development of next generation airborne radar

[suleman]

Northrop Grumman and Air Force reach critical milestone in development of next generation airborne radar
18 December 2003

Northrop Grumman Corporation and the U.S. Air Force have received authorization from the Department of Defense to develop and produce hardware for an airborne radar system that will dramatically increase the service's ability to detect, track and identify both stationary and moving ground vehicles, and low-flying cruise missiles.
The Pentagon's Defense Acquisition Board approved the acquisition strategy for the Air Force's Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) on Dec. 4. The endorsement, known as Milestone B, sets in motion a series of events expected to put Northrop Grumman, the MP-RTIP prime contractor, under contract for Phase II of the program by early 2004. Phase II marks the beginning of the MP-RTIP system development and demonstration phase. Phase I of MP-RTIP began in December 2000 with a three-year, $303 million prime contract awarded to Northrop Grumman by the Air Force Electronic Systems Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass.

[suleman]

http://www.ets-news.com/news.html

[gf0012-aust]

The future lies with inegrated UAV's and satellite management.

eg, australia's future maritime patrol missions will be undertaken by a combination of AP-3c Orions and GlobalHawks.

Similarly it is already possible to integrate UAV's into a flying look down system. eg GlobalHawks in a network centric solution controlled at different waypoints. The "handovers" have already been successfully tested in the US, Australia and Germany thus proving the concepts viability.

[Red aRRow]

So gf, are you implying that this radar development would be a waste of money?? Or could the new radar be fitted to the UAVs to gather real time ground data??? :?

[gf0012-aust]

So gf, are you implying that this radar development would be a waste of money?? Or could the new radar be fitted to the UAVs to gather real time ground data??? :?

Yes. I'm saying that at some point a lerger UAV can take over the AWACs role as a second tier asset in a hostile environment, and probably as the primary asset in a benign environment. - I'm all for this kind of development. In a cash strapped airforce like australia, it's a good idea. likewise for Pakistan and other cash strapped air forces.

why lose pilots unnecessarily?

[Aussie Digger]

Gf I understand that large UA's like the Global Hawk will be fitted with Synthetic Aperture Radars and other sensor packages. Wouldn't they require significant alteration to the basic airframe design though if they are going to start carrying radars suited to air to air (AWCSlike) operations? I would also imagine that bandwidth would become an even greater issue than it already is if they were going to take on a AWACS role as well? :eek

[Aussie Digger]

That should be UAV's and "AWACS like", damned QWERTY keyboards...

[Winter]

That should be UAV's and "AWACS like", damned QWERTY keyboards...

To get around that, you can use your personal 'edit' post option displayed just above this post...

Does that help?

:frosty

[gf0012-aust]

Gf I understand that large UA's like the Global Hawk will be fitted with Synthetic Aperture Radars and other sensor packages. Wouldn't they require significant alteration to the basic airframe design though if they are going to start carrying radars suited to air to air (AWCSlike) operations? I would also imagine that bandwidth would become an even greater issue than it already is if they were going to take on a AWACS role as well? :eek

In a sense they already have the fundamentals for an AWACs role. Bandwidth is going to be an issue, but there is supposed to be a new image compression algorithm which cuts bandwidth hogging considerably, esp if you are dumping real time images and footage.

[elkaboingo]

ive read that it is possible to split radar emiiter and reciever. the next generation of AWACS (IMO) would be having the emitter in a UAV (so there is no risk from anti radiation missiles) and have a reciever on the ground, where it can be much more sensitive than one in a UAV

[gf0012-aust]

elkaboingo, that seems to be a logical evolution to me. Its a "cheaper" way to ID where the ground to air shooter or air to air shooter is coming from as well.

Once they micro miniaturize the electronics, then it will be another quantum leap forward.

[Awang se]

This like it depend on nano technology. I guess a power issue should be taken into account. question, are they really going to put a nuclear reactor inside a global hawk?

[gf0012-aust]

The US had a number of projects that were under development in the late 1950's where they were developing nuke powered bombers. The thing that killed it off was the advent of the ICBM - so there was no need to continue the development.

55 years later, I would say that if there is operational merit (and that is questionable as its safer to have a low orbit satellite grid that has a predictable decay rate, and where the sats overlap and provide a degree of redundancy)

The US developed a mini nuke sub in the 60's which wasn't publicly declared until the early 90's (and is still operational). Who knows whether they actually really stopped development?

