Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[fatman17]

Look at this about PAF Dassult Falcon 20 from Wiki:

Operated by No. 24 Blinders Squadron which was revived in 1987 following induction of DA-20. Participated during PAF exercises in both airborne early warning and ECM roles.[88][89] First participated in a PAF exercise, in the ESM and ECM role, during Exercise High Mark 89 (14 November to 23 December 1989).[90] Also used for ESM/ECM support during Saffron Bandit exercises of 1992, 1994, 1997 and 1999.[91]
Third aircraft delivered March 2008. Original two aircraft flown to France for upgrade and structural overhaul during 2004-2007,which they never returned because pakistan didn't wanted to pay for it.List of aircraft of the Pakistan Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it looks like we just have 1 in our service

this is the main reason info on wiki is not accurate - anyone can add 'mis-information' - all 3 a/c are upgraded and over-hauled and operational at all times.

 

[fatman17]

The first ZDK-03 (S/N 11-001) was delivered to PAF in December 2011. The 2nd (S/N 11-002) is currently undergoing flight tests and is believed to be delivered in March 2012.

 

[Bratva]

The first ZDK-03 (S/N 11-001) was delivered to PAF in December 2011. The 2nd (S/N 11-002) is currently undergoing flight tests and is believed to be delivered in March 2012.

first one should have 12-001 serial number and second one 12-002.

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

first one should have 12-001 serial number and second one 12-002.

The bold part of Serial No's represent the year in which that particular bird is finalized for flight tests.
So the first ZDK-03 which we received, as mentioned by Sir Fatman, in Dec-11 was officially revealed in November 2010. So it was completed for flight trials in early 2011 hence the serial becomes 11-001.
Picture of Second Flying ZDK-03 published in a Chinese Mag in Dec 2011. Thats means it is also finalized in 2011.
You might see 12-___ on third & fourth bird.

 

[Nishan_101]

Although it would be much better to have a bigger fleet of AWE&Cs along with UCAVs and ELINT aircraft then to have several fighters on the air for that role. I am sure that a fleet like this would be much better for PAF:
500 Multi role Fighters
11+ AEW&Cs
5-7 ELINT/SIGNIT
50 UAVs/UCAVs
21 Y-9P
11 CN-235/CN-295P
7 IL-78s

 

[ziaulislam]

^^^^^^
unlikly that we are going to have such a fleet its really expenisve to achieve and maintain.. expect 350 fighters at most along with current AWECS and re fuelors

 

[Nishan_101]

Are all the Erieye operational and I am sure they will be on our Eastern borders.....

 

[dexter]

In Granada,Spain for final test flight.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Again.. baseless conclusions..
You made a statement on ZDK not being advanced and then you made the statement on not knowing anything about it.
How on earth could you make the former without knowing the latter unless the whole idea is just to sulk about everything?

what is equivalence? Do India and Pakistan follow similar doctrines and budgets when it comes to military planning?
In what respect apart from radar Range and endurance has the Erieye not advertised its capability against the Phalcon?
How is their AWACS more reliable than ours? What is the MTBO of their radar and ours?
Please.. enlighten us? Because shooting in the air must be justified.

---------- Post added at 06:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 AM ----------



Pointless posts that have nothing to add to the topic are usually reported by you folks as trolling.

sir,with due respect,this is NOT how you gauge the performance of a radar system,the major criterias are as follows
(thats how a radar engineer gauge the radar performance)-
1)the numerical figure of PAP(power apperature product) of the radar system in dbWm^2(this is actually the product of peak power and the effective apperature are of the radar)
2)the LNA figure in terms of db
3)the power of each t/r modules,for example these days,with the advent of GaN HEMT,it is quite possible to ahieve almost 80W/MODULE,though the usage of such modules is strictly limited by cooling of that radar system(if the peak power of a radar is high,then it can be very well be used as an effective directed energy weapon,for example,N035 IRBIS has a peak power of about 20kW)
4)the beam agility of the radar
5)the frequency agility of the radar

