Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[PakShaheen79]

why not we buy american awacs

Pakistan wanted E-3Cs but US denied and offered E-2s which Pakistan rejected in favor of Erieye.

 

[PakShaheen79]

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.

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?

Why would PAF need any website to confirm Erieye performance in front and back spheres when it has its hands on original plane, lol

For your information building a triangle configuration is easier than dual side antenna of Erieye like planes.

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).

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. Phalcon is complete AWACS where as Erieye is AEW&C plat form. Now please search your self what is difference between two?

 

[Sapper]

<quote>
AEW&C is also known by the older terms "Airborne Early Warning" (AEW) and "Airborne Warning and Control System" (AWACS)
</quote>

WOW

 

[hj786]

For your information building a triangle configuration is easier than dual side antenna of Erieye like planes.

Really? Why is the Erieye-style array much cheaper then?

whereas Erieye antenna covers both sides up to 180 degree (2 x 180=360).

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.

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?

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!
Unlike the dumbass trolls, Sancho is very respectful towards us and you shouldn't use such a tone with him, whether he is right or wrong.

 

[sancho]

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'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.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

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).

A indian ego satisfying fact?
well you know that Wedgetail for a fact has full 360 coverage..

 

[sancho]

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&#176; coverage, and close to 100&#37; probability of intercept". How you will interpret 100% probability of intercept notion, smarty?

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.

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).

That is not true! The old Erieye system provides 2 x 120&#176; and the new on Saab 2000 and EMB Erieye provides 2 x 150&#176; 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&#176; of coverage via ESM, what performance without a radar can be achieved?

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.

Neither did I! I just pointed out that both airforces have different requirements and that's why they need different systems, or plattforms.

 

[sancho]

A indian ego satisfying fact?
well you know that Wedgetail for a fact has full 360 coverage..

Oh please not you again! This has nothing to do with ego, or indo - pak, just learning and understanding about different systems!
Btw, the Wedgetail has full 360 coverage yes, but it uses 3 radar arrays to achieve that (2 to the sides and one top array)!

 

[Arsalan]

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.

i never meant to offened you, sorry if you take it like that,
however it was rather strange that you again claimed that the Erieye will have a 150 degree coverage on both sides, makeing it 300 degree in total and rest of the areas will relay on other sources while the post was clearly claiming that changes have been made to original design to give it 360 degree coverage,,,
however, i agree that it do not have much to do with ones flag but the about the fact that how reliable the soource claiming a point is. in this regard i guess you will agree with the content brought up by various poster clearing the full 360 degree coverage!

regards!

 

[PakShaheen79]

Really? Why is the Erieye-style array much cheaper then?

What exactly you are talking about. Only radar or whole system means including plane and other backup systems on board?

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.

Just read the post 895 once again. But for a moment Ok! even if it get that coverage with some ESMs does it make plane less capable to cover 360 degree? I don't think so. other than that If PAF prefer SAAB-2000 over SAAB340 there are reasons for doing that.

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!

Too much wikipedia is going on... LOL

Let me tell you AWACS and AEW&C are not "exactly" same... YES, they do perform similar function with similar efficiency but it is class of working which is different. I may use some confusing words to describe but i will try to elaborate here what i wanted to say some of differences you have mentioned yourself but those are related to scale of operations like more endurance, more operators, more what i am saying is more than scalability of operations. There is difference in methodology as well, little bit though. Relying on ground station is biggest setback currently Erieye will have viz-a-viz Phalcon.
PAF's Erieye has not yet delivered but Sweedish Erieye has data links which send all collected data to ground stations where it is being analyzed and then it is uploaded again on the other hand Phalcon don't need to do that as Israeli datalinks are compatible with most of IAF fighters (thorugh comm pods).

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

I just read on some sites that he Saab 2000 is also positioned to carry signal Surveillance, Targeting, Acquisition and Reconnaissance (SIGSTAR) mission but would PAF version have this capability it is yet to know whereas any advanced AWACS will have it from beginning.

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

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.
Hope this will explain a little

I didn't intend to be harsh to any one but still sorry i any member felt offended by my post.

 

[PakShaheen79]

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.

it is there in green text where it is stated 360 degree coverage by radar. Now answer of your question is not that simple and BTW, i have doubts if you would ever get a 100 percent answer of this thing.

I am not talking about earlier versions i am talking about up to date data which states that Radar provide 360 degree coverage (with or without ESM system).

 

[Arsalan]

well i have to agrr with this, we never find out that weather the 360 degree coverage is as effective as it is in rest of 300 degree or is it with or without ESM, and if with it how effective is it??
the effeiciency of such platform wont ever surface as they are classified info!

regards!

 

[Engr786]

Pakistan need more airborne radars

 

[Arsalan]

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!

 

[PakShaheen79]

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!

Brother are you sure that we are getting KJ-200 only official name came to surface is ZDK-03 now i don't know for sure what it is actually? A KJ-2000 or KJ-200... can you give me any source, just to educate myself.

Thanks in advance.