Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[MaXimMaRz]

I believe it would be three triangle shaped modules in the radome.

No i am intrested in knowing the position at which the radome yoU are placing ....?

DO yoU mean to say its gonna be like the E-3??

 

[Keysersoze]

No i am intrested in knowing the position at which the radome yoU are placing ....?

DO yoU mean to say its gonna be like the E-3??

yes dude the phalcon images have been around for along time now.

 

[MaXimMaRz]

No you haven't provided any figures or facts at all .....listen we have been discussing this for a long time on this forum and seen all the web pages you have quoted....I suggest you look at what the distance to the horizon would be at the maximum altitude for the Il-76 (13000 metres)....Unless the radar is powerful enough to look through solid rock then the distance you are quoting is useless.

1. visUal horizon from 13,000 meter is 220 NM and Radar horizon is 254 NM.
I have mentioned earlier also , Once it comes to Airborne electronic scanning horizon isnt a limitation.

2. and the range fUrther increases as the target aircraft increases its height.

2. the detection range in case of airborne radar is sUbject to its reciver sensitivity , clUtter control threshold , peak power of the radar, the freqUency it Uses. and many other variables

3. The main aim behind the development of a airborne radar was to cater for screening and radar horizon limitations

4. If you keep your radars polarity horizontal , it will give you a better range (keeping the rest constant)

5. There are certain form of EM waves that can curve with the curvature of earth to some extent

 

[Hasnain2009]

 

[MaXimMaRz]

yes dude the phalcon images have been around for along time now.

In that case it will have a larger blind area under it , and the AC will have a reduced speed....

Why would they do that....anyways i still opt for skin antennas

 

[zombie:-)]

In that case it will have a larger blind area under it , and the AC will have a reduced speed....

Why would they do that....anyways i still opt for skin antennas

actually these are designed to have a flexible way to have an awacs

india had embaerer business jets for VIP transportation they sent it for upgrades to be converted into awacs so it is not designed to be an awacs from the start hence this configuration skin antennas are built on aircraft built specifically for that purpose .....

this is what i think any views

 

[Munir]

actually these are designed to have a flexible way to have an awacs

india had embaerer business jets for VIP transportation they sent it for upgrades to be converted into awacs so it is not designed to be an awacs from the start hence this configuration skin antennas are built on aircraft built specifically for that purpose .....

this is what i think any views

The Saab2000 needs extensive changes (structural) to adapt Erieye... So I think no plane is designed to handle weight, electronics wash or obstruction of waves... They need certainly a lot more electric power to generate enough power!

 

[Keysersoze]

1. visUal horizon from 13,000 meter is 220 NM and Radar horizon is 254 NM.
I have mentioned earlier also , Once it comes to Airborne electronic scanning horizon isnt a limitation.

2. and the range fUrther increases as the target aircraft increases its height.

2. the detection range in case of airborne radar is sUbject to its reciver sensitivity , clUtter control threshold , peak power of the radar, the freqUency it Uses. and many other variables

3. The main aim behind the development of a airborne radar was to cater for screening and radar horizon limitations

4. If you keep your radars polarity horizontal , it will give you a better range (keeping the rest constant)

5. There are certain form of EM waves that can curve with the curvature of earth to some extent

Sorry I tried posting earlier but had a few probs with my comp.....

1)The whole point of of AWACS is to overcome the OTH problem.......If it were easily overcome then The US would have already found and used it. The height incidentally is the maximum operational height of the il-76 ( 13000 metres) However it does have its own limitations in respect to the horizon. The longer ranges would only be of use at medium to high altitudes. A low flying aircraft would be able to avoid it.

2)Yes you have stated the obvious here

3) yes but AWACS have the same limitations with horizons as well. It just allows better horizons than ground based radar.

4)not understanding your point here.....

5)Yes there are...but the OTH radars are a lot bigger than anything that fits on a aircraft.

 

[MaXimMaRz]

Sorry I tried posting earlier but had a few probs with my comp.....

