Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[sancho]

I have strong feeling that this is PAF version...

Interesting but do you mean alongside the Saab 2000, or instead?
Can you tell me if this chinese aircraft offers in-flight refueling?

 

[Arsalan]

Got money?

i wish sir jee!!

anyhow i would suggest to keep the procurment to SAAB and in five to ten years go for KJ2000 instead of getting a chines system right now!

regards!

 

[Myth_buster_1]

i wish sir jee!!

anyhow i would suggest to keep the procurment to SAAB and in five to ten years go for KJ2000 instead of getting a chines system right now!

regards!

in five to ten years PAF is going to have a huge 300 JF-17 & FC-20 fleet so just alone erieye wont be enough. also in ten years their might be something more latest technology available in the market so no need to go for something that will be 20+ years old by then.

 

[blain2]

the phalcon

Lets qualify that statement. Phalcon is not more advanced just because its the Phalcon. It has a greater range and has more powerful transmitters. However range alone does not automatically mean that its more advanced. Swedes arguably make the world's best DL/ECM suites. Their aviation industry is more advanced than the Israeli one and they have just as much expertise designing very slick technical solutions.

There are a whole bunch of amateur articles on the web pointing out that Phalcon is on the high-end, well its on the high-end because of the range/price. However what is best depends on where it is to be used and under what circumstances. In many ways, the Erieye has better performance parameters overall (Radar + platform) than the Phalcon.

I believe most of the people who have bought on to the hype of Phalcon to be the best there is would be surprised to find out that others on the market are not in any way inferior just because you pay less or they have a lesser range (the range issue also has to be qualified because it really is not the end of it all for AEW systems).

From the standpoint of Radar, IFF, ESM/ELINT and CSM/COMINT, both platforms offer these capabilities with very similar technologies. Aside from slightly lesser range and #of transmitters, the Erieye does all of the above just as good if not better than the Phalcon. Both platforms have quite a bit of proprietary technology on board thus a 1v1 comparison is difficult, however in all surveillance and ECM regimes, both have similar capabilities.

 

[Keysersoze]

The question I want ot know is wether it can feather engines like the P-3 in order to prolong on station time.

Oh that reminds me not much discussions of the Hawkeye 2000 at the moment.

 

[Arsalan]

Lets qualify that statement. Phalcon is not more advanced just because its the Phalcon. It has a greater range and has more powerful transmitters. However range alone does not automatically mean that its more advanced. Swedes arguably make the world's best DL/ECM suites. Their aviation industry is more advanced than the Israeli one and they have just as much expertise designing very slick technical solutions.

There are a whole bunch of amateur articles on the web pointing out that Phalcon is on the high-end, well its on the high-end because of the range/price. However what is best depends on where it is to be used and under what circumstances. In many ways, the Erieye has better performance parameters overall (Radar + platform) than the Phalcon.

I believe most of the people who have bought on to the hype of Phalcon to be the best there is would be surprised to find out that others on the market are not in any way inferior just because you pay less or they have a lesser range (the range issue also has to be qualified because it really is not the end of it all for AEW systems).

From the standpoint of Radar, IFF, ESM/ELINT and CSM/COMINT, both platforms offer these capabilities with very similar technologies. Aside from slightly lesser range and #of transmitters, the Erieye does all of the above just as good if not better than the Phalcon. Both platforms have quite a bit of proprietary technology on board thus a 1v1 comparison is difficult, however in all surveillance and ECM regimes, both have similar capabilities.

sir please correct me on this if i am wrong:
according to the information i have went through the range is also noy an issue! the erieye have a dection range of 350 Km against a fighter sized aircraft and the phalcons also fall is 300 - 350 Km category! though for larger target it rises upto 500Km and that for erieye it is 450km so i gusee it is the same!
but yes as far as the transmitter are concerened the Phalcon may have some plus points!
the main edge that Phalcon have comes from the platform that carries them ie more service ceiling more range and air time!

please let me know if i am wrong at some point!
regards!