Personally i think there are different and more operationally redundant systems that could be used rather than have a nuke powered global hawk in play. There are just as many negatives for having a permanently powered winged recon unit as there are positives.

Australia certainly wouldn't want one. We can only afford the "conventionals." :)

[Awang se]

I think it is quite a convenient to have a UAV that can loiter in a certain area for a month at the time, especially in the operation against guerilla forces. equip them with weapons and they become a round the clock guard dog over a target area. any target that enter it's sensor range and fits the parameter will be engage automatically.

[gf0012-aust]

There will always be scenarios where it can be used. I guess I'm looking at the issue of permanent coverage.

There has always been persistent belief that the russians may have space based launch systems in place. If thats the case, then its a variation of what they've done.

I guess I'm assuming that wanting to have a winged aircraft on long term endurance is going to be a victim of patterned behaviour. A UAV of the Global Hawks size will be incredibly vulnerable if not used in a benign environment. IF its in a hot zone, then its potential to become a flying "victim" is pretty high. It also means that any country under its flight path can avoid its surveillance. The US, Russia, China know when they are about to be windowed by a satellite, so change their procedures accordingly. It will be no different for a UAV.

Once you turn a UAV into a long range LoLo Orbit recon vehicle you are changing some of the very factors that make it so convenient in the 1st place.

I agree with what you are saying, but only in a limited way, and certainly in a benign environment. eh tracking and watching pirates in the Philippines Sea or the Straits in Indonesias sphere of influence

[Awang se]

I'm fully aware of that, thank you. what i'm suggest is it can be use against less equip forces like a guerilla or the likes. Maybe if it can be mounted with airborne radar, it can be a 24 hour airborne surveilance system. I guess the cost would be rather low compare to the conventional AWACS in terms of endurance and ops time. and furthermore if you add a human factor in the equation.

[gf0012-aust]

I'm fully aware of that, thank you. what i'm suggest is it can be use against less equip forces like a guerilla or the likes. Maybe if it can be mounted with airborne radar, it can be a 24 hour airborne surveilance system. I guess the cost would be rather low compare to the conventional AWACS in terms of endurance and ops time. and furthermore if you add a human factor in the equation.

Definitely! If you throw up a small flight of them they can act like a virtual phased array. (similar to how the Gripens can co-operate with their onboard systems)

The US was conducting a number of exercises where they were trying to determine how a "fly" looks at multiple objects concurrently. In a sense a fly has eyes that act in a similar fashion to the concept of a phased array system. UAV's could be networked to behave in a similar fashion.

I agree with what you are saying, I was just focused elsewhere - the danger of "navel gazing" :)

[Awang se]

navel gazing? What's that?

[gf0012-aust]

navel gazing is an expression. the navel is your "belly button".

the expression means that I was focussed on looking at one issue at the possible expense of something else.

hope this makes sense.

cheers. gf

[elkaboingo]

hmmm, china is working on a helo uav. that might fulfill the needs of staying in one place :D

[adsH]

your rite gf on all of this, cost is a major issue for any airforce but apperentyly not for the USAF they have loads to spend lol. the thing u mentioned about the GHawk and P3 c ori connected with clever new compression algorithms using new bandwidths i agree that is a nice and efficent way to do things but for USAF it is esential that they have feild comand in air which has all the information available, i guess i am just talking crap here !! any ways about australia's needs i don't hink autralia is going to war any time soon with any of its fellow countries around it or that it would use its new AWACS in the field why should they any way i think one aspect of war fare that u should obviously know about alot is EW and electronic gamming it must be dealt with either new algoritms or some sort of technology that can cope with pointless gammeing.lol and i am sure there cannot be a system that cannot be jammed just like there can't be a piece of a software that has no bugs error ie perfect. i guess thats the reason why India rejected Russian awacs becasue they rely on sending data to ground station for analysis not much of a command centre in air i guess.
oh i think the USAF and USNAVY gave up on those B52 nuke power crafts they found those inefficent and heavy and very dangerous i am sure they could try agian and probably would be able to do it given the fact its been 50 year since they tried it last. instead the navy worked on muke subs and were able to make them lol the funny thing is that Soviates thought the US had a nuke powered B52 and the US thought the soviates had one built too so they both spent countless hours trying to make them fly lol.

[Roger Smith]

http://www.ets-news.com/news.html


I must say.........you guys namely Suleman, GF002, Umair have great knowledge on defence aspects. Keep up the good works.

Thanks. :smokingc: