Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[SQ8]

That map illustrates the Radar requirements on both sides quite well, @Oscar. It also seems to be good terrain for a first layer of mobile radars backed up with fixed Radar installations stepped back like the older THDs or the newer Swordfish LRTRs. Throw in an Aerostat or two (which are semi-mobile) and the set-up looks good to go. Apart from that Civilian ATC radars have now been cued into the IACCCS. So that works quite ok. Then the AEWACs become 'built-in redundancy' into the system. But one has to remember that the system will not only have to keep looking for Aircraft. But small low-level intruders aka missiles as well. So the IACCCS will use numerous mobile LLTRs in the system. Hence the huge order books for BEL.

You can see then how this scenario is similar for the other side as well. There are very little areas for low level intruders to sneak around. Now add the proximity of bases and the picture becomes much clearer.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

You can see then how this scenario is similar for the other side as well. There are very little areas for low level intruders to sneak around. Now add the proximity of bases and the picture becomes much clearer.

But then methinks that it is better terrain for ground-based radar rather than AEWACs. Even more so; if one (or more) AEWACs gets downed then one gets seriously blinded in that case.

 

[SQ8]

But then methinks that it is better terrain for ground-based radar rather than AEWACs. Even more so; if one (or more) AEWACs gets downed then one gets seriously blinded in that case.

East(west for India) front is better for ground based radars.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

East(west for India) front is better for ground based radars.

@Oscar; now that's a thought. Apart from being a more stable and secured option wrt air-based radars.
Of course there is also the additional option of Space based sensors on Satellites. With their attendant upsides and downsides. It is also part of the full IACCCS plan roll-out going forward.

 

[Dillinger]

@Oscar; now that's a thought. Apart from being a more stable and secured option wrt air-based radars.
Of course there is also the additional option of Space based sensors on Satellites. With their attendant upsides and downsides. It is also part of the full IACCCS plan roll-out going forward.

I have always dreamed of India deploying an IMEWS like space based system along with multiple swordfish ground sensors- effectively plunging the whole region into an unprecedented arms race. Don't think any less of me though sir, I am a despicable being- but its in my nature.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I have always dreamed of India deploying an IMEWS like space based system along with multiple swordfish ground sensors- effectively plunging the whole region into an unprecedented arms race. Don't think any less of me though sir, I am a despicable being- but its in my nature.

Space-based Sensor systems have both their capabilities and limitations and will never be able to overide or substitute terrestrial-based systems. They just have to be complementary in purpose.

 

[Dillinger]

Space-based Sensor systems have both their capabilities and limitations and will never be able to overide or substitute terrestrial-based systems. They just have to be complementary in purpose.

Ergo the "along with" part.

 

[gambit]

I really cant say anything on the highlighted part

However, in the end these are all sensor suites that are made to work together in unison. So when radars for the F-22 can be tested in a 757 testbed. I dont see why you cannot transplant the suite from one aircraft to another provided that you know the wiring, the power requirements and the calibration methods. After all, these sensors also take into account what aircraft they are on...and knowing those parameters or rather knowing how to input those parameters into the system is what matters.
Its like installing a transmission from a car into another, it would work but it was designed from the outset for another car and so a lot of adjustments are required to make that happen.

There are 4 ZDK-03's ordered on soft loans through one of the Chinese state banks.

You are correct -- in principle.

However...

Radome aberration is a major limiting factor...

Near-Field Testing To Investigate Radome Aberration Phenomena

Abstract:
Near-Field testing has been used extensively in the past as a method to determine far-field antenna patterns. Near-field testing has also been used in antenna diagnostic and alignment procedures by reconstruction of the aperture fields. Similar techniques can be employed to investigate radome induced aberrations such as variation of the wall transmission coefficient, tip scatter and bulkhead reflections. The advantage of near-field testing is that the various aberrations are localized whereas the far-field pattern is the superposition of all effects. The approach used here is based on the plane wave spectrum and back-protection algorithm. This theoretical foundation is presented along with a discussion of the limitations on resolution. The requirements of a measurement facility and experimental set up are discussed. Several examples are given to illustrate the power of the technique. These include measured results on a radome with thickness variation and scatter from a metallic tip.

Airborne radar testing platforms usually tries to use the actual radome of the intended aircraft, like how the Belgian C-47 test platform have an F-104 radome.

The word 'aberration' does not mean that there is something wrong with the radome, although manufacturing defects can be included, rather, the word is intended to denote design, manufacturing, and usage as variables.

Radome material and shape affects everything in a radar beam, notably its divergence from the intended pointing direction. So even though a radar package can be designed to be used by several fighters, each radome designed for each fighter, such as F-15 or F-16 and not individual tail IDs, will have a unique radome calibrated deviation that must be used by the radar package to assure reasonably accurate performance. Then once there is a known deviation, there will be a distinct part ID for that package so Logistics will not assign an F-16 calibrated package to an F-15 base, even though hardware wise, both F-15 and F-16 packages are identical from the radar system manufacturer.

 

[SQ8]

Then once there is a known deviation, there will be a distinct part ID for that package so Logistics will not assign an F-16 calibrated package to an F-15 base, even though hardware wise, both F-15 and F-16 packages are identical from the radar system manufacturer.

So essentially this is why even though they are of different sizes.. the length of the Array or beam on the SAAB Erieye derivatives is essentially the same.

 

[gambit]

So essentially this is why even though they are of different sizes.. the length of the Array or beam on the SAAB Erieye derivatives is essentially the same.

Yes. It looks like all they did was change the mounts. Else the antenna assy. themselves looks the same. The key is first the shape then the size -- of the antenna assy -- that will compel the most (re)calibration.

 

[zilahumafazal]

Pakistan's Infrastructure development and China's help

 

[dexter]

PAF's 3rd ZDK-03 Awacs during a test flight in China.

 

[hassan1]

ZDK-03

 

[nomi007]

 

[nomi007]

zdk-03 in background