Indian Air Force News and Discussions ll

[Ak01]

A single Phalcon can stay on station for nearly 2.5-3 times longer than an Erieye while providing full 360° radar coverage and significantly greater detection range.

That matters because air warfare is about how long that aircraft can remain there controlling the battlespace. Erieyes need to rotate in and out to maintain coverage, a single Phalcon can continue operating over the same period.

In practical terms, 3 Phalcons can generate operational persistence comparable to roughly 8 or 9 Erieye sorties over the same timeframe.

Even IAF smaller Netra AEW&C has demonstrated successful mid air refuelling capability allowing it to remain operational for additional hours when required.

this is the most delusional take i've ever seen.

Saab states the erieye has a range and endurance of 9+hrs

the standard iL76 has a max endurance at empty weight of around 11-12 hours.

with a 25t payload, that drops to about 7 hours.

Add on a huge, draggy antenna, you can figure out the rest.

Now, because your cope will be AAR, lets add AAR into the mix, you can double your endurance to lets say 12 hours, which obviously is not accurate because i cant make an accurate deduction for the radome. so ive gone and in your favour, deducted an hour.

So now, we have 9h, vs 12h, sounds like 2-3x the endurance!

Not only that, we start running into crew fatigue limits.

A standard E3A mission lasts about 8 hours, with an average RAAF sortie lasting 12 hours, with the occasional surge.

Those occasional surges were rare, required multiple AAR's which, hint, required the aircraft to step away from the battlefield, requiring them to rotate in and out...to maintain coverage.

Do you think Indian tankers are going to refuel phalcons on station? are you retarded?

Not only that, lets also throw in fleet availability, the IAF noted "critical" availability for the IL series of aircraft, incl the tanker. 49% Avail during audited periods...

But lets assume the bulk of parts and spares went to phalcons, pushing it up to 66%, i.e 2 available at any time...

Lets also assume 66% avail for the erieyes, which is low, but for the sake of keeping it simple, thats 6 at any time...

the PAF can AFFORD to continiously swap out erieyes of the battlefield, bringing fresh crew to the fight, without overworking the platforms. IAF cant, the IAF HAS to keep the IL's in the fight because theres no alternative lol, they have zero choice.

I love when indians like to put weird copium twists on everything. You can sit there and say, "i dont have cancer" and some Indian will come and tell you, "well saar, i have cancer, and a nurse who is phemale come and look aphther me, you dont have phemale nurse, i win saar"...

 

[Corax]

this is the most delusional take i've ever seen.

Saab states the erieye has a range and endurance of 9+hrs

the standard iL76 has a max endurance at empty weight of around 11-12 hours.

with a 25t payload, that drops to about 7 hours.

Add on a huge, draggy antenna, you can figure out the rest.

Now, because your cope will be AAR, lets add AAR into the mix, you can double your endurance to lets say 12 hours, which obviously is not accurate because i cant make an accurate deduction for the radome. so ive gone and in your favour, deducted an hour.

So now, we have 9h, vs 12h, sounds like 2-3x the endurance!

Not only that, we start running into crew fatigue limits.

A standard E3A mission lasts about 8 hours, with an average RAAF sortie lasting 12 hours, with the occasional surge.

Those occasional surges were rare, required multiple AAR's which, hint, required the aircraft to step away from the battlefield, requiring them to rotate in and out...to maintain coverage.

Do you think Indian tankers are going to refuel phalcons on station? are you retarded?

Not only that, lets also throw in fleet availability, the IAF noted "critical" availability for the IL series of aircraft, incl the tanker. 49% Avail during audited periods...

But lets assume the bulk of parts and spares went to phalcons, pushing it up to 66%, i.e 2 available at any time...

Lets also assume 66% avail for the erieyes, which is low, but for the sake of keeping it simple, thats 6 at any time...

the PAF can AFFORD to continiously swap out erieyes of the battlefield, bringing fresh crew to the fight, without overworking the platforms. IAF cant, the IAF HAS to keep the IL's in the fight because theres no alternative lol, they have zero choice.

I love when indians like to put weird copium twists on everything. You can sit there and say, "i dont have cancer" and some Indian will come and tell you, "well saar, i have cancer, and a nurse who is phemale come and look aphther me, you dont have phemale nurse, i win saar"...

He's retarded, he thinks our Block 15 Vipers haven't been upgraded to Block 52 equivalent.

 

[Yasser76]

He's retarded, he thinks our Block 15 Vipers haven't been upgraded to Block 52 equivalent.

On my ignore list, but imagine I have saved myself valuable time not reading. his BS

 

[CallSignMaverick]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[NeptunesVortex]

this is the most delusional take i've ever seen.

Saab states the erieye has a range and endurance of 9+hrs

the standard iL76 has a max endurance at empty weight of around 11-12 hours.

with a 25t payload, that drops to about 7 hours.

Add on a huge, draggy antenna, you can figure out the rest.

Now, because your cope will be AAR, lets add AAR into the mix, you can double your endurance to lets say 12 hours, which obviously is not accurate because i cant make an accurate deduction for the radome. so ive gone and in your favour, deducted an hour.

