Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[Hyperion]

Depends on a whole lot of different thing. Range of the radar, type of the airborne radar, look and track angle capability, networking capability of the said platforms to form an effective search grid.... etc etc....

Best guess, with the specs I had read for the Swedish systems, 5 - 7 aircraft airborne at any given time. So do the calculations accordingly, how many will we need to keep an effective watch, how many in backup..... etc etc etc.....? ? ?

In a "optimal-fantasy" scenario, I'd guess 21 aircraft... replaced @ every 5 years. Now is that going to happen? Depends if we hit some major oil deposits or some rare minerals, or economy improves to an extent... well, well, if wishes were......

@Oscar @Arsalan @Najam Khan @Hyperion @Aeronaut @Tempest II @Dazzler :

Suppose that we're at war with India & we'd want to maintain round the clock surveillance of Pakistani Airspace & perhaps up to a 100 km into Indian Airspace just for the latter to act as a buffer so as to increase our response time !

How many AWACs would be need to both (i) provide full coverage of Pakistani Airspace & perhaps up to a 100 km coverage of the Indian Airspace & (ii) to maintain a round the clock presence (accounting for the sorties & everything that would go into that equation) in doing this ?

 

[Armstrong]

Why would they require a 4 aircraft escort in PK airspace?

I had assumed that in times of War they could be sitting ducks for Indian Aircrafts were they (the AWACs) to venture closer to the Border, owing to both of our respective Forward Bases to be right on top of each other !

I had assumed further that instead of letting lone F-16s or Jf-17s to engage in Continued Air Patrols across the length & breadth of Pakistan or the border areas it would make more sense to have an AWAC Group do that from a relatively safer distance & exponentially more insight owing to its larger detection range - Hence why it maybe exposed to danger & it might not be always feasible to have F-7s or Jf-17s on stand by in the nearest base especially if it takes a matter of minutes, sometimes even less, for an aircraft to cross into our territory or ours to cross into theirs, if they are airborne !

 

[Jango]

As for the numbers thing, if you remember, the original deal was for around 6 AWACS if I am not wrong.

Then later the deal got downsized to 4 Saab-2000. Some AVM said that the Pakistani airspace can be sufficiently covered with 4 AWACS, and with the ZDK-03's covering some area in the south and the sea, it is covered,.

 

[Hyperion]

What comes to my mind is cost/benefit of such a wish-list! Why even think so deep? At the moment we have a gazillion more pressing needs. As far as security is concerned, trust me no one is coming to attack. We have one final option that no sane nation on the planet would want us to test.

Hmmmn, a second question comes to mind - Those, lets say, 4 AWACs would require a 3-4, lets say 4, Aircraft Fighter Escort as well ! Assuming that that job would be delegated to the Jf-17, that would translate to 16 Jf-17 to be delegated for that every time !

How many Jf-17s would we require in total for them to be delegated for this task alone ? 40 or something ?

 

[Armstrong]

Depends on a whole lot of different thing. Range of the radar, type of the airborne radar, look and track angle capability, networking capability of the said platforms to form an effective search grid.... etc etc....

Best guess, with the specs I had read for the Swedish systems, 5 - 7 aircraft airborne at any given time. So do the calculations accordingly, how many will we need to keep an effective watch, how many in backup..... etc etc etc.....? ? ?

In a "optimal-fantasy" scenario, I'd guess 21 aircraft... replaced @ every 5 years. Now is that going to happen? Depends if we hit some major oil deposits or some rare minerals, or economy improves to an extent... well, well, if wishes were......

Khan Sahib, koi nectar of the gods ki hiii exports ka socheiii - Woh bhii koi Petrodollars se kum kamaiii ho gii hamareii liyeiii ?

That doesn't look good !

We have neither the resources nor the foreseeable future resources to have 5-7 airborne at a time with them being replaced every 5 years !

What comes to my mind is cost/benefit of such a wish-list! Why even think so deep? At the moment we have a gazillion more pressing needs. As far as security is concerned, trust me no one is coming to attack. We have one final option that no sane nation on the planet would want us to test.

I was thinking more along the lines of a re-appropriation of some funds from the Army to the Airforce & the Navy as opposed to wholly financing it through budgetary increments !

You mean dropping @Marshmallow on to our enemies - She'd eat everyone & everything that moves - Geneva Convention forbids us to be that cruel even to our enemies !

 

[Hyperion]

My dear not just that, you need to keep the aircraft on rotation for a million different reasons. 5 - 7 don't cut it. You need 5 - 7 AT A TIME to be airborne. What about the others? What about the operational costs? What about maintenance costs? etc etc etc....

Meri jan, what will you do?

1. Solve energy crisis.
2. Stem sectarian violence.
3. Annihilate insurgency
4. Build dams (#1)

And the list goes on and on and on and on.... all of these come with a huge price-tag.... so so so ... what will it be my friend?

Khan Sahib, koi nectar of the gods ki hiii exports ka socheiii - Woh bhii koi Petrodollars se kum kamaiii ho gii hamareii liyeiii ?

That doesn't look good !

We have neither the resources nor the foreseeable future resources to have 5-7 airborne at a time with them being replaced every 5 years !

 

[Armstrong]

My dear not just that, you need to keep the aircraft on rotation for a million different reasons. 5 - 7 don't cut it. You need 5 - 7 AT A TIME to be airborne. What about the others? What about the operational costs? What about maintenance costs? etc etc etc....

Meri jan, what will you do?

1. Solve energy crisis.
2. Stem sectarian violence.
3. Annihilate insurgency
4. Build dams (#1)

And the list goes on and on and on and on.... all of these come with a huge price-tag.... so so so ... what will it be my friend?

Yaraaa I was reading up about it in Wiki & they had quoted some NATO Report or something as having said : Modern AEW&C systems can detect aircraft from up to 250 miles (400 km) away, well out of range of most surface-to-air missiles. One AEW&C aircraft flying at 30,000 feet (9,100 m) can cover an area of 120,460 square miles (312,000 km2). Three such aircraft in overlapping orbits can cover the whole of Central Europe.

Assuming the above is true can't we use 2 or maybe 3 at a time & have around 7-8 in total to the job for us !

We already have 7 or 8 !

 

[Hyperion]

Pakistan is very slender and tall...

What's Pakistan's height, from head to toe? Divide that by 400 (as per your research) and you'll get answer to part one. Now multiply those by 2 and add (.5 x to total) = Answer.

Yaraaa I was reading up about it in Wiki & they had quoted some NATO Report or something as having said : Modern AEW&C systems can detect aircraft from up to 250 miles (400 km) away, well out of range of most surface-to-air missiles. One AEW&C aircraft flying at 30,000 feet (9,100 m) can cover an area of 120,460 square miles (312,000 km2). Three such aircraft in overlapping orbits can cover the whole of Central Europe.

Assuming the above is true can't we use 2 or maybe 3 at a time & have around 7-8 in total to the job for us !

We already have 7 or 8 !

 

[Dillinger]

Yaraaa I was reading up about it in Wiki & they had quoted some NATO Report or something as having said : Modern AEW&C systems can detect aircraft from up to 250 miles (400 km) away, well out of range of most surface-to-air missiles. One AEW&C aircraft flying at 30,000 feet (9,100 m) can cover an area of 120,460 square miles (312,000 km2). Three such aircraft in overlapping orbits can cover the whole of Central Europe.

Assuming the above is true can't we use 2 or maybe 3 at a time & have around 7-8 in total to the job for us !

We already have 7 or 8 !

