Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[PakShaheen79]

So Pakistan will have two AWACS System in future
1. Swedish: 4 planes
2. Chinese: 2 planes

and both are not Compatible with each other so that means two system will have to be develop at the same time isn't that waste of money from PAF???

Ever heart something like FC-20 and JF-17? Chinese AEW system is for those.

 

[notorious_eagle]

That's it mate, provide me an atricle that explains and not only claims how Erieye will achive that coverage and I'll follow your opinion.
I am mainly interested in this because IAF will have a similar system with the DRDO AWACS, but there is not much know about it so far. So understanding Erieye can help to understand, or compare DRDO AWACS later. For Pak members this could be interersting too I guess, because with KJ 200 PAF also gets another of this 2 array systems and there is also not much is known about it's capabilities. So if Erieye can achive 360° coverage with only 2 radar arrays it must be possible for KJ 200 too.

Its stated on Saab's official brochures that it provides 360 degrees coverage; if they provide wrong information to their potential clients they will get their a** sued. They will probablly have to pay billions of dollars in damages, so there is no way they will put any false information on the official brochures.

 

[Arsalan]

So Pakistan will have two AWACS System in future
1. Swedish: 4 planes
2. Chinese: 2 planes

and both are not Compatible with each other so that means two system will have to be develop at the same time isn't that waste of money from PAF???

correction:
4 SAAB Erieye,
4 Chines ZDK-3 (chines KJ200 modified)

nothing can be siad about the compatiability at the oment as KJ200 is sort of JV with lots of Pakistani input so we may end up with KJ able to support the Erieye. even if not, we wil be having a good fleet of chines aircrafts in future and we will rquire it to suport the JF and FC20!
so it is a good decesion, also as we will be involved in its development so lots of new things to learn!

regards!

 

[gambit]

Thank you for the explaination Gambit! What about ESM and detecting, or tracking aircrafts? Is that possible and in what distance could an aircraft be detected?

According to publicly available sources...

Saab 2000 Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft - Air Force Technology

The electronic support measures (ESM) system comprises digital narrow band and wide band receivers and associated antennae, providing close to 100 % probability of intercept (POI). The digital receiver is equipped with interferometer antenna arrays.

The ESM obtains the electronic order of battle (EOB) data and intercepts, characterises and identifies signals, defines their direction of arrival, generating and displaying warning information. The ESM system operates autonomously and allows real time ESM analysis and presentation to the ESM operator on board the aircraft. ESM data is recorded during missions for post mission tactical and technical analysis. Information is transferred to other onboard systems including the command and control system and the radio data link-controller.

The radar receivers cover low band (7GHz to 2GHz), mid band (2GHz to 18GHz) and high band (28GHz to 40GHz).

The digital RF receiver provides very high sensitivity and selectivity and uses fast Fourier transforms (FFT) and channelisation signal processing techniques. The ESM's wide band and narrow band receivers provide 360° coverage, and close to 100% probability of intercept. The system provides high sensitivity and selectivity in dense and hostile signal environments.

This sounds like a passive reception system of transmitters. If there are no transmissions from anyone from any direction, no detection. Passive receptors are easier to be 360deg coverage than an active transmitter planar array. As long as there are transmitters, their positions, ground or airborne, can be estimated. This is 'tracking' only in the indirect as you are relying upon the targets to provide you with their beacons. Ever play the swimming pool game 'Marco Polo'? For the readers who are not familiar with this children game, the person who is 'it' closes his eyes and yell 'Marco', those who are not 'it', must respond 'Polo'. The person who is 'it' must decide on which 'Polo' to pursue and 'tag' that person, if he is successful since this is play in water. The person who is 'it' can call out 'Marco' as often as he like and everyone else must respond 'Polo'.