So now, we have 9h, vs 12h, sounds like 2-3x the endurance!

Not only that, we start running into crew fatigue limits.

A standard E3A mission lasts about 8 hours, with an average RAAF sortie lasting 12 hours, with the occasional surge.

Those occasional surges were rare, required multiple AAR's which, hint, required the aircraft to step away from the battlefield, requiring them to rotate in and out...to maintain coverage.

Do you think Indian tankers are going to refuel phalcons on station? are you retarded?

Not only that, lets also throw in fleet availability, the IAF noted "critical" availability for the IL series of aircraft, incl the tanker. 49% Avail during audited periods...

But lets assume the bulk of parts and spares went to phalcons, pushing it up to 66%, i.e 2 available at any time...

Lets also assume 66% avail for the erieyes, which is low, but for the sake of keeping it simple, thats 6 at any time...

the PAF can AFFORD to continiously swap out erieyes of the battlefield, bringing fresh crew to the fight, without overworking the platforms. IAF cant, the IAF HAS to keep the IL's in the fight because theres no alternative lol, they have zero choice.

I love when indians like to put weird copium twists on everything. You can sit there and say, "i dont have cancer" and some Indian will come and tell you, "well saar, i have cancer, and a nurse who is phemale come and look aphther me, you dont have phemale nurse, i win saar"...

India's Phalcon is not a stock cargo IL-76. It is a specialized A-50EI platform with upgraded PS-90 engines and a mission system specifically designed for AEW&C operations. It has far more onboard space, power generation, cooling, operators and mission equipment than a Saab 2000. That's the entire reason large AWACS platforms exist in the first place. Then you move to aerial refuelling and create a strawman about tankers refuelling over the battlefield. Nobody said that. AWACS aircraft are routinely refuelled in protected airspace. That's not some revolutionary concept lmao. Your strongest point is fleet size, even though two of them were reduced to rubble by the IAF last year, thanks to our BrahMos and S-400.

Now show a source for your claim that the Phalcon only has 7 hours endurance.
Not your feelings. Not your napkin math. Not "draggy antenna bro."

An actual source.

You took an IL-76 transport figure, guessed a payload penalty, guessed a radar drag penalty, guessed an endurance number and then spent several paragraphs arguing against your own guess. Are you nuts or what?

But the rest of the post is mostly assumptions stacked on assumptions:
"Phalcon only has 7h endurance" source?
"Tankers make no difference" false.
"Erieye has a massive endurance advantage" not demonstrated.
"Availability is exactly X%" speculation.

What you haven't proven is this supposed massive endurance advantage because the key number your whole argument depends on was never sourced in the first place.

You call it analysis. Lol

You cite old audit figures and then immediately start making assumptions:
"Let's assume 66%."
"Let's assume 6 available."
"Let's assume 2 available."

So even your own argument admits you're guessing.

Saab Erieye uses a dorsal fixed array radar that is strongest on the sides and weaker toward the nose and tail sectors. The Phalcon was designed around a 360° coverage concept using multiple arrays. That doesn't automatically make one better in every scenario, but it means endurance alone doesn't capture the whole picture.
A smaller aircraft staying in the air longer doesn't automatically give the same radar picture, tracking capability or battle management capability as a larger AWACS.

In real world air ops, the important question here us is how long can it maintain an effective surveillance orbit over the area that actually matters? Transit distance, orbit location, threat environment, tanker support and mission requirements all affect that.

 

[NeptunesVortex]

He's retarded, he thinks our Block 15 Vipers haven't been upgraded to Block 52 equivalent.

A jet that lacks the Block 52's propulsion, payload, range and endurance advantages is not a Block 52 equivalent. It's a Block 15 MLU with several Block 52-derived systems. A Block 52 equipped with CFTs can remain on station substantially longer because it carries 1000s of pounds of additional fuel without occupying underwing stations.
Those are not the same thing.

 

[Corax]

A jet that lacks the Block 52's propulsion, payload, range and endurance advantages is not a Block 52 equivalent. It's a Block 15 MLU with several Block 52-derived systems. A Block 52 equipped with CFTs can remain on station substantially longer because it carries 1000s of pounds of additional fuel without occupying underwing stations.
Those are not the same thing.

For someone who believes in the BS spouted by your ACM about "2 Erieyes and 6 Vipers destroyed", it's no wonder you cannot think beyond simple bollywood metrics.

 

[Ak01]

India's Phalcon is not a stock cargo IL-76. It is a specialized A-50EI platform with upgraded PS-90 engines and a mission system specifically designed for AEW&C operations. It has far more onboard space, power generation, cooling, operators and mission equipment than a Saab 2000. That's the entire reason large AWACS platforms exist in the first place. Then you move to aerial refuelling and create a strawman about tankers refuelling over the battlefield. Nobody said that. AWACS aircraft are routinely refuelled in protected airspace. That's not some revolutionary concept lmao. Your strongest point is fleet size, even though two of them were reduced to rubble by the IAF last year, thanks to our BrahMos and S-400.

So consistent surveillence is not maintained you retard if you have to move to protected airspace.

