India says Pakistan's Air Force modernisation worrisome

[fatman17]

^^^where are we going with this - the IAF chief was not worried about what u guys are arguing about!

 

[Keysersoze]

It is an AEW&C AND a C2 platform. It is NOT an AWACS.

A spade is a spade no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise Key.

Ok then Malay let me put this to you......there are basically two type of airborne system. AEW which is basically a flying radar and AEW & C which has battle management functions which allow it to be as you said a "node" controlling aircombat etc etc. Now
borrowing from someone on WAB

The difference between AWACS and AEW is that an AWACS carries additional crew who perform Command and Control duties (think mil version of an airport control tower), and an AEW feeds its sensor picture back to a surface station.

Now if you look at the picture I provided previously you will note there are a large number of crew positions and and facilities for them. they are all essentially the "control" part of the AWACS acronym.

I am calling a spade a spade here.

 

[Keysersoze]

^^^where are we going with this - the IAF chief was not worried about what u guys are arguing about!

Hey Fatman this is they way of all Indo -pak forums

 

[fatman17]

Hey Fatman this is they way of all Indo -pak forums

have fun and enjoy!

 

[Contrarian]

If you would have been engineer (I am btw) you would have atleast give numbers to prove anything. As far as I can see it is all hapsnap writing.

What branch of engineering do you specialize in. Just saying that your an engineer does not make your posts credible.

That was the case with Swedish Argus. It was already altered in the Greek Argus (you might read their performance. That was the reason why the delivery got delayed... The main problem was to house added controlstations and processing power. That is the reason why they went from Saab340 to Saab2000... More room to be filled with processing power. Surely they can communicate with ground stations. In fact he Erieye ground stations can do a lot more then on board the Sentry.... Imagine how Saab Gripen cockpit was designed when the others will flying still with analog displays...

Platforms do evolve. It is only natural to move onto the Saab 2000. More processing power does not indicate that all processing is done on the plane itself.

Now if you can show me that there is somewhere on the net (credible source) that shows that Saab2000 relays data cause it can not process onboard then we have atleast some text to talk about. Otherwise you are just a person that writes to fill bandwith. I tel you that there is more then enough onboard power, computing power and controllers to handle same as what your Phalcon ever will.

But ofcourse, you speak with facts right? I dont have to prove what i say simply because what i say is considered fact. It is considered fact that Erieye is dependent on ground stations, that it is an AEW&C. Erieye is no miracle AEW&C, that it will have more computing power than a Phalcon. The onus is on you to prove that the AEW&C has become an AWACS all of a sudden!

The fact is that the Ericson interface will be a lot better then anything you can buy. Even if it is from Elta/Elbit or other Israeli firms..

And where did you get this little gem of information?

And btw, if Phalcon was that good why is India buying a platform to build something exactly like Erieye? Is it cause they can not produce anything like Phalcon or is it because it is as good as?

ROFL. If that is your line of thinking, it is pointless to talk to you. Still, allow me to tell you, that India is buying a platform to build something like the Erieye not because Phalcon is not as good(lol), but because it is much cheaper. Phalcon is very very expensive, and India is a big country, we cannot buy Phalcons for all our needs. India is building an AEW&C in the Erieye class, not Phalcon, which is much bigger. Phalcon would be the employed on the threatre level, coordinating the various Indian AEW&C's while the indigenous AEW&C is planned to be used as a tactical support AEW&C.

Phalcon is far out of the league of Erieye. You can compare the amount of price paid by India and Pakistan over their respective procurements.

A Phalcon system mounted on a say EMB-145 would be in the Erieye class, not mounted on an Il-76!

 

[jaison]

Ok first things first......the stuff you have posted does not match the link provided. And seems to be a hodge pdoge of different articles. Secondly...the aussie airpower link has one important facet missing......the saab 2000 airframe. the picture is a argus airframe. It is also dated...by almost 4 years so the data used by the author would have been older.


SO first things first post the links to all your articles and don't mix em up yourself. For example mixing wikipedia and a few other articles does not make your post convincing.