A passive reception detection scheme is different only in the sense that the detector is totally reliant upon the transmitters. This sounds like a defensive system to help the aircraft avoid hostiles. At the same time, the direction of whatever is detected, by the target's own transmission, can be used to correlate against the active transmissions that is on going by the other side of the antenna, providing constant update to this "God's Eye" view of the scene. Normal operation would have both sides alternately transmitting. But there would be situations where it is useful to have the side of the antenna assembly that is facing a battle in active transmission to provide as real time monitoring and control as possible. The side that is not facing the battle can be in passive detection mode to alert the aircraft to any potential hostile coming from that side. Not a bad set-up. However, that claim of true 360deg active scan is still suspicious to me.

I am also interested in the Boeing 737 Wedgetail, can you say somthing about the radar performance of it, especially of the top array?
Could this plattform also be used with the Israeli Phalcon system?

The Boeing version remains faithful to the 120deg limitations created by a planar array.

Wedgetail - Australia's Pocket AWACS

The most technologically innovative proposal is that of the Boeing led team, built around an evolved variant of the now Northrop-Grumman MESA radar and the Boeing B-737-700 narrowbody airframe. The Boeing/N-G Wedgetail is "unconventional" insofar as it uses a unique antenna design. Sidelooking coverage for two 120 degree sectors is provided by the L/D-band MESA in a dorsal fin structure, while nose and tail coverage over 60 degree sectors is provided by an electronically steered "tophat" end-fire array mounted in a surfboard shaped radome above the MESA arrays. Angular resolution of the "tophat" array varies from several degrees over the nose and tail, improving by a factor of four as the beam is steered to 30 degrees off the antenna boresight. ESM is carried in wingtip pods.

Personally...I prefer to avoid butting my head against nature's limits. For any AESA antenna, the main lobe will be flanked on both sides by weaker, electronically dirtier and relatively uncontrolled side lobes at 45deg off the main lobe. Side lobes signals are most vulnerable to ECM tactics. Technically speaking, there are many side lobes with decreasing power approaching antenna's physical limits on either side, but the two side lobes at those two 45deg positions off the main lobe are the strongest and easily most problematic.

Imagine the horizontal for now. As the main lobe, or beam if some prefer, is swept from side to side, the sidelobes will also move in keeping with that nature imposed structure. When a sidelobe begins to approach that 180deg position, the wave superposition principle begins to manifest in an adverse condition. Remember that there are many sidelobes and despite whoever said what, even AESA antennas produces multiple sidelobes. So what happens, if you can imagine, is those smaller and weaker sidelobes begins to build upon each other as they have nowhere else to go. This is antenna physical limit. This electronic mess begins to contaminate the main sidelobe, the one that is at the 45deg position off the main lobe, and if the main lobe is continuously pushed towards that antenna physical limit, any target information derived past the 120deg position becomes suspect. Already systems are programmed to filter out sidelobes on hostile environments...

Sidelobe Blanking

Jamming through a sidelobe. If jamming starts to come in through one of the radar antenna's sidelobes, the omnidirectional antenna receives a stronger signal than the main radar antenna. In this case, the summing point detects the unusual situation and feeds into the switch to stop momentarily the main radar antenna signal from passing to the processor and display. This continues until the situation returns to normal (main radar antenna signal strength is greater than omnidirectional antenna signal strength). The receiver may not receive a signal for some time in this case, especially if the jammer can maintain jamming throughout the scan of the radar. In this case, the switch is "off" until either the jamming stops, or passes through the antenna’s main beam.

Just so the readers can have a better visualization of the relationships of these three lobes produced from an AESA antenna, an example from an old mentor back in the business came to memory...I need to implant some FLASH into my brain as I age...

Anyway...The reader should take a hand, any hand, and splay out three -- only three -- fingers: the thumb, index and pinkie. Keep them rigidly splayed out. The index finger pointing straight ahead would be the main lobe. The thumb and pinkie on either sides would be the two main sidelobes. Now imagine many more but invisible sidelobes. As the reader sweep this hand 'antenna' from side to side while keeping the finger 'lobes' rigid, it is easier to see how one lobe will meet antenna physical limit and as power is being continuously applied in transmission, the main index finger 'lobe' will begin to meet a sidelobe. Then problems could occur past that 120deg point. So while it is technically possible to sweep past those two 120deg points on either side, because of the existence of sidelobes, even as small as AESA antennas produces, it is not desirable to do so due to contamination and increased vulnerability to ECM tactics at those two points and more.

With modern day fighters small enough as is and with the advent of very low observables like the F-22, this dancing around those two 120deg points through creative filtering algorithms to reach 150deg (or higher) marketing claims is playing with pilots' lives. In my opinion, of course.

especially of the top array?

The top array is to compensate for the sort of 'missing' coverage area. Caution: I said that currently conformal or shaped arrays are still experimental and that still stands. The Kopp article above has an image of that Boeing and the 'surfboard' antenna have curved ends. Those ends are NOT shaped arrays but only radomes for the flat planar antennas inside them. This is strictly for aerodynamics. They are smaller than the main side antennas and keep in mind that output power is heavily dependent upon antenna physical dimensions. Less power equal to less effective detection distance but not necessarily target resolutions as target resolutions are more dependent upon freqs and pulse manipulations techniques. That is a can of worms beyond the scope of this discussion. That mean the Boeing version will have less effective DISTANCE coverage in front and rear than on either sides.

I am certain much discussions occurred among Boeing designers and the military as to the importance of this deficiency. In a normal AWACS mission, the aircraft would be in an 'orbit' flight pattern around a target area facing an antenna side anyway so it must have been determined this deficiency is not a 'killer' for the design.

Could this plattform also be used with the Israeli Phalcon system?

Money talks but I think it would be more like a complete redesign rather than an adaptation.

 

[sancho]

This sounds like a passive reception system of transmitters. If there are no transmissions from anyone from any direction, no detection. Passive receptors are easier to be 360deg coverage than an active transmitter planar array. As long as there are transmitters, their positions, ground or airborne, can be estimated. This is 'tracking' only in the indirect as you are relying upon the targets to provide you with their beacons.

Actually that would explain why in the official Saab brochures 360° detection is only mentioned in combination with ESM and not for the radar itself. Also it confirms janes:

It is understood that Erieye has some ability to detect aircraft in the 30° sectors fore and aft of the aircraft heading, but has no track capability in this sector.

If Erieye uses passive transmiters in these sectors it can only detect a target if it receives any transmissions, active detecting and tracking seems to be impossible, or is at least limited.

The top array is to compensate for the sort of 'missing' coverage area. Caution: I said that currently conformal or shaped arrays are still experimental and that still stands. The Kopp article above has an image of that Boeing and the 'surfboard' antenna have curved ends. Those ends are NOT shaped arrays but only radomes for the flat planar antennas inside them. This is strictly for aerodynamics. They are smaller than the main side antennas and keep in mind that output power is heavily dependent upon antenna physical dimensions. Less power equal to less effective detection distance but not necessarily target resolutions as target resolutions are more dependent upon freqs and pulse manipulations techniques. That is a can of worms beyond the scope of this discussion. That mean the Boeing version will have less effective DISTANCE coverage in front and rear than on either sides.

Yes that's what I thought, so the only AWACS with fully capable 360° radar coverage are:

E3 Sentry, the E2 Hawkeye and Russias A50 with rotodome, Chinas KJ 2000 and Indias A50 Phalcon with triangle overlapping radar arrays.

The 737 Wedgtail and the Phalcons (older 707 and actual Gulfstream Eitam) provides compromised 360° radar coverage, but with different performances to the sides and front/back sectors.

The Erieye (Saab, Embraer), Chinas KJ200 and Indias DRDO AWACS will only provide a max. of 300° radar coverage, with very limited performance to front and back sectors.

But as I said earlier, every AF has different requirements and specially deployed in numbers, these aircrafts will compensate this disadvantage by overlapping routes as the following pic of Greek Erieye shows:

Money talks but I think it would be more like a complete redesign rather than an adaptation.