You're literally disputing yourself retard. You talk wet dreams only. First 0, then 1, then 2, whats next, the entire fleet? rofl

Now show a source for your claim that the Phalcon only has 7 hours endurance.
Not your feelings. Not your napkin math. Not "draggy antenna bro."

An actual source.

Ill do one better, how about you correct me and tell me exactly what kind of endurance numbers to expect, Napkin math is all that can be done because there is no public data.

You took an IL-76 transport figure, guessed a payload penalty, guessed a radar drag penalty, guessed an endurance number and then spent several paragraphs arguing against your own guess. Are you nuts or what?

Do you have the figures? Do share so i can reassess my argument.

But the rest of the post is mostly assumptions stacked on assumptions:
"Phalcon only has 7h endurance" source?

do you know how quotes work? re read my post...

"Tankers make no difference" false.

which part of your arse did you pull that quote from?

"Erieye has a massive endurance advantage" not demonstrated.

which part of your arse did this quote come from?

"Availability is exactly X%" speculation.

yes, its speculation, in YOUR favour lol, im happy to take CAG numbers of 49% for the IL7X series LOL. Retard

What you haven't proven is this supposed massive endurance advantage because the key number your whole argument depends on was never sourced in the first place.

ok, ill keep it simple, just show me any data from anyone that states the a50 has an endurance of 22-27 hours. Ill beg you for forgiveness and delete my account.

You call it analysis. Lol

You cite old audit figures and then immediately start making assumptions:
"Let's assume 66%."
"Let's assume 6 available."
"Let's assume 2 available."

yea einstein, neither you, nor i has access to the data to make assertions, thus, we make assumptions. Please let me know, using your limited thinking skills whether, supply side issues that were present at the time of the CAG report would have been exacerbated or eased? What can we extrapolate from that?

So even your own argument admits you're guessing.

Yes genius, we all are, this entire forum is, because NONE of us have access to the data needed to ASSERT.

Saab Erieye uses a dorsal fixed array radar that is strongest on the sides and weaker toward the nose and tail sectors.

You mean a balance beam, yes, the erieye has limited coverage in the forward sector, which is why it flies specific profiles to optimise coverage.

The Phalcon was designed around a 360° coverage concept using multiple arrays. That doesn't automatically make one better in every scenario, but it means endurance alone doesn't capture the whole picture. A smaller aircraft staying airborne longer is not automatically providing the same battlespace picture as a larger AWACS.

Oh really, how interesting, basic radar numbers DONT mean everything? Im glad we're moving forward!

A smaller aircraft staying in the air longer doesn't automatically give the same radar picture, tracking capability or battle management capability as a larger AWACS.

And this argument works backwards too...

In real world air ops, the important question the important thing here us is how long can it maintain an effective surveillance orbit over the area that actually matters?
Transit distance, orbit location, threat environment, tanker support and mission requirements all affect that.

Yes, and the PAF's erieye fleet can do so, far longer than the IAF's puny, pathetic fleet of AEW aircraft...

you can cope about it all you want, saar, 3 aircrapht better than 9... If big aircraft were the be all and end all, the world would not be moving to more efficient types for their AEW solutions. Its in India where size fuelled insecurities tend to be present...

 

[Ak01]

A jet that lacks the Block 52's propulsion, payload, range and endurance advantages is not a Block 52 equivalent. It's a Block 15 MLU with several Block 52-derived systems. A Block 52 equipped with CFTs can remain on station substantially longer because it carries 1000s of pounds of additional fuel without occupying underwing stations.
Those are not the same thing.

how often do F-16s fly with CFT's lol.

Your retardedness is off the chains...

 

[Yasser76]

how often do F-16s fly with CFT's lol.

Your retardedness is off the chains...

Like with many of them, you are fighting facts against his wishful thinking. It is pointless....

 

[Cipher212]

Had a nice read through this thread. Some very confident Indians who think they are flying a lot more than PAF yearly. I hope their actual leadership has same decisions

 

[CallSignMaverick]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Musings]

@NeptunesVortex
When indians start reporting you and say your trolling - you must be seriously trolling.
Go take a break

 

[Oscar]

how often do F-16s fly with CFT's lol.

Your retardedness is off the chains...

If you do catch how much of rehashing he is trying to do with left and right whataboutism you would have skipped the waste of time with him 2 posts ago.

The problem isnt the Phalcon however - its the Netra and something that happened post 2019 when they did field a Netra and then in 2026 were still reliant on the Phalcon sorties for AEW.

That is what I find most interesting is that the Netra radar was found sufficient but CAG flagged it twice - then they decided they wanted to put it onto a 330 - settled for the 321 which they have had from AI for more than a year standing parked.

So clearly there are some serious “wishlist” vs “actual fielding capabilities” disconnect as with every Indian project.

When you realistically want 18 platforms but are reliant on “tailor made 100% available”(lmao) 3 platforms… ya got problems.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

On my ignore list, but imagine I have saved myself valuable time not reading. his BS

Only if Hazret-i Adam (PBUH), the most learned person ever created, could have put Iblis in his ignore list...