Looks like you should go back to the toys dude......

yes the first one was from wikipedia sorry for not differentiating but the second article clearly says about erieye ....4 years........the contract for paf was signed earlier and changes might hav come in software and detection range but it is still the beam aew platform with limitations and it still lacks command and proper ecm systems......but it is the best option for paf and it suits its requirements perfectly especially when u hav 'great men behind those machines'.......thank u for sharing ur views

 

[Contrarian]

Ok then Malay let me put this to you......there are basically two type of airborne system. AEW which is basically a flying radar and AEW & C which has battle management functions which allow it to be as you said a "node" controlling aircombat etc etc. Now
borrowing from someone on WAB

The concept has moved on to two things now. An AEW&C and an AWACS. An AEW&C is a flying radar along with battle management functions. The AEW&C collects the data, sends it to the ground station and recieves the processed data, which the AEW&C fuses together to form a complete picture. This is then sent out to whoever/wherever the operators want.

An AWACS is an extension of the AEW&C which is housed in a far bigger platform, like civilian airliners or cargo planes of scale which can also process the data there itself. They act as independent nodes. Owing to their size, they also posess more communication gear along with other equipment. The processing power of these AWACS as well as their range of detection are far greater than that of AEW&C.

The difference between AWACS and AEW is that an AWACS carries additional crew who perform Command and Control duties (think mil version of an airport control tower), and an AEW feeds its sensor picture back to a surface station.

That was good till sometime back. Now even the AEW&C have battle management built into their software, and the processing power has evolved that much that it can be done on a small airframe.

There is a reason key why USAF, RAF, RAAF all employ big planes for their AWACS needs and not small planes. It is because of this exact reasons. And this is why smaller nations or nations with small airforces tend to stick with smaller planes, as they dont need that kind of range nor processing power, it is much more economical for them. They dont expect their AEW&C's to be performing duties halfway around the world. It is for use in their own nations or the neighbourhood nations.
They stick with defensive concepts, not the expeditionary concepts, that the AWACS needs to be an independent node.

This is the reason why IAF is going for Phalcon as well as AEW&C's.

 

[jaison]

india took a project on AEW&C because it is the first step before u move to an awacs u cant jump if u do there are fair chances that they may be failure....first aew&c will be mounted on a smaller embraer jet and then few will be produced then will move to bigger platforms like 737 and then comes the aewc&c........india has to build its capability slowly for such high tech products.

 

[Keysersoze]

yes the first one was from wikipedia sorry for not differentiating but the second article clearly says about erieye ....4 years........the contract for paf was signed earlier and changes might hav come in software and detection range but it is still the beam aew platform with limitations and it still lacks command and proper ecm systems......but it is the best option for paf and it suits its requirements perfectly especially when u hav 'great men behind those machines'.......thank u for sharing ur views

Hmmm i wonder if you "forgot to put it up because wiki is not regarded as being reliable?

I note you have now shifted your argument to the value of the Balance beam radar rather than go on with the "erieye isn't a AWACS" argument. BTW the E-3 carries 13-17 specialists. the SAAB 2000 would carry 10...so despite it being a smaller platform it has a large number of specialists on board..The radar has AESA with all the functions available with such a radar and to quote the literature. it can "operate in a dense electronic environment" Now maybe one of you guys could tell what they are doing in there? The older Argus models operated without operators (the ones operated by the Swedish airforce ) Maybe they are playing cards?

Maybe you could tell me what command facilities it is missing? take a look at the picture provided a little while back at the interior of the aircraft again and see what it shows. take another look at the operator console functions and tell me what it is missing.


Heres a link for yah jaison
Plastic Scale Models The Official Airfix Website

 

[Contrarian]

I hope my argument still stands Key.

 

[Keysersoze]

The concept has moved on to two things now. An AEW&C and an AWACS. An AEW&C is a flying radar along with battle management functions. The AEW&C collects the data, sends it to the ground station and recieves the processed data, which the AEW&C fuses together to form a complete picture. This is then sent out to whoever/wherever the operators want.

An AWACS is an extension of the AEW&C which is housed in a far bigger platform, like civilian airliners or cargo planes of scale which can also process the data there itself. They act as independent nodes. Owing to their size, they also posess more communication gear along with other equipment. The processing power of these AWACS as well as their range of detection are far greater than that of AEW&C.



That was good till sometime back. Now even the AEW&C have battle management built into their software, and the processing power has evolved that much that it can be done on a small airframe.

There is a reason key why USAF, RAF, RAAF all employ big planes for their AWACS needs and not small planes. It is because of this exact reasons. And this is why smaller nations or nations with small airforces tend to stick with smaller planes, as they dont need that kind of range nor processing power, it is much more economical for them. They dont expect their AEW&C's to be performing duties halfway around the world. It is for use in their own nations or the neighbourhood nations.
They stick with defensive concepts, not the expeditionary concepts, that the AWACS needs to be an independent node.