Ok, I thought they could be a possible plattform instead of the 3 additional A50s for the Phalcon system.

 

[gambit]

Actually that would explain why in the official Saab brochures 360° detection is only mentioned in combination with ESM and not for the radar itself. Also it confirms janes:

If Erieye uses passive transmiters in these sectors it can only detect a target if it receives any transmissions, active detecting and tracking seems to be impossible, or is at least limited.

If it is true that Jane's source used the phrase 'passive transmitters' the quality of that source should be questioned. There is no such animal as a 'passive transmitter'. Once I transmit, I am active.

 

[Patriot]

I think that one problem is that most of these sources take Erieye AEW&C as same system for all the operators, but that is not the case as PAF’s Erieye AEW&C are generation ahead of any other Erieye AEW&C system in world and This adds to the confusion


Just for example

Saab-340/ S-100 Erieye has an instrumental range of 450km (limited through software)and detection range of 350 km in a dense hostile electronic warfare environment. From its standard operational altitude of 6000 metres (19,685 feet, or FL200) the radar has a maximum range of 450 km (279 miles). Against a fighter-sized target effective range is approximately 330 km (205 miles). Seaborne targets can be detected at 320 km (198 miles), though this is a function of the aircraft’s cruising height. So Saab 2000 Erieye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft has standard operational altitude of 9144 metres so it will have greater detection range then Saab-340 AEW&C.

Saab says the use of new-generation radar transmit/receive modules with 60% higher output have increased the AEW range of the Erieye design, which can also now detect hovering helicopters and track small naval targets to a range of 350km (190nm).

Virtually all of the radar components have been replaced since the Erieye was first fielded in 1996, and all of the computer systems are COTS-based for cost-effective and rapid upgrade. Power output is around 20 percent greater than it was previously, although power requirements, and thus cooling, for the mission system have decreased by 30 percent. The effects of improvement can also be seen in a 53-percent reduction in system weight and 78-percent reduction in floor space. At the same time, computing power has increased a hundredfold.
http://products.saabgroup.com/pdbwebnew/GetFile.aspx?PathType=ProductFiles&FileType=Files&Id=8011
Primary and Secondary Radar together do provide 360 degree coverage although I am assuming that 'High Performance Tracking' and 'Priority Air Target Tracking' may only be provided by the Primary Surveillance Radar.

Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR): Uses Phased-array technology, which ensures high performance over land and sea with outstanding flexibility.

Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR/IFF): Is integrated with the Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) and covers 360 degrees. The different modes – 1, 2, 3/A, C, and 4 – can be used.

ERIEYE AEW&C System

Please see the first graph at the bottom of page 3 of the document above and note:

1) Range = 450 km and
2) Coverage = 360 degrees.
Source: http://products.saabgroup.com/pdbwebnew/GetFile.aspx?PathType=ProductFiles&FileType=Files&Id=8011

 

[hj786]

I think that one problem is that most of these sources take Erieye AEW&C as same system for all the operators, but that is not the case as PAF’s Erieye AEW&C are generation ahead of any other Erieye AEW&C system in world and This adds to the confusion

What confusion? Erieye's radar gives 120-150 degree coverage on each side of the aircraft and the ESM suite gives 360 degree coverage.

Until we can get confirmation that it uses extra radar emitters to cover front/rear radar blind spots, it does not have proper 360 degree radar coverage. Something which it doesn't even need because these aircraft always fly orbital patterns looking to one side of the aircraft, as Gambit said, which also allows the ESM receivers on other side of the aircraft to monitor enemy signals without interference from the Erieye radar. If they fly any other way then they either end up too far away or too close to the action. Sure the InAF will try to exploit the areas with less coverage (shown in the map posted by Sancho) but the Swedish, Greek, Thai, Brazilian and Mexican air forces don't think this it is such a big issue. Neither do the PLA Navy who have inducted several KJ-200.

Seems to me that people comparing the phalcon with the Erieye are talking nonsense. If I remember right, according to the reported contract prices of each you can buy three Saab 2000 Erieye for every one phalcon. Its like comparing the Dassault Rafale with the JF-17, if you're going to compare them fairly then compare the price as well as the capabilities, compare three Saab 2k Erieye with one phalcon. In Pakistan's case, compare 4 Erieyes and 4 KJ-200.

 

[BoggedDown]

Why EriEye T/R modules have to be arranged in l-shape double sided arrays? They can be arranged in S, I or Z-shaped or <=>-shaped arrays, for example Sides= 2X80 + Front/Back = 2X16 total = 192 T/R modules for 360 degree active coverage . Also "signal direction capability" (? I do not know the correct term) of a T/R module is important. For example if a T/R module "signal direction capability" = +/-90 degree than 360 degree can be achieved using a l-shaped array as well.


The Greek Air Force EriEye radar is of Argus version. But PAF EriEye is of a complete new design version called Horizon. Its full capability and specification is not public yet. PAF will be the launch customer of Horizon EriEye radar which is still in devlopement/testing phase.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well , technically

If , the ERIEYE can't see in front why not fly the plane turn it in air so the side that needs visualization can come in focus , it can't be hard, with support from 300 JF17 thunders to protect the AWAC

 

[inferno]

Indians are inducting NOVATOR K-100 Awacs killer special missile.
Sukhoi Su-30MKI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PakShaheen79]

Why EriEye T/R modules have to be arranged in l-shape double sided arrays? They can be arranged in S, I or Z-shaped or <=>-shaped arrays, for example Sides= 2X80 + Front/Back = 2X16 total = 192 T/R modules for 360 degree active coverage . Also "signal direction capability" (? I do not know the correct term) of a T/R module is important. For example if a T/R module "signal direction capability" = +/-90 degree than 360 degree can be achieved using a l-shaped array as well.


The Greek Air Force EriEye radar is of Argus version. But PAF EriEye is of a complete new design version called Horizon. Its full capability and specification is not public yet. PAF will be the launch customer of Horizon EriEye radar which is still in devlopement/testing phase.

Wasn't it handed over to PAF some time back and isn't it under trial by PAF in Sweeden?

 

[graphican]

Well , technically

If , the ERIEYE can't see in front why not fly the plane turn it in air so the side that needs visualization can come in focus , it can't be hard, with support from 300 JF17 thunders to protect the AWAC

300 JF17 to protect AWACS? I think you are talking of year 2022.. Yea?

 

[waqasjj]

Its must 4 Pakistan to do something to get dis technology

 

[sancho]

If it is true that Jane's source used the phrase 'passive transmitters' the quality of that source should be questioned. There is no such animal as a 'passive transmitter'. Once I transmit, I am active.

No only the quoted part was from Janes, here is the link btw:

Erieye AEW&C Airborne Early Warning & Control mission system radar (Sweden) - Jane's Avionics

Why EriEye T/R modules have to be arranged in l-shape double sided arrays? They can be arranged in S, I or Z-shaped or <=>-shaped arrays, for example Sides= 2X80 + Front/Back = 2X16 total = 192 T/R modules for 360 degree active coverage . Also "signal direction capability" (? I do not know the correct term) of a T/R module is important. For example if a T/R module "signal direction capability" = +/-90 degree than 360 degree can be achieved using a l-shaped array as well.


The Greek Air Force EriEye radar is of Argus version. But PAF EriEye is of a complete new design version called Horizon. Its full capability and specification is not public yet. PAF will be the launch customer of Horizon EriEye radar which is still in devlopement/testing phase.

Of course that would be possible, but so far all sources are claiming the same 2 side radar arrays like the Greek, or Brazilian Erieye has. Extra front or back arrays are not mentiond anywhere, but that's what I wanted to know. Will there be really somthing new to provide 360° radar coverage or not.