ciao ragazzi, sapete dove posso trovare informazioni sul nuovo areo israeliano?

 

in particolare mi interessano i pesi, WTO, W-empty ecc...e l'equipaggio

 

grazie mille

Modificato 9 giugno 200818 anni da shevablue

Il problema è che il programma di acquisizione non prevede capacità AEW per i nostri G550 ma Ground Moving Target Indicator e Ground mapping ... Gianni è partito da un presupposto sbagliato ...

 

Andando a riprendere il primo documento approvato in commissione difesa relativo a nave Cavour, se ne parlava come unità per il trasporto truppe da circa 15.000 t...

 

il documento da poco approvato parla (in linea di massima) della sostituzione del G222 VS con due nuove piattaforme, ed è quindi naturale che in questa prima fase di valutazione si parli esplicitamente solo di capacità SIGINT ed al massimo AGS; l'interpretazione corretta è quindi quella di Gianni, si è scelta solo la piattaforma, il G-550, non cosa ci sarà sopra l'aereo.

 

poi, gli stessi israeliani hanno ordinato sia i G550 CAEW (AEW) che il G5 SEMA (SIGINT), un motivo ci sarà.

 

Se è per quello oltre a 5 G-550 tra "Eitam" (CAEW) e "Shavit" (SEMA) hanno anche almeno una decina di più piccoli King Air B200 per gli stessi ruoli. Il motivo è che loro possono permetterselo (ed hanno una piano di acquisizioni a lungo termine ben fatto, così da non buttare i soldi in cose assurde tipo l'ASA dei vecchi 104)...noi invece...

Se è per quello oltre a 5 G-550 tra "Eitam" (CAEW) e "Shavit" (SEMA) hanno anche almeno una decina di più piccoli King Air B200 per gli stessi ruoli. Il motivo è che loro possono permetterselo (ed hanno una piano di acquisizioni a lungo termine ben fatto, così da non buttare i soldi in cose assurde tipo l'ASA dei vecchi 104)...noi invece...

 

Che è quello che ho detto io qualche topic più sù.

 

Ritengo che tra l'altro che una cosa simile all'MC-12W Project Liberty farebbe comodo anche a noi, praticamente ai 2 G5 JAMMS -che per noi sarebbero gli assetti strategici- andrebbero affiancati 4 MC-12W da impiegare come assetti più spendibili e poco onerosi, utilissimi magari in contesti come l'A-stan, dove senza spendere troppo sarebbe possibile intercettare anomalie radio (IED per es), fare da comm relay e supportare le truppe sul terreno grazie ai sistemi di sorveglianza (sia radar che ottici).

Questo servirebbe per lasciare ai 2 G5 JAMMS come missione principale quelle SIGINT e secondariamente quelle di sorveglianza del campo di battaglia, ma il tutto visto in chiave strategica.

 

Una cosa simile l'hanno fatta anche gli inglesi -solo per la parte della sorvegliana-, prima si sono dotati di 5 R1 Astor, poi gli hanno affiancato i soliti Beechcraft dotati anch'essi di radar e flir, oltre ad una completa suite radio, in modo da crearsi un assetto Hi-Low.

 

EDIT

All'USAF gli MC-12W verranno a costare circa 26 milioni di dollari (950 mln per 37 aerei), questo significa che con meno di 100 milioni di euro 4 aerei di questo genere si portano a casa.

 

Comunque tranquillo, i nostri G550 non avranno capacità AEW.

Andando a riprendere il primo documento approvato in commissione difesa relativo a nave Cavour, se ne parlava come unità per il trasporto truppe da circa 15.000 t...

 

il documento da poco approvato parla (in linea di massima) della sostituzione del G222 VS con due nuove piattaforme, ed è quindi naturale che in questa prima fase di valutazione si parli esplicitamente solo di capacità SIGINT ed al massimo AGS; l'interpretazione corretta è quindi quella di Gianni, si è scelta solo la piattaforma, il G-550, non cosa ci sarà sopra l'aereo.