This is the reason why IAF is going for Phalcon as well as AEW&C's.

Ok now as i stated in the post above Malay the Saab 2000 has only slightly fewer operators than the E-3 It is a smaller platform to be sure with undoubtedly less endurance. But to claim it only has the functions of a AEW is plain wrong. Heres another post from the SAAB website.

ERIEYE is the first high-performance, long-range Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) system based on active phased-array pulse-Doppler radar.
This new-generation system can be installed in a variety of commercial and military aircraft, including regional jet or turboprop airliners. It meets full AEW&C requirements for detecting and tracking targets at ranges of up to 450 km over land or water.
ERIEYE is part of a complete AEW&C system, including radar with integrated Secondary Surveillance Radar / Identification Friend or Foe (SSR/IFF), electronic support measures, communications and data links, comprehensive command-and-control facilities and self-protection system.
The ERIEYE radar, with its fixed electronically scanned antenna and use of adaptive radar control techniques, has superior resolution accuracy. When compared to traditional rotodome-based solutions, it provides enhanced detection and tracking performance, including the active simultaneous tracking of multiple targets. In addition, the radar offers significantly improved resistance to Electronic Counter Measures (ECM).
The state-of-the-art command-and-control system gives the on-board mission-system crew full capability for AEW&C roles as well as maximum flexibility for other peacetime and war missions. ERIEYE is fully interoperable with and easily integrated into NATO Air Defence Command Systems.

Now The reason why The IAf is going for both systems is simple. COST. To cover the whole if India would cost Billions. (NATO between them has only 17)

 

[Keysersoze]

I hope my argument still stands Key.

Dude it's good to have ya back....this takes me back to the days when me and you used to go about the whole f-16/MKI debate

 

[Munir]

It is funny that Indians nickname their MKI als mini AWACS yet Saab2000 is not up to the same title... It really amazes me that their words or title should be reality yet if we post direct sources then either they question our titles or source. Frankly I see this as a lack of knowledge. Saab2000 is all optimized AWACS with even more goodies. It offers a lot potential. If they do not want to see that then why discussing with computertigers or flightsimpilots? We have a history of posts where LCA was seen as a tiger and JF17 as a paperplane. We had no source then (I did but that is not comparable what we have now) but we surely can see the results. JF17 is almost in operational service with first official squadron starting up in jan2009. We hear that LCA was a lovely testcase... Sure. It is but I never heard an Indian poster say anything about the supersizing of LCA in the past. Same happens now with Phalcon and Saab2000... It is bigger but I be the endresults we be in favour of Saab2000. We have seen the plane. We have read enough source material. I believe it is a lot better then Phalcon.I hear no sound logical reason why it is not an AWACS. Frankly I would call it AWACS+... The Phalcon/E3 concept is no longer the best option... Not financially, not technology wise and not argumetns wise... It is a white elephant that might do well in US_Irac wars (to many against no opponent) but in real war it would be deleted faster then you all think. It reminds me of Varyag... Super big but in war against Pakistan a failed option.

 

[jaison]

Hmmm i wonder if you "forgot to put it up because wiki is not regarded as being reliable?

I note you have now shifted your argument to the value of the Balance beam radar rather than go on with the "erieye isn't a AWACS" argument. BTW the E-3 carries 13-17 specialists. the SAAB 2000 would carry 10...so despite it being a smaller platform it has a large number of specialists on board..The radar has AESA with all the functions available with such a radar and to quote the literature. it can "operate in a dense electronic environment" Now maybe one of you guys could tell what they are doing in there? The older Argus models operated without operators (the ones operated by the Swedish airforce ) Maybe they are playing cards?

Maybe you could tell me what command facilities it is missing? take a look at the picture provided a little while back at the interior of the aircraft again and see what it shows. take another look at the operator console functions and tell me what it is missing.


Heres a link for yah jaison
Plastic Scale Models The Official Airfix Website

sir erieye is very capable one but u cant say that erieye is more capable bcoz it has many people operating cards ,it does not have a 360 deg coverage......the new phalcon on il-76 is a stable dome which sees equal distance in all direction, this unprecidented situational awareness it can give to fighters can be the difference between life and death........but the erieye as to operate in groups with data links to make up the blind spots and they cannot operate independantlyor else it will risk being shot down.

 

[Munir]

Dude it's good to have ya back....this takes me back to the days when me and you used to go about the whole f-16/MKI debate

I am curious what the results were...

Big power range against agile small and time testes...?