1)The whole point of of AWACS is to overcome the OTH problem.......If it were easily overcome then The US would have already found and used it. The height incidentally is the maximum operational height of the il-76 ( 13000 metres) However it does have its own limitations in respect to the horizon. The longer ranges would only be of use at medium to high altitudes. A low flying aircraft would be able to avoid it.

2)Yes you have stated the obvious here

3) yes but AWACS have the same limitations with horizons as well. It just allows better horizons than ground based radar.

4)not understanding your point here.....

5)Yes there are...but the OTH radars are a lot bigger than anything that fits on a aircraft.

1. I dont know what you wanna say ... I please take a specific line, or tell me some case study....your statment is too wide

3. Please See the bold part of your statment at tell me what exactly you wanna say

4. The electric vector of a EM wave ( if you inline them all , then the vectorial dirction of it defines its polarity.

5. OHT have Very less range and Azimuth resolution, They cannot and are not used for tactical purposes, pluse you are right , there are ship borne OHT radars, but no airborne ones cuz the Tx and Rx are of miles
( i think we are going round and round on this thread, cuz my first threat was about the same stuff .....no progress till now )

...Once you talk about the horizons, dont take in account the weather effects or enviormental effects , they will always be there nomatter where we go, we need to focus on the effects due to change in height of the radar lobe or beam, and Phalcon practical ranges are 200 NM , that too on a tangential path fighter

 

[Contrarian]

In that case it will have a larger blind area under it , and the AC will have a reduced speed....

Why would they do that....anyways i still opt for skin antennas

The previous generation Phalcons had the skin antenna's in conjunction with nose mounted ones.

The Il-76 being used for Phalcon has structural modifications(apart from the ones to house the radar), as well as new engines.

 

[Zob]

can the indian IL78 take the structural fatigue of the new engines as well as the antenaa and all....just a thought

 

[zombie:-)]

can the indian IL78 take the structural fatigue of the new engines as well as the antenaa and all....just a thought

sir its funny but i think there will be nothing exclusively indian in the strucure its structurally same as the russian A-50 not il-78 if you are referring to the AEW&C please lets call it A-50I as it is a used platform of the ruaf FROM 1984 there would not be much of a problem ...

 

[circuitbaba]

Max endurance for the Erieye AC is 9.5 hours...lets make it 8 for normal scenario
in one week there are 168 hours
divide that with the number of endurance hours (8) ..then we get 21 missions
divide missions with AC(5)
this translates that each Erieye will have to fly 4 times evry week

Depending they fly for which command..I belive it will be Central air command or atleast the upperhalf of Pakistani air space,,Maybe Southern I am not sure


As far as i have read we are getting 6 ZDK-03...with assumed Air precence of 6-7 hours for platforms like Y-12.....If I use the same formaula each one these ZDK-03will have to fly 4 missions every week....Thats is not a big load on any AC

PAF has Chosen wisely

 

[MaXimMaRz]

Max endurance for the Erieye AC is 9.5 hours...lets make it 8 for normal scenario
in one week there are 168 hours
divide that with the number of endurance hours (8) ..then we get 21 missions
divide missions with AC(5)
this translates that each Erieye will have to fly 4 times evry week

Depending they fly for which command..I belive it will be Central air command or atleast the upperhalf of Pakistani air space,,Maybe Southern I am not sure


As far as i have read we are getting 6 ZDK-03...with assumed Air precence of 6-7 hours for platforms like Y-12.....If I use the same formaula each one these ZDK-03will have to fly 4 missions every week....Thats is not a big load on any AC

PAF has Chosen wisely

Exucse me sir,
Dont we have to count the maintanance days and MEAN TIME BETWEEN FAILure?

and why do u want to waste there precious flying hours just like that?

and who told u they can fly for 8 hours?

 

[qsaark]

Max endurance for the Erieye AC is 9.5 hours...lets make it 8 for normal scenario.

Saab 2000 has a long range cruising speed of 594km/h. At this speed, Sabb 2000 has an estimated range of 2868km. So the cruising time will be ~4.8 hour.