 

Se è per quello oltre a 5 G-550 tra "Eitam" (CAEW) e "Shavit" (SEMA) hanno anche almeno una decina di più piccoli King Air B200 per gli stessi ruoli. Il motivo è che loro possono permetterselo (ed hanno una piano di acquisizioni a lungo termine ben fatto, così da non buttare i soldi in cose assurde tipo l'ASA dei vecchi 104)...noi invece...

Noi ci basiamo su atti parlamentari che parlano esplicitamente di capacità Ground Moving Target Indicator e Ground mapping per i nostri G550. Lo stesso scrivono le riviste Italiane di settore. Non capisco su quali ipotesi tu possa parlare di capacità AEW visto che averle escluderebbe la suddette capacità. L'AMI vorra si degli AEW, ma non saranno questi G550.

 

PS. Fidati che quando il programma Cavour ha avuto l'approvazione definitiva il parlamento ha approvato il programma nella sua forma attuale

Modificato 27 aprile 200917 anni da typhoon

Ieri ho letto su A&D su un numero vecchio che i Francesi usano i Falcon per compiti ESM:possono oscurare il radar dei nemici e interrompere le comunicazioni nemiche.

 

 

Se i nostri JAMMS avranno capacità ESM potranno fare le stesse cose dei Falcon francesi?

Quelle sono capacità ECM, non ESM.

Sicuro che non hai avuto una svista nella lettura dell'articolo?

Allora si ho fatto confusione io scusa:riscrivo il pezzo dell'articolo:

Va ricordata la presenza essenziale del Falcon 20 civile della FRA, adibito a oscurare radar e disturbare le frequenze radio degli aeromobili

 

PS:Pensavo fossero capacità ESM.Che differenza c'è tra ECM e ESM?

Allora si ho fatto confusione io scusa:riscrivo il pezzo dell'articolo:

Va ricordata la presenza essenziale del Falcon 20 civile della FRA, adibito a oscurare radar e disturbare le frequenze radio degli aeromobili

 

PS:Pensavo fossero capacità ESM.Che differenza c'è tra ECM e ESM?

 

Ma, forse, sono aerei della RAF non dell'armée de l'air

Le suite ESM e SIGINT sono adibite all'ascolto dei segnali radar e radio (quindi sono passive, non emettono niente), le suite ECM invece sono atte a disturbare i radar nemici e le comunicazioni (sono suite attive perchè emettono segnali elettromagnetici).

Ma, forse, sono aerei della RAF non dell'armée de l'air

 

 

ne l'uno ne l'altro la FRA è una compagnia privata israeliana o usa non sono sicuro

G500 – Gulfstream are offering air forces a version of the G500 long-range business jet, designated the EC-37SM, as an economic off-the-shelf ELINT and Special Mission solution. Offering the capability of providing ELINT, targeting and other special missions currently fulfilled by large airliner platforms. Some concepts show the aircraft with either 2 or 4 under-wing pods and a large canoe-shaped equipment pod underneath the forward fuselage. As well as ELINT payloads, the aircraft could carry a radar in the canoe, similar to the UK’s ASTOR, providing an AEW and SAR/GMTI capability, as well as an EO/IR surveillance pod. A stand-off electronic attack version would be equipped with EW pods, towed decoys and SIGINT equipment.

 

 

Fonte

Qualche giorno fa ho letto su A&D che il JAMMS avrà una forma simile ai CAEW&C israeliani.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avbtsv_4.html

 

An illustration of the EC-37 displaying a "notional configuration" showed it with a pod mounted on top of the tail to house a wideband satellite data communications link; a canoe fairing under the forward fuselage for SIGINT gear to perform eavesdropping and direction finding; and six detachable pods carried under the wings, including:

 

An AN/USQ-113 communications jammer pod.

 

Two AN/ALQ-99 standoff radar jammer pods.

 

A SAR-MTI pod, providing a range of 320 kilometers (200 miles) and resolution of at least 30 centimeters (one foot).