 

[Munir]

Phalcon can be refueled. But how would you handle 10+ hours flight? You will make errors even with reserve crew. So Erieye has enough potential. And the radar is better suited in heavy cluttered and filled with ecm environment. It can act more stealthy due its pencil means. It is smaller so less handy to track from huge distance. And it is a lot cheaper in maintenance....

Capability are better in closer range.

 

[Contrarian]

Lets qualify that statement. Phalcon is not more advanced just because its the Phalcon. It has a greater range and has more powerful transmitters. However range alone does not automatically mean that its more advanced. Swedes arguably make the world's best DL/ECM suites. Their aviation industry is more advanced than the Israeli one and they have just as much expertise designing very slick technical solutions.

There are a whole bunch of amateur articles on the web pointing out that Phalcon is on the high-end, well its on the high-end because of the range/price. However what is best depends on where it is to be used and under what circumstances. In many ways, the Erieye has better performance parameters overall (Radar + platform) than the Phalcon.

I believe most of the people who have bought on to the hype of Phalcon to be the best there is would be surprised to find out that others on the market are not in any way inferior just because you pay less or they have a lesser range (the range issue also has to be qualified because it really is not the end of it all for AEW systems).

From the standpoint of Radar, IFF, ESM/ELINT and CSM/COMINT, both platforms offer these capabilities with very similar technologies. Aside from slightly lesser range and #of transmitters, the Erieye does all of the above just as good if not better than the Phalcon. Both platforms have quite a bit of proprietary technology on board thus a 1v1 comparison is difficult, however in all surveillance and ECM regimes, both have similar capabilities.

I would also suggest that Israeli's, namesly Elisra is one of the finest in terms of EW capabilities. Israel has niche capabilities that is better than most of the alternatives.
Apart from the range, price, more powerful transmitters, number of transmitters, there is also the issue of number of operators/consoles.

And incase you are talking about the performance penalties of the static rotodome, then you should also have read on the new engines installed on this version of the Il.

A lot of things mate here mate, money does pay off somewhere and you have to accept it. Though for PAF's needs and the threat to IAF, the Erieye is more than sufficient, after all beyond a certain requirement, additional capabilities offer only diminishing returns for the money spent. India has different requirements.

 

[Contrarian]

Phalcon can be refueled. But how would you handle 10+ hours flight? You will make errors even with reserve crew.

Doubtful about refueling. With the rotodome, it would be very hard as well in practice.

 

[blain2]

I would also suggest that Israeli's, namesly Elisra is one of the finest in terms of EW capabilities. Israel has niche capabilities that is better than most of the alternatives.
Apart from the range, price, more powerful transmitters, number of transmitters, there is also the issue of number of operators/consoles.

And incase you are talking about the performance penalties of the static rotodome, then you should also have read on the new engines installed on this version of the Il.

A lot of things mate here mate, money does pay off somewhere and you have to accept it. Though for PAF's needs and the threat to IAF, the Erieye is more than sufficient, after all beyond a certain requirement, additional capabilities offer only diminishing returns for the money spent. India has different requirements.

Malay, you are partial to the Israeli systems thus you state what you state. The fact of the matter is that nobody in the West is producing Radar, ECM/ECCM suites that are a generation ahead of each other. The Swedes have been developing these systems longer than the Israelis and have essentially created a niche for themselves by trying to sell to those countries who were not able to access US E3 capability. By any regard, the technology going into Swedish systems is as good or better than what is being fielded by NATO members and certainly comparable to what the Israelis are producing.

The larger number of operators and consoles help? How so? Can you state that 10 (Phalcon ?) vs. 6 (Erieye) is better? It just depends on how well the sensor fusion and integration has been done and which operator can do the workload of two or more. The key is in the way the information is processed and presented to the user. Not sure anyone even at Elta/Elisra or Ericsson would know this about each other's systems and for us to blindly assume that more is always better has yet to be seen. One little tidbit that I can offer you is that in terms of ECM and secure communications, the Swedes were ahead of NATO when the latter were thinking about DL with Link 16/22 systems. The Swedes had this sec comm. requirement for their Viggens and had deployed a systems way back which is similar to what you folks have on your MKIs (it was for use just between the Viggen aircraft). So there is a lot of innovation and quality coming from Swedens SAAB/Ericsson powerhouse so underestimation is off mark.

