PakShaheen79
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 2,548
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
why not we buy american awacs
Pakistan wanted E-3Cs but US denied and offered E-2s which Pakistan rejected in favor of Erieye.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
why not we buy american awacs
hahaha....Thanks for the source! The key point in this debate is not only if 360° coverage can be achieved, but also how and with what performance?
It is a fact that the 2 array system can only provide full detection and tracking to a specific degree of both sides (for the new Erieye system 2 x 150° is often claimed). Even the official Saab video shows detection only in this area! So if 360° can be achieved via ESM, how good is the performance in the missing areas?
I didn't see a single source (not only of Saab Erieye, also EMB Erieye, or DRDO AWACS) that proves the same, or at least nearly the same performance via ESM. Janes says that detection is limited and tracking is not possible in these areas.
And even if we go just by logic, if 360° with comparable performance to all sides would be possible, all countries would just use such systems simple systems right? But the fact that Nato, US, Israel, Russia and even China uses other systems with more, or rotating radar arrays as main AWACS systems, means that these must give some advantages that the 2 array system don't has.
At the end it is also a point of how your threat environment looks like. As you said PAF just need to concentrate on one side of the border and if those aircrafts flys along the the border the missing detection in front and back won't be a big problem, especially if more of them are available.
IAF in comparison must concentrate on several border regions, that's why the A50 Phalcon system is better for our requirements. But as an addition such a 2 array AWACS aircraft will be a good and cheap choice, even they are not as capable.
Really? Why is the Erieye-style array much cheaper then?For your information building a triangle configuration is easier than dual side antenna of Erieye like planes.
That is impossible, phased array radars can't do 180 degree coverage. For Erieye to have 360 degree radar coverage it needs extra radar emittors placed in the nose/tail of the aircraft, or in the dorsal array facing forward/backward. Erieye's 150 degree coverage on each side of the dorsal array is very good, the Wedgetail radar only manages 120 degree coverage according to information released.whereas Erieye antenna covers both sides up to 180 degree (2 x 180=360).
No you can't, because Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&C is just as "complete" an AWACS platform as phalcon. Phalcon's advantage is in aerial refuelling, space for extra crew working in shifts, more space for upgrades, already compatible with israeli communications systems inside other InAF platforms (especially fighters). Now please either search for yourself to find the difference between the two, or save yourself the trouble because you are going to find out that AWACS and AEW&C mean exactly the same thing!If you want to listen any advantage IAF's Phalcon have over Erieye I can also tell you that one as well. Phalcon is complete AWACS where as Erieye is AEW&C plat form. Now please search your self what is difference between two?
It's not just a try to make Erieye bad or something, that's why I also mentioned the DRDO AWACS which has the same disadvantage and I said this before too! But as I said, I never saw a single source that claims 360° coverage and explains how and if the performance of the system is mentioned (detection and tracking range) it is always only about the performance of the radar arrays to the side. So if 360° coverage could be achieved, why is nothing known about it, like 200 Km detection to the front and back? I just want to know more about it and if it is limited, how limited exactly, that's all.oh come on now dear,,
how can you manage to come up with this post even after all the explanation given,, now if we clear the point of how good its performance actually is then the next question is is this evn going to work, or a debate about the platform that will carry it will start,,
i wonder how can one manage oo stick to his views after such indetail explanation?? i dont think the last post was posted by you, it must be a bug in your PC for sure,,
regards!
It is a fact that the 2 array system can only provide full detection and tracking to a specific degree of both sides (for the new Erieye system 2 x 150° is often claimed).
I read it, but the green text is only talking about the radar arrays! The ESM talks about intercepting signals. You can detect aircrafts with ESM, but I doubt (till I see a source that says something else) that it can detect it in the same range like the radar arrays can do.hahaha....
Lol .. Did you read my post # 895. Just go through green text once again. Dear It says "The ESM's wide band and narrow band receivers provide 360° coverage, and close to 100% probability of intercept". How you will interpret 100% probability of intercept notion, smarty?