 

An AEW radar pod.

 

An electro-optic / infrared (EO/IR) imager pod.

While that was likely a more diverse payload than would be carried on typical operational missions, the idea of carrying SIGINT and jammer gear on the same flight is practical. Using fast digital control systems, the jammer systems can be switched off for a few milliseconds, allowing the SIGINT gear to spot a target, and then the jammer systems would be turned back on to electronically attack the new target. The technique is called "looking through".

 

General Dynamics has also investigated integration of an AESA-based multipurpose EW system, either built into the fuselage or into the 1.8 meter (6 foot) tall winglets at the tips of the Gulfstream V's wings. In addition, they have suggested that the EC-37 SMA could be used as an auxiliary GPS signal source to help defeat GPS jamming and enhance GPS target location.

 

General Dynamics has pointed out that the EC-37 SMA has plenty of engine power and could easily operate at altitudes high enough to give its payload suite a clear view of a battle theater. In a typical mission profile, the aircraft could reach operating altitude in 25 minutes, fly 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles), and remain on station for 10 hours at 14.3 kilometers (47,000 feet), without mid-air refueling.

 

The EC-37 SMA would offer a shirtsleeve environment for its crewmembers. Advocates also point out that the tail-mounted turbofans of the Gulfstream V do not block the view of underwing electronics pods, as would be the case for would EW platform based on the Boeing 737 or Airbus jetliners, which have turbofans mounted under the wings. Critics have suggested that the Gulfstream V is too small an aircraft to mount antenna arrays or carry gear with really adequate capability.

 

The EC-37 SMA notional configuration did not include armament, but the Navy has been interested in an aircraft with the capability to carry the Harpoon antiship missile, the similar SLAM land-attack cruise missile, or other long-range precision strike munitions, allowing the EW aircraft to not only identify and locate targets, but to attack and destroy them as well.

 

Gulfstream has promoted a variation on the Gulfstream V special mission concept, in the form of a Gulfstream G550 configured as a UAV. Stripped of all the niceties required for carrying people, it would have a load capacity of 9,525 kilograms (21,000 pounds). The "GV-UAV" concept, to give it a name, was pitched as a solution for the US Navy's need for a replacement for the current EP-3 Aries SIGINT aircraft, as well as the Navy BAMS requirement. It could also be used as a tanker, either with dedicated refueling gear or fitted with buddy refueling packs on its stores pylons. For the moment, the GV-UAV remains a speculative concept.

Da quello che ho capito si potrebbe usare anche come AEW il SEMA,giusto o mi sbaglio?

Verranno anche montati i sistemi EW sui JAMMS?

Nico leggiti bene i messaggi precedenti e evita di fare domande la cui risposta è già presente nel topic.

Pare che israele abbia "offerto" all'italia 4 G550 in cambio dei master... Dopo anni di nulla potrebbe succedere qualcosa?

E' vero ....

 

.... la notizia proviene da questa fonte ....

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/iai-offers-italy-airborne-early-warning-system-deal-363978/

 

.... e se ne parla anche nella discussione dedicata al "346" ....

http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=472&ArticleID=1430 Infatti Italia e Israele stanno già contrattando da tempo..

E' ufficiale: l'Italia avrà 2 Gulfstream G550-based Conformal Airborne Early Warning (CAEW).

 

Per i dettagli rimando alla discussione nella sezione Forze Armate / Aeronautica Militare Italiana http://www.aereimilitari.org/forum/topic/11805-aeronautica-militare-italiana-ami/page__pid__290345__st__140?do=findComment&comment=290345

International Customers Line Up To Peruse Airborne ISR

 

Some of the mystery ingredients of Israel's potent aerial strike forces are embedded in variants of the Gulfstream G550—darling of the business jet set—that are modified by Israel Aerospace Industries into military special-missions aircraft.