Not all of the Phalcons cost the same. You paid more because of your unique integration challenges with a Russian platform and Israelis avionics integration.

I have no problems with IAF going with Phalcon if it suits their requirements (similar to what you have said), however baseless comments like "Phalcon is better" should be qualified with some objective analysis and not just "well it looks and feels better" sort of thing.

On the refueling issue too, PAF Erieyes are fully capable of IFR. Better fuel economy and station time were key clinchers for choosing the turbo-props (its one of the fastest ones around) over jets.

 

[Contrarian]

Malay, you are partial to the Israeli systems thus you state what you state. The fact of the matter is that nobody in the West is producing Radar, ECM/ECCM suites that are a generation ahead of each other. The Swedes have been developing these systems longer than the Israelis and have essentially created a niche for themselves by trying to sell to those countries who were not able to access US E3 capability. By any regard, the technology going into Swedish systems is as good or better than what is being fielded by NATO members and certainly hangs with what the Israelis are producing.

Sure, i am not implying inferior. Im just pointing out that the Israeli experience in the EW/ECM field is quite a bit. Standard US equipment is removed and Israeli ones are routinely added by Israel, this apart they do bag their contracts in the west itself for their EW equipments.
Either way, this is a fruitless line of discussion.

The larger number of operators and consoles help? How so? Can you state that 10 (Phalcon ?) vs. 6 (Erieye) is better? It just depends on how well the sensor fusion and integration has been done and which operator can do the workload of two or more. The key is in the way the information is processes and presented to the user.

It depends quite a lot if you are conducting EW, ESM, or other operations of the sort. Then it depends quite a bit. Would you not wonder consider why countries go for AWACS as opposed to AEW&C's were there no difference. Certainly bigger planes entail much larger operational costs.

Not sure anyone even at Elta or Ericsson would know this about each other's systems and for us to blindly assume that more is always better has yet to be seen.

I agree.

Not all of the Phalcons cost the same. You paid more because of your unique integration challenges with a Russian platform and Israelis avionics integration.

The 'unique' integration challenges were not actually that unique. China had contracted for, and the integration done for a similar system way back. China contracted for Phalcon systems to be put up on the same platform. Israel had done it, then had to renege on their sale because of US opposition to the deal. They didnt do anything ground breaking this time round.

I have no problems with IAF going with Phalcon if it suits their requirements (similar to what you have said), however baseless comments like "Phalcon is better" should be qualified with some objective analysis and not just "well it looks and feels better" sort of thing.
On the refueling issue too, PAF Erieyes are fully capable of IFR. Better fuel economy and station time were key clinchers for choosing the turbo-props (its the fastest one around) over jets.

I agree. I am providing my reasons for the same. There is a reason for difference of the platform, if not the system itself. Smaller countries, smaller economies, smaller threat perception, smaller needs, all play one part or another(depending on country to country) in the choice of the system.

I do assure you, that had PAF been flush with finances and options, you would not have gone for the Erieye. That doesnt take away from what this system is capable of though especially in the South Asian context.

 

[blain2]

Sure, i am not implying inferior. Im just pointing out that the Israeli experience in the EW/ECM field is quite a bit. Standard US equipment is removed and Israeli ones are routinely added by Israel, this apart they do bag their contracts in the west itself for their EW equipments.
Either way, this is a fruitless line of discussion.

Standard US equipment is removed because Israelis want to keep their jobs and military industrial complex financed. Secondly, the Israeli systems are optimized for their own use. Israelis make good stuff no doubt, my point simply is that Swedes are no less.

It depends quite a lot if you are conducting EW, ESM, or other operations of the sort. Then it depends quite a bit. Would you not wonder consider why countries go for AWACS as opposed to AEW&C's were there no difference. Certainly bigger planes entail much larger operational costs.

