Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[Neo]

Sir,

IIRC the Hawkeye was being offered with strings attached, i.e. termination of our nuclear programme.
Earlier in seventies US had tried to persuade us to do the same while offering 110 F/A-7 free of charge.

 

[MastanKhan]

Neo,

You are right, but then Zia was a master tactician when it came to dealing with the americans----he got the F 16's didn't he.

Sameway---clinton supposedly offered the F 16's to Nawaz not to go the N way.

 

[Neo]

Sir,

I agree Zia's was a better tactician than any other General we've had but I doubt US would have given the state of art technology, AEW&CS without getting the benefits.

AEW&CS then was what stealth is now, only few countries have access to this technology. Anwal-ul-Sa'adat was awarded the Hawkeye after reaching a breakthru with Begin in 1979. Pakistan would have to compromise the nuclear programme, there was nothing US wanted more from us.

The F-16's or A-10's is a different story, it came with the $3.2 billion aid package we got in 1980 to support Jihad against USSR.

 

[blain2]

Neo,

You are right, but then Zia was a master tactician when it came to dealing with the americans----he got the F 16's didn't he.

Sameway---clinton supposedly offered the F 16's to Nawaz not to go the N way.

It was not Zia's tactics, rather the need for the US to finance Pakistan to impede the Soviet expansion. Had Zia been in any other times, (if you recall the "peanuts" episode), Americans would not have been so forthcoming.

Secondly, hindsight is always 20/20. Instead of spending money on the F-16s, what if we had invested $150 million into a joint collaboration with the Chinese on a 3rd generation platform? I guess the point being made is PAF did what it thought was the best...had we purchased the A-10s, what could we have possibly used them for? The Russians were buzzing our airspace which required high performance interceptors to deter them...so I think PAF made a good call going for the F-16s. As far as embargo is concerned, we would have suffered just the same under sanctions if we had Hawkeyes and A-10s.

The problem is not PAF's planning. Its the inability of our government to put Pakistani-American relations on a different track which is mutually beneficial and multi-faceted. Usually we are left high and dry after each spell because we cannot align our long term interests with those of the US. I am done blaming the other side. Pakistan should watch out for herself first...once this starts happening, all of the PAF acquisions decisions will also start bearing fruit.

 

[IceCold]

Sameway---clinton supposedly offered the F 16's to Nawaz not to go the N way.

Sir if i recall it correctly, the two squardons of the F-18 were offered to pakistan against not testing the nuclear device and i was always of an opinion that if we have had played smart, we could have convinced the americans to give us the F-18 super hornet and we will not test the device.

 

[fatman17]

I think Musharraf has done a much better job in dealing with the americans under more complex international relations. the 80s was a clear-cut cold war scenario. if you also compare the hardware received then and now, you will see a vast difference.

 

[IceCold]

I think Musharraf has done a much better job in dealing with the americans under more complex international relations. the 80s was a clear-cut cold war scenario. if you also compare the hardware received then and now, you will see a vast difference.

I second that. In Musharraf's era pakistan has become conventionally more stronger then we ever were and he did handled the americans the way, none of todays leaders could do.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi Blain-Neo,

My reasoning to get the A 10's was to get a ground attack aircraft---once the aircarft is available, we could always complain that it is not doing the job---that is there is no match between the a10 and the russian intruders flying in---give us something else---a more potent weapon---to me, this is a stair step approach in getting what we want.

We always say that hindsight is 20/20----not all the time---even in hindsight we more often make bad decisions than not---the reason being that we have not learnt to create a department or agency or a think tank, whose job is only to analyse any past decisions to overcome future mistakes---rather minimize a chance of future mistakes and errors---we know very well that we have wrangled the neccessary equipment fromt the usa one way or the other over the years---.