That is not true! The old Erieye system provides 2 x 120° and the new on Saab 2000 and EMB Erieye provides 2 x 150° radar detection! Check Ironmans and Wild Peaces sources, they confirms that.For Triconfiguration like on Y-2000, E-C, Phalecon etc. have three antenna of 120 degree coverage each in such a manner that where coverage of one finishes next one picks it next angle and so on to third antenna to complete 360 degree coverage. (120 x 3 =360) whereas Erieye antenna covers both sides up to 180 degree (2 x 180=360).
Neither did I! I just pointed out that both airforces have different requirements and that's why they need different systems, or plattforms.I did not post any comparison with IAF;s A-50s. If you want to listen any advantage IAF's Phalcon have over Erieye I can also tell you that one as well.
Oh please not you again! This has nothing to do with ego, or indo - pak, just learning and understanding about different systems!A indian ego satisfying fact?
well you know that Wedgetail for a fact has full 360 coverage..
i never meant to offened you, sorry if you take it like that,It's not just a try to make Erieye bad or something, that's why I also mentioned the DRDO AWACS which has the same disadvantage and I said this before too! But as I said, I never saw a single source that claims 360° coverage and explains how and if the performance of the system is mentioned (detection and tracking range) it is always only about the performance of the radar arrays to the side. So if 360° coverage could be achieved, why is nothing known about it, like 200 Km detection to the front and back? I just want to know more about it and if it is limited, how limited exactly, that's all.
Really? Why is the Erieye-style array much cheaper then?
That is impossible, phased array radars can't do 180 degree coverage. For Erieye to have 360 degree radar coverage it needs extra radar emittors placed in the nose/tail of the aircraft, or in the dorsal array facing forward/backward. Erieye's 150 degree coverage on each side of the dorsal array is very good, the Wedgetail radar only manages 120 degree coverage according to information released.
Any ESM platform has 360 degree coverage as long as the platform doesn't get in the way of the receivers.
No you can't, because Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&C is just as "complete" an AWACS platform as phalcon. Phalcon's advantage is in aerial refueling, space for extra crew working in shifts, more space for upgrades, already compatible with israeli communications systems inside other InAF platforms (especially fighters). Now please either search for yourself to find the difference between the two, or save yourself the trouble because you are going to find out that AWACS and AEW&C mean exactly the same thing!
The Argus can be fitted with four multifunction workstations for airborne controllers. However, in service with the Swedish Air Force the aircraft does not carry controllers, instead the onboard automated systems datalinks the information the radar receives to ground stations, which in turn can transmit commands back to the aircraft. In this configuration, the Argus functions as a highly efficient airborne radar and is completely integrated with the Swedish Air Defence system (StriC-90). Delivery of the six aircraft to the Swedish Air Force took place between 1997 and 1999 and the aircraft are operated by F16M at Malmslat
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/saab%20argus.htm
Now if that is true for PAF's version then your argument is pretty valid as it will add a "C" with AEW role of Erieye making it AEW&C. Otherwise this C only came with the help of Ground station which is a major difference between a classic AEW&C and AWACS.In the SIGSTAR mission, the aircraft becomes operational immediately after takeoff, performing COMINT, ELINT, ESM missions supported by real-time analysis or offline analysis both onboard and on the ground
http://defense-update.com/features/2008/july08/saab2000_specialmission.html
I read it, but the green text is only talking about the radar arrays! The ESM talks about intercepting signals. You can detect aircrafts with ESM, but I doubt (till I see a source that says something else) that it can detect it in the same range like the radar arrays can do.
That is not true! The old Erieye system provides 2 x 120° and the new on Saab 2000 and EMB Erieye provides 2 x 150° radar detection! Check Ironmans and Wild Peaces sources, they confirms that.
And that is exactly what I want to know, if you can get the rest 60° of coverage via ESM, what performance without a radar can be achieved?
Neither did I! I just pointed out that both air forces have different requirements and that's why they need different systems, or platforms.
Pakistan need more airborne radars
wooops,,
bro we are getting 4 erieys olus 2 KJ200,
are you sure that you mean more then even this,
keep in mind the locationa and total are they have to cover and the number of fighter they have to assist. do not only think about IAF procurements!!
regards!