The distinction between AWACS and AEW&CS is faulty. There is no difference any more. The term AWACS has undergone a generational change and you will only hear AEW&CS. Israeli ELTA officially calls their Phalcon Solution "Conformal Airborne Early Warning & Control" which becomes C AEW&C. They themselves do not use the older AWACS acronym any longer. Neither do the folks at SAAB nor the ones at Boeing selling their Wedgetail. The only ones trying to figure out the capabilities difference between such AEW platforms are those who are clueless about how the nature of the program has changed and that terms AWACS and AEW&C do not automatically mean a difference in capabilities with the former being higher end than the latter. Check the data sheet for the Israeli solution and you will find no mention of the term AWACS. That acronym got coined in late 70s and early 80s when the E3 appeared on the scene.

The 'unique' integration challenges were not actually that unique. China had contracted for, and the integration done for a similar system way back. China contracted for Phalcon systems to be put up on the same platform. Israel had done it, then had to renege on their sale because of US opposition to the deal. They didnt do anything ground breaking this time round.

Agreed! However I do not think that actual integration work had been done by the Israelis on the Chinese platform before the US killed it. You may want to look up the details on the progress of that program.

I do assure you, that had PAF been flush with finances and options, you would not have gone for the Erieye. That doesnt take away from what this system is capable of though especially in the South Asian context.

Even if we had more money than the approx $2 billion we are spending on the Erieye, do you really think that PAF would have gone for the dated E3? Or for that matter Wedgetail? What you fail to realize is that we went for the Erieyes because they met our ASRs and in the time period that we expected. E2s were on offer but PAF rejected them with the PN now planning on taking ownership of the most advanced version of the E2 radar (APY-9). So the Erieyes were selected on merit even though E2s could have been had via FMS just like the PN will be getting. Quality, specifications, schedule and capability of the Erieyes were all key considerations in their selection.

 

[Contrarian]

Standard US equipment is removed because Israelis want to keep their jobs and military industrial complex financed. Secondly, the Israeli systems are optimized for their own use. Israelis make good stuff no doubt, my point simply is that Swedes are no less.

I agree.

The distinction between AWACS and AEW&CS is faulty. There is no difference any more. The term AWACS has undergone a generational change and you will only hear AEW&CS. Israeli ELTA officially calls their Phalcon Solution "Conformal Airborne Early Warning & Control" which becomes C AEW&C. They themselves do not use the older AWACS acronym any longer. Neither do the folks at SAAB nor the ones at Boeing selling their Wedgetail. The only ones trying to figure out the capabilities difference between such AEW platforms are those who are clueless about how the nature of the program has changed and that AWACS and AEW&C does not automatically mean a difference in capabilities with the former being higher end than the latter. Check the data sheet for the Israeli solution and you will find no mention of the term AWACS. That acronym got coined in late 70s and early 80s when the E3 appeared on the scene.

I do know of the difference you are point out. However let me redefine what i said-substitute the term AWACS with "Bigger planes with bigger capacity, bigger radars, more processing ability-lesser dependence on ground stations". You already know examples of the planes i am talking about. My point still stands regardless of the terminology.

Even if we had more money than the approx $2 billion we are spending on the Erieye, do you really think that PAF would have gone for the dated E3? Or for that matter Wedgetail? What you fail to realize is that we went for the Erieyes because they met our ASRs and in the time period that we expected. E2s were on offer but PAF rejected them with the PN now planning on taking ownership of the most advanced version of the E2 radar (APY-9). So the Erieyes were selected on merit even though E2s could have been had via FMS just like the PN will be getting. Quality, specifications, schedule and capability of the Erieyes were all key considerations in their selection.

Options, there are other options, i would easily say that Erieye is not the best the west has to offer. Fear of sanctions or something of the like is a different issue. Again, i would stick with the statement blain, and you would agree, if PAF were flush with funds, they would not have gone with the Erieye.