We often use the peanuts aid issue at times----when I was in pakistan, I was of the same view----but since then 25 years have passed and many a years ago I learnt that never to look a gift horse in the mouth and take whatever aid is coming and once you get it---say thanks and tell them that it is not enough to do the job right, we need more---we need to learn to do what israel does---thankyou for your help---it is good but not enough---help us help you by giving us more aid. At national level an insult cannot be made and taken as personal---the bottomline is what is good for the country.

Blain, my thinking is that in the 80's we didnot have enough refinement and niether the chinese had the technology to come up with a better plane. We played our hand according to the situation---with the demise of Zia---the inability of the mujahideen to form a govt in afghanistan, the mujahideen dropping the U S alliance and going onto favour Saddam in iraq, the berlin wall coming down, the internal vaccuum created in pakistani politics---there were too many things going on against pakistan, at the same time---.

 

[blain2]

Mastan,

The problem with Pakistan is the aid in itself. For as long as we rely on aid, its going to come with strings attached, with limitations and conditions. The fact that our useless politicians can never think about the country first because their fat ***** are not fat enough is the reason Pakistan remains mired in this "kashkol" BS. More later.

 

[ejaz007]

Yes I believe the problem is the aid. We have always relied on aid rather than building economic relationship. We should drop the idea of aid and go for economic partnership. More access for our products and some sort of trade benefits.
As far as Zia or Musharaf are concerned I doub't they did what was best for the Pakistan. Simply because they were dictators made their negotiating position weak. They both had occupied the post rather than elected and needed recognition. In return for recognition they compromised Pakistan's interests. If you thoroughly look at the situation the country was in just before Zia or Musharaf took power and the situation country was or is when Zia departed or Musharaf might depart you should realize the country was in more problematic situation than the one it was when these people came to power. What ever I have been able to understand is that every general destroyed more and built less whether it be economy, international relations or Pakistan's interest we lost more and gained little.
So bottom line is generals should be resisted in whatever form one can to restraint them from taking power.

 

[fatman17]

Yes I believe the problem is the aid. We have always relied on aid rather than building economic relationship. We should drop the idea of aid and go for economic partnership. More access for our products and some sort of trade benefits.
As far as Zia or Musharaf are concerned I doub't they did what was best for the Pakistan. Simply because they were dictators made their negotiating position weak. They both had occupied the post rather than elected and needed recognition. In return for recognition they compromised Pakistan's interests. If you thoroughly look at the situation the country was in just before Zia or Musharaf took power and the situation country was or is when Zia departed or Musharaf might depart you should realize the country was in more problematic situation than the one it was when these people came to power. What ever I have been able to understand is that every general destroyed more and built less whether it be economy, international relations or Pakistan's interest we lost more and gained little.
So bottom line is generals should be resisted in whatever form one can to restraint them from taking power.

who will resist them (generals) from taking over - they are always welcomed as saviours of the nation - sweets are distributed and vice-versa when civilian rule takes over - we r a fickle lot what!

 

[fatman17]

SinoDefence.com - Leading online source of information on China's military power

"Gaoxin Project" - Y-8 Electronic Warfare Aircraft

Last updated: 2 May 2008

Y-8

Shaanxi Aircraft Industry (Group) Co. has been developing a range of special purposes aircraft based on its Y-8 turboprop transport platform since the late 1990s. The development programme, known as “Gaoxin Project” (Gaoxin = “High & New&#8221, consists of at least seven variants for airborne early warning and control (AEW&C), electronic warfare (EW), electronic intelligence (ELINT), and communication relay roles. The main contractor of the electronic systems onboard these aircraft is the China Electronic Technology Group Corporation (CETC).

Y-8 EW/ELINT ("Gaoxin 1")


"Gaoxin 1" Y-8 electronic intelligence aircraft

The “Gaoxin 1” project is an electronic warfare (EW) and electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft based on the Y-8C airframe. The aircraft features a large canoe-shape radome under the forward fuselage, possibly housing a phased array radar or ECM antenna. The aircraft retained the glass-in nose of the Y-8C, but had the rear loading ramp removed and replaced by an array of electronic equipment antennas. More antennas can be found under the fuselage between the main landing gears. At least two examples (“21011” and “21013&#8221 have been identified in service with the Nanjing Military Region Air Force (MRAF).