Depends on the AEW&C platform in use and the flight path taken, eg. a racetrack patrol. Control of the air environment though will not stem from only having AEW&C platforms performing their tasks- due the oncoming proliferation of LO and VLO platforms- which will make life rather interesting and quite short for many people. The cardinal point would be the maintenance required on such platforms- round the clock surveillance will lead to extended platform fatigue- the platform being used itself may not be able to match the tempo that you're aiming at- they probably won't be able to. So the hypothetical number of having 5-6 platforms airborne at any given time will require a certain number of platforms to be in reserve. Secondly it would be rather pointless to invest in such platforms without first ensuring an adequate ADGE- lest the enemy uses the superior CR of most of its assets to poke and prod the system till it finds a gap, exploits it, ingresses from multiple threat axes to overwhelm the system. Superior numbers can also be used to draw out the escort in order to exploit the opening to terminate the AEW&C platform. As @Hyperion stated- well rounded assets on the ground and in the air riding on a proper networking backbone (i.e. a dedicated, high speed and high data load AF specific network) is what is required.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Depends on the AEW&C platform in use and the flight path taken, eg. a racetrack patrol. Control of the air environment though will not stem from only having AEW&C platforms performing their tasks- due the oncoming proliferation of LO and VLO platforms- which will make life rather interesting and quite short for many people. The cardinal point would be the maintenance required on such platforms- round the clock surveillance will lead to extended platform fatigue- the platform being used itself may not be able to match the tempo that you're aiming at- they probably won't be able to. So the hypothetical number of having 5-6 platforms airborne at any given time will require a certain number of platforms to be in reserve. Secondly it would be rather pointless to invest in such platforms without first ensuring an adequate ADGE- lest the enemy uses the superior CR of most of its assets to poke and prod the system till it finds a gap, exploits it, ingresses from multiple threat axes to overwhelm the system. Superior numbers can also be used to draw out the escort in order to exploit the opening to terminate the AEW&C platform. As @Hyperion stated- well rounded assets on the ground and in the air riding on a proper networking backbone (i.e. a dedicated, high speed and high data load AF specific network) is what is required.

The bottom line is that it takes a lot of money to fund these sorts of operations. Lots and lots.

 

[Dillinger]

@Hyperion Btw, why in good god's name is the Shanxi Y-8F600 listed with a service ceiling of 10300-400 meters? At least the MTOW went up from 61 tonnes to 65. I thought that the PW engines would have fixed that?
@Argus Panoptes Don't be a killjoy, if we stop the arms race then how will me and @Hyperion build our empire over the ashes of the subcontinent?!

 

[Armstrong]

The bottom line is that it takes a lot of money to fund these sorts of operations. Lots and lots.

Sir aap koiii Dollars hii nahin bhejteiii...kahan seiii funding karooon ?

 

[Dillinger]

Sir aap koiii Dollars hii nahin bhejteiii...kahan seiii funding karooon ?

@Hyperion Dress him up as a belly dancer and sell him to some sheikh with a taste for the extremely exotic, that should be a start a far as far as procuring funds in concerned.

Sorry for the OT post folks, couldn't resist.

On topic, I think @Oscar sir might be your bet bet for the most relatively accurate answer.

 

[SQ8]

You dont need 7 AWACS in the air at a time quite simply because you dont need to cover all of Pakistan. Neither the Swedish nor the Chinese assets look to one side only. Also, there are plenty of ground based radars that also cover Pakistan airspace and its their gaps that the AWACS will cover. Considering the actual sensitive or key areas that need covering there will be a requirement of a maximum of 3-4 AWACS during intense operations and 2 otherwise. You dont need to really care if a enemy fighter flies into "trash land". All you need to ensure is that you can tell if they are taking alternative approaches to attack and be able to get fighters to move into that direction.

 

[Dillinger]

You dont need 7 AWACS in the air at a time quite simply because you dont need to cover all of Pakistan. Neither the Swedish nor the Chinese assets look to one side only. Also, there are plenty of ground based radars that also cover Pakistan airspace and its their gaps that the AWACS will cover. Considering the actual sensitive or key areas that need covering there will be a requirement of a maximum of 3-4 AWACS during intense operations and 2 otherwise. You dont need to really care if a enemy fighter flies into "trash land". All you need to ensure is that you can tell if they are taking alternative approaches to attack and be able to get fighters to move into that direction.

How many AEW&C platforms do you wager India would need to cover both fronts?