Pakistan Air Force Transport

[Windjammer]

this ac has the flair system installed on it and it is this ac that played a very major role in the capture of the terrorists at kamra.

Do you mean locating their signals, since i believe all were killed and none were captured. ??

 

[TaimiKhan]

this ac has the flair system installed on it and it is this ac that played a very major role in the capture of the terrorists at kamra.

This is the some kind of EW C-130 (#4727), with no FLIR system. Before #4282 used to have this many antennas, don't know if 4282 has been re-numbered as 4727 or we have two 4727 & 4282 with some EW kind of equipment.

The C-130(#3702) in post#413 in the new woodland camo is the one having the FLIR system. If you guys can enlarge the pic, you will see the FLIR mounting in light gray color just under the nose.

Do you mean locating their signals, since i believe all were killed and none were captured. ??

The C-130 in the new woodland green camo with 2 IL-78s is having the FLIR system, very effective at night operations.

The one you are referring to is just some EW equipped aircraft.

 

[Jango]

This is the some kind of EW C-130 (#4727), with no FLIR system. Before #4282 used to have this many antennas, don't know if 4282 has been re-numbered as 4727 or we have two 4727 & 4282 with some EW kind of equipment.

4282 is the c/n of the aircraft with serial number #4727.

Are you referring 4282 as serial number or c/n? Because c/n 4282 is serial number 4727

 

[TaimiKhan]

4282 is the c/n of the aircraft with serial number #4727.

Are you referring 4282 as serial number or c/n? Because c/n 4282 is serial number 4727

No idea what u r trying to say or just said. Below is what 4282 is with soooooooooo many antennas:

http://imageshack.us/a/img839/9893/1778456.jpg

 

[Najam Khan]

4282 is the c/n of the aircraft with serial number #4727.

Are you referring 4282 as serial number or c/n? Because c/n 4282 is serial number 4727

C-130E Serial# 3536 and 3702 are believed to have Star Fire EO/IR turrets. C-130E Serial#4282 (I think with old number 4727, as said by you) with lots of antennas underneath lower fuselage is used for COMINT (Communications Intelligence). Most of these aircraft are assigned to No.21 Sqn..which is not a transport squadron

Photo below. USAF C-130 with EO/IR Turret and related senors.

 

[Jango]

Those antennas under serial number 4727 have been since 1994.

Mystery solved gents. 4727 has indeed been re-numbered and repainted to 4282 and grey camo, sometime between 2007 and 2010. 2007 was the last time the jungle camo and 4727 (c/n 4282) was seen, and 2010 was the first time a grey camo aircraft (pics in post 424 by TaimiKhan) was seen, sporting serial number 4282.

Aircraft in post 424 and 415 are same.

And the construction number of both aircraft is same i.e 4282. So, PAF changed the color scheme and serial number from 4727 to 4282 to confuse us! Darn PAF.

Most of these aircraft are assigned to No.21 Sqn..which is not a transport squadron

21 Sqn is at Masroor right?

 

[Bratva]

C-130E Serial# 3536 and 3702 are believed to have Star Fire EO/IR turrets.

 

[Arsalan]

21 Sqn is at Masroor right?

No, it is based at PAF Base Faisal - Karachi!

 

[Jango]

Yup, If you look closely at the tail, 3702 is visible.

Same aircraft in 2011. Both camos look alike. So, no new paint scheme? Seems like a year old paint scheme.

FLIR is also visible.

 

[imiakhtar]

we r better off buying refurbished IL-78's. they carry 3 times the load of a C130/C27.

I disagree.

Whilst you're correct in pointing out the payload advantage of the IL-78, you fail to mention the host of negatives that come with operating a jet transport of that size, some of which I'll bullet point below:

-Despite it's excellent landing gear with multiple bogies, the IL-78 has a higher PCN (pavement classification number), meaning the landing surface has to be a certain strength. The C-27/C-130 are pretty much unrestricted in that regard.

-Turboprop aircraft are much more fuel efficient than jet transports, especially between props and russian jets! Makes a difference when your defence budget is stretched. Also note, the props on a C-130 are much more reliable, have a greater TBO and are cheaper to repair and/or acquire due to the huge spares market.

-Turboprop aircraft have better acceleration and STOL performance compared to jets. This is an especially important capability given Pakistan's varying terrain and past requirements needing to operate out of unprepared strips.

Having said that, the IL-78s were obviously needed for the jf-17, spada and grifo transport requirements.