Y-8 SIGINT ("Gaoxin 2")

"Gaoxin 2" Y-8 signals intelligence aircraft

The “Gaoxin 2” project is a signals intelligence (SIGINT) aircraft based on the Y-8C platform, equipped with an extensive array of sophisticated equipment to monitor enemy electronic activities. The aircraft features a large under-chin radome and a large semi-spherical radome on top of the fuselage before the vertical tailfin, both of which could be used to house electronic equipment antennas. The aircraft also has a number of smaller radomes and electronic antennas attached to its fuselage.

The PLA Naval Aviation Corps currently deploys a small number of the aircraft. The first example carrying serial number ‘9351’ was first spotted in operational service with the PLA Naval Aviation 1st Independent Regiment from its base in Laiyang Naval Air Station, Shangdong Province in Summer 2004. A second example was later identified serving with another naval aviation independent regiment at an unknown location. The aircraft has also been spotted flying near the Japanese coast since 2006.

Y-8 Communication Relay ("Gaoxin 3")

"Gaoxin 3" Y-8 communication relay aircraft

The “Gaoxin 3” project is a communication relay aircraft designed to facilitate air/ground communications in the battlefield. The aircraft serves as a communication node in an integrated C3I network to connect the ground forces commanders with combat aircraft during a joint services operation. The aircraft features a large semi-spherical radome located on the back of the fuselage, which possibly houses a satellite communication (SATCOM) antenna, as well as a number of electronic antennas attached to the fuselage.

YG-8 Electronic Warfare ("Gaoxin 4")

"Gaoxin 4" K/JYG-8 electronic warfare aircraft

The “Gaoxin 4” project is an electronic warfare aircraft designed for standoff electronic countermeasures (ECM) missions. The aircraft features two large cheek fairings, a smaller fairing on top of the vertical tailfin, and a cylinder-shape fairing under the fuselage. There are also a number of electronic antennas attached to the fuselage. An ECM suite onboard the aircraft could jam enemy radar and communications over a long distance, so that the aircraft does not have to enter the range enemy’s air defence.

The aircraft is known as YG-8 or K/JYG-8 in its military designation. So far only example has been identified in service with the PLAAF, carrying a registration number “21015”. The aircraft will replace the obsolete HD-5 EW/ECM aircraft based on the H-5 (IL-28) platform.

KJ-200 AEW&C ("Gaoxin 5")

"Gaoxin 5" KJ-200 airborne early warning aircraft

The “Gaoxin 5” project is an airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft equipped with a linear-shape active electronically steered array (AESA) radar similar to the Swedish Ericsson PS-890 Erieye. The development programme possibly began in the late 1990s, with a prototype based on the Y-8F200 airframe first flying in November 2001. A second prototype based on the newer Y-8F600 airframe first flew in January 2005, but was lost during an air crash on 4 June 2006.

In October 2004, a Y-8F200 turboprop transport aircraft was spotted undergoing modification to be fitted with a linear-shape ESA-type airborne early warning radar at Shaanxi. Later it was revealed that the AEW&C aircraft programme had been in development since the late 1990s, in parallel with the KJ-2000/A-50I AWACS development project at Xi’an Aircraft Corporation (XAC). With the larger, more sophisticated KJ-2000 performing long-range, comprehensive aerial patrolling and control roles, the smaller KJ-200/Y-8 AEW can provide a less expensive platform for tactical AEW and electronic intelligence roles.