 

[blain2]

I do know of the difference you are point out. However let me redefine what i said-substitute the term AWACS with "Bigger planes with bigger capacity, bigger radars, more processing ability-lesser dependence on ground stations". You already know examples of the planes i am talking about. My point still stands regardless of the terminology.

Malay,

If one thing time and technology offers us then it is miniaturization of technology with greater capacity. There are no sensors that would only fit on a 747 or IL-78 type aircraft and not on a Saab 2000. The latter is a pretty big platform, much bigger than the Israeli Phalcon platform for the IDFAF. Size does not mean that you are going to have more goods automatically. Otherwise IDFAF would have opted for a 737 or whatever larger for their own version of Phalcon too. You chose an aircraft that gives you more room but also has the same maintenance footprint as your IFR platforms for ease of maintenance. You are already looking at much smaller platforms for your indigenous version of AEW&C platform instead of sticking with the Russian ones.

The Wedgetail solution is being offered on an aircraft much smaller than the IL or the 707 (E3). So these are all generational challenges. Technology is smaller, more powerful and can be packed in much less space than what used to be the case. This is not a case of a nose of an aircraft in which a certain radar has to be housed. The entire aircraft is available and for such capability, even smaller gulfstream type aircraft are sufficient. 5 operators can do a lot more work than 12 operators on the older systems such as E3 AWACS.

Options, there are other options, i would easily say that Erieye is not the best the west has to offer. Fear of sanctions or something of the like is a different issue. Again, i would stick with the statement blain, and you would agree, if PAF were flush with funds, they would not have gone with the Erieye.

Aside from Wedgetail, there is nothing else on the market currently. Wedgetail may be better in certain regimes, but as I have maintained all along, no one system currently on the market is as such where it is the best hands down.

 

[Contrarian]

Malay,

If one thing time and technology offers us then it is miniaturization of technology with greater capacity. There are no sensors that would only fit on a 747 or IL-78 type aircraft and not on a Saab 2000. The latter is a pretty big platform, much bigger than the Israeli Phalcon platform for the IDFAF. Size does not mean that you are going to have more goods automatically. Otherwise IDFAF would have opted for a 737 or whatever larger for their own version of Phalcon too. You chose an aircraft that gives you more room but also has the same maintenance footprint as your IFR platforms for ease of maintenance. You are already looking at much smaller platforms for your indigenous version of AEW&C platform instead of sticking with the Russian ones.

The Wedgetail solution is being offered on an aircraft much smaller than the IL or the 747 (E3). So these are all generational challenges. Technology is smaller, more powerful and can be packed in much less space than what used to be the case. This is not a case of a nose of an aircraft in which a certain radar has to be housed. The entire aircraft is available and for such capability, even smaller gulfstream type aircraft are sufficient. 5 operators can do a lot more work than 12 operators on the older systems such as E3 AWACS.

Mate, if miniaturization was all there was to it, then would you not wonder why all the new AWACS would be based on Embraer type platforms. The same miniaturization allows for integration of a lot more equipment on a bigger plane. This apart there are crew resting areas and numerous other things. And yes, the same 3 operators can accomplish the work of 12 erstwhile ones, but the 12 new ones with many more associated antennae(which would be present on the larger platform) and stations would be a lot more useful. The Phalcon is also of the same generation and rough time frame as the Erieye, so miniaturization benefits vis-a-vis each other are negligible.

It all boils down to size, scale,threat and economy of the country operating the system, nothing else.

India has gone for the Embraer type systems, not because of performance, but because the need for smaller nodes. The strategic level AWACS are here, 3-4 more will be ordered. The rest will be on EMB's as the tactical extensions. This apart, its best to walk before running, something our project managers seem to have learned finally.

Aside from Wedgetail, there is nothing else on the market currently. Wedgetail may be better in certain regimes, but as I have maintained all along, no one system currently on the market is as such where it is the best hands down.

I would again suggest Phalcon, but that would be subject to availability. Not to mention the MESA system's now!

Erieye satisfies PAF requirements and is the lightest in terms of budget and maintenance, thus the reason for choosing Erieye. Again, operative word here being satisfaction of PAF requirements.