I just hope that given the vintage nature of Pakistan's C-130 fleet and the types replacement with the C-17 and A400M in Western forces that the PAF manages to acquire some bargains!

 

[Luftwaffe]

I disagree.

Whilst you're correct in pointing out the payload advantage of the IL-78, you fail to mention the host of negatives that come with operating a jet transport of that size, some of which I'll bullet point below:

-Despite it's excellent landing gear with multiple bogies, the IL-78 has a higher PCN (pavement classification number), meaning the landing surface has to be a certain strength. The C-27/C-130 are pretty much unrestricted in that regard.

-Turboprop aircraft are much more fuel efficient than jet transports, especially between props and russian jets! Makes a difference when your defence budget is stretched. Also note, the props on a C-130 are much more reliable, have a greater TBO and are cheaper to repair and/or acquire due to the huge spares market.

-Turboprop aircraft have better acceleration and STOL performance compared to jets. This is an especially important capability given Pakistan's varying terrain and past requirements needing to operate out of unprepared strips.

Having said that, the IL-78s were obviously needed for the jf-17, spada and grifo transport requirements.

I just hope that given the vintage nature of Pakistan's C-130 fleet and the types replacement with the C-17 and A400M in Western forces that the PAF manages to acquire some bargains!

Almost all landing surfaces are Standard around those are not build in a way that pose danger to airplanes so the problem is solved you should be familiar with Airport Runway building standards all runways are built on international standards.

C-130 costs more then IL-76/IL-78 having said that IL-78 for its size is great when it comes to price tag. An extra 3 IL-76/78 are not cost over burdens otherwise you'll need to procure 3 C-130s for every 1 IL-76/78 the cost of maintenance is nullified you'll spend close to that on IL-76/78 as much as on 3 C-130s. IL-76/78 are reliable Transport with its flight history dating back to early 1971-82 till date.

I think if PAF top brass wanted they would have bought KC-130s for only Air refueling and C-130 non air refueller for Transports purposes here again you would have needed to pay more get more in numbers and maintain two different variants.

For our overall Transport activities-purposes IL-78 fullfills that role greatly efficiently and for Air Refueling Role it serves PAF along side Transport Role again effectively 2 in 1 Role multipurpose which C-130 couldn't do.

So I think there are no Negatives attached with IL-78 specially when the number is 4 and might increase to 4 more in future or should.

 

[Last Hope]

Almost all landing surfaces are Standard around those are not build in a way that pose danger to airplanes so the problem is solved you should be familiar with Airport Runway building standards all runways are built on international standards.

C-130 costs more then IL-76/IL-78 having said that IL-78 for its size is great when it comes to price tag. An extra 3 IL-76/78 are not cost over burdens otherwise you'll need to procure 3 C-130s for every 1 IL-76/78 the cost of maintenance is nullified you'll spend close to that on IL-76/78 as much as on 3 C-130s. IL-76/78 are reliable Transport with its flight history dating back to early 1971-82 till date.

I think if PAF top brass wanted they would have bought KC-130s for only Air refueling and C-130 non air refueller for Transports purposes here again you would have needed to pay more get more in numbers and maintain two different variants.

For our overall Transport activities-purposes IL-78 fullfills that role greatly efficiently and for Air Refueling Role it serves PAF along side Transport Role again effectively 2 in 1 Role multipurpose which C-130 couldn't do.

So I think there are no Negatives attached with IL-78 specially when the number is 4 and might increase to 4 more in future or should.

The negatives attached to IL-78 are that they can currently ONLY refuel the Mirage aircraft with A2A capability. Latter on the JF-17s would come under the list too. The biggest disadvantage is that they can not refuel the F-16s or C-130s or any AWACS/AEW&Cs.

 

[Jango]

The biggest advantage the C-130 has is that it is a adaptable workhorse. Landing at unpaved surfaces, a propeller engine, STOL etc. On range, speed, service ceiling, the Midas takes it hand down.

What is the difference between the EW C-130 that PAF has, and the EC-130 of USAF?

Tail fin for one, but what is the difference in the operational area of both?

Is PAF C-130 only for Intel or for aggressive EW?

 

[Pak47]

We all have seen the C-130 Gunship..

are these for export? What countries have these besides U.S.?

 

[Abingdonboy]

We all have seen the C-130 Gunship..

are these for export? What countries have these besides U.S.?

Just like the F-22 and B-2 the AC-130 is not for export- only USAF operates them.