The KJ-200 AEW system is based on the Y-8F600 platform, which is also known as “Category-III Platform”. (The Category-I and -II platforms refer to the non-pressurised basic variant Y-8 and pressurised Y-8C respectively) The aircraft is fitted with Western avionics for improved performance. The development of the airframe has been carried out jointly by Shaanxi Aircraft Industry (Group) Co. and the Antonov Design Bureau of Ukraine. Improvements on Y-8F600 include:

A two-man cockpit fitted with modernised avionics including U.S. Honeywell navigation system
Removal of the ‘glass-in’ nose to provide additional space for mission equipment
Four Pratt and Whitney Canada PW150B turboprop engines with British Dodi R-408 six-blade propellers
Increased take-off weight and range
Mission equipment pods on wingtips, vertical fin tip and nose
Chinese state-run Xinhua News Agency reported on Sunday 4 June 2006 that a military plane carrying 40 people was lost in the eastern province of Anhui and no survivor was found. The accident happened at about 16:00 Beijing Time (08:00 GMT) on Saturday near the village of Yaocun, in Guangde county. The plane's body hit bamboo forest and its tail fell in fields. Chinese president Hu Jintao has expressed deep condolences over the loss of lives and ordered a full investigation into the cause of the accident.

Although the report did not reveal the detailed model of the plane or the identities of the people onboard, it was later revealed that the plane was in fact the only example of the Y-8F600-based KJ-200 AEW&C aircraft. The aircraft was undergoing system testing when the accident happened. The 40 personnel onboard were from the PLAAF and Nanjing-based 14th Electronic Institute, which was responsible for the development of the ESA radar and avionics systems. The accident also caused a major setback in the KJ-200/”Gaoxin 5” project due to the lost of test data and key personnel involved in the project.

Anti-Submarine Warfare ("Gaoxin 6")

The “Gaoxin 6” project was said to be an anti-submarine warfare aircraft. No further detail is available on this design at the moment.

Y-8 EW/ECM ("Gaoxin 7 ")

"Gaoxin 7" Y-8 EW/ECM aircraft

A new member of the “Gaoxin Project” series aircraft, reportedly designated “Gaoxin 7”, was first spotted operational the PLAAF in April 2008. The aircraft features two large plate antenna arrays on each side of the rear fuselage, a pair of electronic antennas attached on the vertical tail fin, and two large radomes located in front of the landing gear compartments housing additional electronic equipments. The exact role of the aircraft is unknown.

 

[ejaz007]

Fatman 17,
I do not blame people of Pakistan for the response they give when generals take over. Army has been telling the nation since 1947 that they are the only saviours of the nation. However now people have started realizing that this is not the case. Sooner or later they will resist the generals from taking over power.
Bangladesh is a good example. Dictator after dictator came but when people realized that they are not the solution but the problem and took to the streets Bangladesh has not seen any military takeover. They do exert influence but from behind the scene.
Regards,

 

[fatman17]

Fatman 17,
I do not blame people of Pakistan for the response they give when generals take over. Army has been telling the nation since 1947 that they are the only saviours of the nation. However now people have started realizing that this is not the case. Sooner or later they will resist the generals from taking over power.
Bangladesh is a good example. Dictator after dictator came but when people realized that they are not the solution but the problem and took to the streets Bangladesh has not seen any military takeover. They do exert influence but from behind the scene.
Regards,

iron fist in a silk glove - overt or covert it dosnt make any difference!however. i have always campaigned for the army to play its constitutional role on this forum. the common man is too busy with his own personal problems and dosnt have time to come out on the streets in revolt.

 

[Janbaz]

Fatman 17,
I do not blame people of Pakistan for the response they give when generals take over. Army has been telling the nation since 1947 that they are the only saviours of the nation. However now people have started realizing that this is not the case. Sooner or later they will resist the generals from taking over power.
Bangladesh is a good example. Dictator after dictator came but when people realized that they are not the solution but the problem and took to the streets Bangladesh has not seen any military takeover. They do exert influence but from behind the scene.
Regards,

Sir............the army is our core national institution, centre and right/left. It has certain capabilities and the backing of the USA. Unless other institutions can match the armed forces, excepect more of the same!