 

[amardeep mishra]

In Granada,Spain for final test flight.

erieye is indeed quite a good platform for PAF,though it is seriously inferior to india's indigenous AESA AEW&C system because of the following,and please dont consider me as some pak basher,i am simply a control engineer puting forward my analysis
1)it has a about 192 t/r modules whereas DRDO's AEW&C had originally 300 t/r modules
2)the length of planar mount is about 8.4m in DRDO's awacs
3)PAF's erieye is seriously restricted to 240 degrees of scanning whereas there is no such restriction of AEW&Cs(though i am sure DRDO's AEW&Cs too cant scan 360 degrees completely like the PHALCON)
4)DRDO's AWACS has the satcom link,which i doubt is NOT present in erieye(please correct me with solid facts,if you find me wrong)

 

[Bratva]

erieye is indeed quite a good platform for PAF,though it is seriously inferior to india's indigenous AESA AEW&C system because of the following,and please dont consider me as some pak basher,i am simply a control engineer puting forward my analysis
1)it has a about 192 t/r modules whereas DRDO's AEW&C had originally 300 t/r modules
2)the length of planar mount is about 8.4m in DRDO's awacs
3)PAF's erieye is seriously restricted to 240 degrees of scanning whereas there is no such restriction of AEW&Cs(though i am sure DRDO's AEW&Cs too cant scan 360 degrees completely like the PHALCON)
4)DRDO's AWACS has the satcom link,which i doubt is NOT present in erieye(please correct me with solid facts,if you find me wrong)

Making this kind of statements need proper links attached with it. A link which confirms Pakistani Saab has 192 T/R modules?

Once Again, Who says Pakistani Erieye is restricted to 240 degrees?

A satcom in Pakistani Awac is not needed based on the requirments. So that's why it didnt have and do enlighten us how come not having satcom will degrade the performance of Pak Saab?

 

[amardeep mishra]

Making this kind of statements need proper links attached with it. A link which confirms Pakistani Saab has 192 T/R modules?

Once Again, Who says Pakistani Erieye is restricted to 240 degrees?

A satcom in Pakistani Awac is not needed based on the requirments. So that's why it didnt have and do enlighten us how come not having satcom will degrade the performance of Pak Saab?

sir,my source is the book named "introduction to radar systems" by merill m scholnik

 

[SQ8]

sir,with due respect,this is NOT how you gauge the performance of a radar system,the major criterias are as follows
(thats how a radar engineer gauge the radar performance)-
1)the numerical figure of PAP(power apperature product) of the radar system in dbWm^2(this is actually the product of peak power and the effective apperature are of the radar)
2)the LNA figure in terms of db
3)the power of each t/r modules,for example these days,with the advent of GaN HEMT,it is quite possible to ahieve almost 80W/MODULE,though the usage of such modules is strictly limited by cooling of that radar system(if the peak power of a radar is high,then it can be very well be used as an effective directed energy weapon,for example,N035 IRBIS has a peak power of about 20kW)
4)the beam agility of the radar
5)the frequency agility of the radar

Then please.. enlighten a Communications engineer who is working on digital signal processing systems on how the Erieye is Inferior to the DRDO Awacs.

erieye is indeed quite a good platform for PAF,though it is seriously inferior to india's indigenous AESA AEW&C system because of the following,and please dont consider me as some pak basher,i am simply a control engineer puting forward my analysis
1)it has a about 192 t/r modules whereas DRDO's AEW&C had originally 300 t/r modules
2)the length of planar mount is about 8.4m in DRDO's awacs
3)PAF's erieye is seriously restricted to 240 degrees of scanning whereas there is no such restriction of AEW&Cs(though i am sure DRDO's AEW&Cs too cant scan 360 degrees completely like the PHALCON)
4)DRDO's AWACS has the satcom link,which i doubt is NOT present in erieye(please correct me with solid facts,if you find me wrong)

1) That depends, on who makes it and what its designed to do. If you mean the same radar family, same maker, and same purpose, then finer discrimination (assuming you have the signal processor to handle it, favors a BETTER detection thresh-hold across the same interval for the array with the more T/R modules. It can be more sensitive for the given radiated signal. More chances for an interpretable signal return exist.