Versions of these compare roughly to the U.S. Air Force's RC-135 Rivet Joint (signals and communications intelligence), E-8B Joint Stars (radar ground surveillance) and the E-3 AWACS (air-to-air surveillance). But there also are some interesting differences. The sensor combinations are being shifted and expanded, data is being transferred and networked through protected communications links, and multi-spectral fusion is creating a real-time targeting and command capability. Such changes have become increasingly important as enemy forces have become smaller, faster and more lethal since the beginning of the Second Intafada in 2000.

First in the portfolio is the special electronics mission aircraft (SEMA) and airborne command-and-control post. The Israeli air force (IAF) has three of the aircraft operational, according to open sources.

The IAF describes the SEMA design as“battle-proven,” which likely means it has been operationally active in the campaigns against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, as well as the mysterious 2007 attack on the Syrian nuclear reactor and the raid on a Sudanese arms production and storage site earlier this year.

IAF officials asked IAI to compress signals, communications and other intelligence-collection capabilities into more-efficient airframes. The need was for smaller, cheaper, higher-performance aircraft that require less power and cooling for extensive electronic payloads, said Gideon Landa, General manager of Elta's Airborne Systems and Radars Div., earlier this year.

“The G550 became available and Elta made a very capable sensor suite that was compact enough to fit in it,” he says.

The aircraft have electronic and communications intelligence-gathering packages and secure, advanced communications. It also functions as a command-and-control post that can conduct strike and intelligence-gathering missions far from Israel.

SEMA can operate independently anywhere in the world. Monitoring air defenses and military command and control communications in the Middle East is a far less demanding mission. The SEMA offers advantages that the Boeing 707 family was never able to provide to intelligence operations—speed, altitude (for a better electronic horizon), unrefueled range and long-range, hard-to-intercept communications. The aircraft's operational altitude is about 50,000 ft. and the radar and sigint horizon is about 250 nm. However, that range is conservative and probably limited only by the curvature of the Earth.

“If you are monitoring a target from 200 nm away, you don't have to use self-protection,” Landa says. “If you want more detail from [directly over] the battlefield, you can also use unmanned aircraft carrying surveillance payloads.”

Because of the advanced sensors and the expanded data-processing power on board, much of the detailed information is quickly available to SEMA aircrews. In addition, more than one SEMA can operate in a networked and synchronized formation to develop electronic orders of battle at much higher speed than single platforms. That capability has been tested during IAF training exercises in Greece and Italy.

“Even on a small platform you can do processing and use low-probability-of-intercept communications for a quiet, mobile network,” says Gad Cohen, IAI's vice president for aviation and aerospace.

In addition, using “the advanced communications on board, we can operate most of the systems from the ground,” Landa says. “So, we can carry more equipment and 10-12 signals intelligence and command-and-control guys. At the same time, it can be used by up to 30 operators on the ground.”

Carrying fewer crewmen and more fuel translates to more time on station—up to 10 hr. unrefueled. SEMA is not designed for electronic attack, nor does it yet carry an electronic warfare suite, despite the fact that Elta has an impressive portfolio of electronic warfare systems.

“Our systems are decision-support —gathering information, creating theater awareness and providing tools to commanders,” says Baruch Reshef, deputy director of group marketing for Elta. “We're in the area of fire control and not weapons. HPM [high-powered micowave weapons] is not our niche.”

The next aircraft in the family is the conformal airborne early warning (CAEW) platform. Two are operational with the IAF.

“There was a huge hesitation in the military,” Landa says. “They questioned how we could put a 20-ft. antenna on something as small as the G550, supply the power and cooling and still have it [cruise operationally] at 41,000 ft. But we did it.”

“This variant is more like the Joint Stars,” Landa says. “We have several solutions on different platforms that are not yet fully operational. Some are in full-scale development and production, others are in initial development.”

One of the designs is called the multi-mission airborne reconnaissance and surveillance system (MARS2). Its capabilities include a very sophisticated synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and ground moving target indicator (GMTI). The payload also can include elint and comint as well as advanced communications and data links.

