limited immediately to USAF E3x aircraft.

AWACS is the program. tasking is not AWACs. Platform is not AWACs. Project is AWACs
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Todjaeger said:
Hope this clears up what I was :confused: about...
Sorry matey - I didn't see your comment when I posted my prev... redundant but reinforced comments I guess...
 

Totoro

New Member
Whole awacs versus aew&c is silly. Words and phrases change their meanings all the time. One can't control it. AWACS may have been a name of a program but as it is an acronym for the very same thing AEW&C is acronym for; and AWACS being easier to write/say it is no wonder most people went for awacs as a general term. No one is going to misunderstand you if you say awacs, unless they choose to ignore that both terms mean the same thing. If it makes your day, sure, go ahead and point out that awacs was originally not a general term for any airborne warning and control system but it doesn't change the fact that today (alongside of original meaning) it does carry the meaning of such systems in general.

As for discussion being meaningless - it's a forum. What discussion isn't meaningless, when one excludes fun. If one has real data and they want to share it - go ahead. If not, why even point out the lack of purpose for an online forum discussion?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Totoro said:
Whole awacs versus aew&c is silly. Words and phrases change their meanings all the time. One can't control it. AWACS may have been a name of a program but as it is an acronym for the very same thing AEW&C is acronym for; and AWACS being easier to write/say it is no wonder most people went for awacs as a general term. No one is going to misunderstand you if you say awacs, unless they choose to ignore that both terms mean the same thing. If it makes your day, sure, go ahead and point out that awacs was originally not a general term for any airborne warning and control system but it doesn't change the fact that today (alongside of original meaning) it does carry the meaning of such systems in general.

well, actually no they don't. AEW&C is a very different role to AWACs. If you speak to anyone involved in electronic warfare they will tell you that quite clearly.

Totoro said:
As for discussion being meaningless - it's a forum. What discussion isn't meaningless, when one excludes fun. If one has real data and they want to share it - go ahead. If not, why even point out the lack of purpose for an online forum discussion?
Its pointless having these pecker competitions - thats why we ban them as they are meaningless - moreso when based on information that is obviously tainted.

its not a schoolyard competition in here - we try to keep it as realistic as possible.

You should be more than aware that real data esp for electronic warfare platforms is not avail for the public domain. The fact that you think that I can discuss the data if I have something more accurate either indicates that you're oblivious of what constitiutes sensitive data and its appropriateness in an open forum - or you just want to have an argument.

I will not however sit back and watch people run competitions on whose plane is better than someone elses if its based on obviously flawed baseline data to begin with. Thats irresponsible.

There are lots of other forums where people can argue about "hat size". This isn't one of them.

end of discussion re this and no further comment is required unless you want to PM me, another Mod or Web
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top