So till there is concrete proof that the DRDO T/R modules are better than those made by SAAB.. Im not buying it.

2)And what is the length on the Saab 2000?

3)No such restriction? How did you make that claim? Both are side looking planar arrays with a generally acceptable 160 field of "perfect" scanning .. and variable search ability within a further arc.. which is NOT 240 on the Erieye.
Your statement is nothing more than self appeasement... unless the DRDO system has two extra arrays like the Boeing MESA for front and back.. I am already beginning to doubt the veracity of your claims overall.

4) Erieye has no Satcom link.. nor was one asked for... The operational requirements of the Erieye do not imagine it to go beyond ground telemetry stations at ANY time.

Your analysis seems very flawed since it seems to be based on assumed Data and not concrete.
No ACTUAL concrete company published data exists on the Erieye Radar's T/R modules, Scanning cone .etc fitted on the PAF Saab 2000. Please do not make the flawed judgement on thinking that the Erieye on the SAAB-2000 is the same as the ERIEYE on the Saab 340 or EMB-145 . There is a marked difference in the equipment(and the relative price we payed for it).
I am very aware of this since I have worked on the integration of the system into our existing C4I network and know enough about it to call your estimate completely incorrect.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Then please.. enlighten a Communications engineer who is working on digital signal processing systems on how the Erieye is Inferior to the DRDO Awacs.



1) That depends, on who makes it and what its designed to do. If you mean the same radar family, same maker, and same purpose, then finer discrimination (assuming you have the signal processor to handle it, favors a BETTER detection thresh-hold across the same interval for the array with the more T/R modules. It can be more sensitive for the given radiated signal. More chances for an interpretable signal return exist.

So till there is concrete proof that the DRDO T/R modules are better than those made by SAAB.. Im not buying it.

2)And what is the length on the Saab 2000?

3)No such restriction? How did you make that claim? Both are side looking planar arrays with a generally acceptable 160 field of "perfect" scanning .. and variable search ability within a further arc.. which is NOT 240 on the Erieye.
Your statement is nothing more than self appeasement... unless the DRDO system has two extra arrays like the Boeing MESA for front and back.. I am already beginning to doubt the veracity of your claims overall.

4) Erieye has no Satcom link.. nor was one asked for... The operational requirements of the Erieye do not imagine it to go beyond ground telemetry stations at ANY time.

Your analysis seems very flawed since it seems to be based on assumed Data and not concrete.
No ACTUAL concrete company published data exists on the Erieye Radar's T/R modules, Scanning cone .etc fitted on the PAF Saab 2000. Please do not make the flawed judgement on thinking that the Erieye on the SAAB-2000 is the same as the ERIEYE on the Saab 340 or EMB-145 . There is a marked difference in the equipment(and the relative price we payed for it).
I am very aware of this since I have worked on the integration of the system into our existing C4I network and know enough about it to call your estimate completely incorrect.

well, sir I'm also an electronics, instrumentation and control engineer, and radar engineering is my favourite pastime apart from nuclear reactor engineering
I am not actively working on any project as of now, though I have experience at BEL,
Lemme have my dinner, and I shall reply you in detail...

 

[SQ8]

well, sir I'm also an electronics, instrumentation and control engineer, and radar engineering is my favourite pastime apart from nuclear reactor engineering
I am not actively working on any project as of now, though I have experience at BEL,
Lemme have my dinner, and I shall reply you in detail...

please.. take all the time you need.
Since technical discussion with official proofs are always welcome.