One of the benefits of integrating simultaneous radar, communications and signals intelligence onboard is that electronic emitters and other targets can be detected, identified and mapped with great precision, and the enemy's electronic order of battle can be monitored. Moreover, the addition of high-volume processing for SAR/GMTI means enhanced real-time intelligence exploitation. There can be up to four extra people on board for decision-making and tasking of other forces.

“So not only do we know what the bad guys are talking about, we know where they are located,” Landa says.

Part of the enemy's visibility comes from the detailed intelligence sent from the midst of the battlefield by unmanned aircraft and pods on manned strike aircraft.

“We don't care what is manned and unmanned or what is strategic, standoff or stand-in, as long as they have our sensors onboard and share information via a networked infrastructure,” Landa says. “All those aircraft are linked by network-centric solutions. Then data-sharing is seamless.”

Because the aircraft can operate independently by using protected data links, it is less vulnerable to some kinds of electronic attack and cyberintrusions.

“We are using a variety of data links,” Landa says. “What we typically fly on our multi-mission aircraft are dedicated line-of-sight data links for air-to-air and air-to-ground communications. They are typically wide band to handle the bulk of the information relayed to the ground forces, ships or ground centers. It is quite safe [from intrusion or detection] because it is narrow beam. Secondly, we also use non-line-of-sight datalinks—UHF, VHF and HF—which are more narrow band, but very long-distance.”

Yet another available option is satellite communications that provide tactical data link networks. This capability also is designed and developed by Elta.

A limitation to the system could be the transfer of large, wide-area, high-resolution, synthetic aperture radar maps and electro-optical images. A way to address that bottleneck is to put four to six operators onboard the aircraft for imagery exploitation, so that the mass of data does not have to be transmitted from the aircraft. Part of the map is assigned to an intelligence expert onboard who knows virtually every stone of the area he or she is assigned to analyze.

Moreover, improved data processing and analytical tools are on the way from Elta's research and development centers. For example, as new radar technology is developed, it can be blended with signals intelligence, communications and electronic warfare capabilities.

Aircrews want to “keep in touch with the area they are scanning all the time,” Landa says. “We call it persistent coverage or staring radar. In order to cover that much, we want a narrow beam to provide as much power as possible to an area of interest. You need to concentrate energy. As the field of view becomes narrow, the resolution and accuracy become better.”

Another advantage to the narrow beam is that it is difficult to intercept and exploit. But to cover the necessary area at least to some degree, there needs to be a multi-beam radar with each beam operating as a separate radar with its own signal and radar processor.

“Many' means hundreds or even thousands,” Landa says. “We call it new-generation multi-mode AESA radar. We start with an antenna that has many transmitting and receiving elements. The computer can manipulate the data infinitely, and the memory in the computer will pay attention to items of interest and continuously check them [for new or changing information].”

IAI also is looking at offering more unmanned options for the next generation of intelligence-gathering aircraft.

“More and more platforms will be UAVs,” Reshef says. “Since they can't carry big payloads, there will be several working in parallel, all communicating to one central point that gathers the information and produces one combined picture of the theater we are working in.”

Grazie a tutti.

Si hanno notizie in merito alla consegna dei Gulfstream Caew? Lessi che uno doveva essere consegnato quest'anno.

Il Gulfstream Sigint in fitto dalla Lockheed Martin avrà un sostituto italiano o straniero?

Con i Gulfstream Caew in linea potrebbe essere adottato il Gulfstream 550 Sema?

Finalmente una foto di un G550 dell'Aeronautica Militare:https://www.flickr.com/photos/shanair/21651966048/

Ho trovato questo spaccato abbastanza accurato sui sistemi del G550 e mi sembrava interessante postarlo quì per fare pò il punto sulla situazione.Ne approfitto per chiedervi anche quali sono esattamente le differenze tra il nostro G550 e un vero AWACS come l'E-3?(a parte la capacità del radar) Grazie.

 

 

Spaccato: