Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[Patriot]

Look at the graphic bottom right of page.

Aircrafts = 380 - 400 km
Ships = 280 - 300 km
Cruise missiles = 180 km
Ground Targets <= 100 km

SAAB 2000

Well, PAF Purchased AWACS primarily for Aeriel surveillance not for detecting enemy forces etc.So 380-400 KM is very very good..even if practical range is like 330 to 350KM.

 

[Rank]

Well, PAF Purchased AWACS primarily for Aeriel surveillance not for detecting enemy forces etc.So 380-400 KM is very very good..even if practical range is like 330 to 350KM.

Some one bought a car for just "Standing his car inside roof" not for drive. Example of your comment lol Pakistan spending bn$$ for just primarily Aeriel Surveillance" wow how much money we have if we spend bn$$ on such hardware which we will use for just Primirly lol

Logically we bought Saab for DETECT Enemy Aircrafts and Enemy ground military in War situation or any incoming missile to us "which is Basic use of AWACS".

 

[dbc]

I believe the gray color is not representing ground target identification mark, rather it is showing the range of a ground based radar coverage compared to the Erieye range in red.

So the red and gray are basically the comparison of the Erieye detection range Vs ground based radar coverage.

Kindly re-check my finding.

My bad I misinterpreted the graph, here is why ...

"...Saab is providing a "third-generation" version of the radar, says Soderstrom. "We have six customers and none has exactly the same radar." In particular, its sea surveillance capability is better. Saab says that at 25,000 ft., it can track jet skis to the horizon. Altitude resolution is also improved. Four aircraft can sustain two patrol stations around the clock for 30 days. "

Aviation Week

If you do the math at 25,000 ft the visual horizon is at 311.81 km and at the SAAB 2000's flight ceiling of 20,000 ft it is 278.89.
So according to Mr Soderstrom, the Erieye should be able to track jet skis at sea level from a distance of 279 km which is pretty darned good.

My apologies to taimikhan, I seem to have read the graph wrong .

But do take a look at his second part of Mr Soderstrom's statement
"Four aircraft can sustain two patrol stations around the clock for 30 days."
What does that tell you about 360 ° coverage? It takes 4 Erieye’s to maintain 24/7 coverage of just two patrol stations - you still think PAF has enough?

 

[fhassan]

^^
Please eat some chocolate.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Are you serious? If I had an asset worth a quarter of a billion $'s up in the skies I'd want to know about every little thing heading my way.
RWR is good when the Erieye is illuminated by a hostile, but if that were to ever happen then the Erieye is already in great peril.
Let's face it, and please don't try to sugar coat it with ESM/RWR and SIGINT the lack of 360° coverage is a weakness of the Erieye system – a weakness that could prove fatal for the Erieye in the India / Pakistan scenario.

Are you sure about that? Does India not possess an aircraft carrier and awaiting more? I recall reading about Indian bases in Central Asia, considering this - are you certain your Erieye is secure from the north and south? You also expect to maintain territorial integrity during an all out war, are you certain one or more of your own bases will not fall into enemy hands?

I’ve said this before ground detection range of your Erieye is 100 km in ideal conditions; this fact alone puts the Erieye at risk, since it will have to get a lot closer to the battlefield and fly constrained by its blind spots aft and rear. Also the area of engagement does not remain static, when supersonic jets and hypersonic missiles are in play 100 km represents approximately 6 minutes of flying time at Mach 2.

If you still think 360° coverage is over rated then consider this, the Hawkeye E-2D program continues to mount the linear electronically scanned array APY-9 radar on a rotating dome adding several million in development and maintenance cost – why? Simple, because someone in US Navy thinks 360° coverage is worth the extra cost and maintenance hassle.

Finally, I don’t think anyone here gets what I’ve been trying to convey for a while now I am in no way suggesting the Erieye is a bad choice, all things considered it is a very sensible choice for the PAF. But I do believe PAF needs more than just 4 AWACs/AEW&Cs that have been ordered so far because in an all out war with a numerically superior adversary you will likely lose one or more systems.

oh dear dear madam chocolate.

remember these are air borne radars... meaning they are not limited to one location like illustrated above... notice with the use of only 3 erieyes at same time they are able to over lap each other radar's coverage while covering 95% of pakistan....
and oh god please.... you are making it sound like its a walk in the park for indian navy to dock their air craft carrier on south of Pak and operating freely without being detected by Pakistan navy, TPS-77 long range radars, and intelligence? or are you trying to imply that in case of war erieyes will be operating in isolation on their own without any escort package with BVR AMRAAMs? dont you think erieye/s will be stationed accordingly to the threat, where the threat comes from? if they find out IN AC lurking in PA waters then surely it will be picked and dealt by PN subs, surface fleet, and long range AShW planes.....
their is a option of fitting saab-2000 with towed radar decoys in near future (and PAF wont hesitate to do so) and along with fighter escorts i dont think a high value asset will be a sitting duck for enemy fighters....
so please dont take things out of context.... PAF and USN have different doctrine and a different environment to fight in... You dont need a stealth fighter for close ground support when advance non stealth fighters can perform the task much effectively. USN operates in almost every other corner of the world so a threat could come from any corner so 360degree hawkeye2D is needed... however it does not mean that the platform simply becomes much more superior due to its detection coverage.. mind you 1980s E-2 also had that capability... in case of PAF... main conventional threat comes from only one side of its border which is india on the east... we will concentrate 90+% of war assests towards india while they can only afford 60-70% in return due to a increasing threat from china...

 

[SSGPA1]

I look at this way, till recent past we didn't have any AWAC system and today we do have one. So we welcome and appreciate whatever range or limits the system has because we didn't have this capability in the past.

Kargil, attack on Indian Parliament and 26/11 all happened when Pakistan didn't have this capability and what did India do? Nothing because India is not prepared to take on Pakistan period!

So these AWACs will serve as another reason why India shouldn't attack Pakistan.

 

[dbc]

oh dear dear madam chocolate.

remember these are air borne radars... meaning they are not limited to one location like illustrated above... notice with the use of only 3 erieyes at same time they are able to over lap each other radar's coverage while covering 95% of pakistan....

Another configuration derived from this idea is that of the Swedish Ericsson Erieye, which uses a two sided array in a beam shaped structure, carried above the fuselage of a twin engined commuter airframe. The two sided array used in this arrangement is almost as long as the APY-2 antenna of the AWACS, potentially providing similar angular resolution performance at range, on a very small airframe.

This arrangement however suffers from an obvious and significant operational limitation, as it cannot provide 360 degree coverage, using conventional active phased array technology. With each array scanning a 120 degree sector, the two sided array has a 60 degree blind sector over the nose and the tail of the aircraft, and degraded antenna performance beyond 45 degrees off the beam of the aircraft. With Sweden's compact geography this would probably not be an issue, as multiple platforms would cover a single area, and operating in pairs, the aircraft could patrol in two racetrack orbits set 90 degrees apart to provide overlapping coverage. The success of this scheme then devolves down to the capability of the computer datalink networking which links the platforms to each other or the ground air defence centre, to ensure that a comprehensive picture of the air situation exists at whatever is the central command post.

In a heavy ECM environment, where platform to platform or platform to ground datalink function is interfered with, the two sided array has thus a major limitation.

Carlo Kopp
AEW&C - Phased Array Technology

"...Saab is providing a "third-generation" version of the radar, says Soderstrom. "We have six customers and none has exactly the same radar." In particular, its sea surveillance capability is better. Saab says that at 25,000 ft., it can track jet skis to the horizon. Altitude resolution is also improved. Four aircraft can sustain two patrol stations around the clock for 30 days. "


Carlo Kopp and Soderstrom disagree with your count of 3; I personally think 6-8 is a more realistic minimum for PAF.

The rest of your post was unnecessary since I was working on two incorrect assumptions the first, ground detection range is limited to 100 km and the second assumption was that the Erieye is to be employed by the PAF as an airborne command and control center but instead it appears the platform will likely be used as an airborne surveillance system.

 

[FreekiN]

UAV is online.

Enemy AC130 inbound!

Sorry, it was so tempting. lolol

 

[BATMAN]

@ chocolate
Why don't you reffer to other sources for your quries, if you are not satisfied?

platform will likely be used as an airborne surveillance system.

AEW&CErieye is a air borne early warning plus control center as name suggest.
You should know that with basic characteristics AEW&C can be applied in any manner.... and there can be more than one application, hence why would PAF limitit self to mere survillance? e.g why not guide in missile homing?

to have airborne command or not its a matter of operational philosophy and not a technical matter of basic AEW&C specs.
It appears PAF did not opted for it and indians did! so what does it prove to you or is your point at the end?

 

[MastanKhan]

Growler,

Thanks for the map and coverage---to me it looks like that pak only needs to cover between 120 to 140 degs from each awacs---that should take care of things from one end to the other with 3 aircraft.

DBC---As far as indian airbases in kazakistan---I very much doubt that those bases would be allowed to be used in a conflict---that would be involving a third muslim country in a conflict and that won't happen.

You have to look where we stood yesterday---with no eye over the horizon, now we can peek at things 100's of km away---that is a force multiplier.

With the acquisition of chinese awacs in the future, we will be much better off.

 

[dbc]

Growler,

Thanks for the map and coverage---to me it looks like that pak only needs to cover between 120 to 140 degs from each awacs---that should take care of things from one end to the other with 3 aircraft.

DBC---As far as indian airbases in kazakistan---I very much doubt that those basis would be allowed to be used in a conflict---that would be involving a third muslim country in a conflict and that won't happen.

You have to look where we stood yesterday---with no eye over the horizon, now we can peek at things 100's of km away---that is a force multiplier.

With the acquisition of chinese awacs in the future, we will be much better off.

Assuming the green squares in Growler’s map represent an Erieye and ignoring the unfillable gaps in coverage that extends well into India in at least three places at any given time (remember 60° blind spots fore and aft) three Erieye's is not enough simply because you cannot fly 3 of the 4 platforms 24/7 during a crisis - you will need at least two spares. As for 360° coverage I am still convinced it is essential if not while scanning then certainly while tracking hostiles - because the last thing you want is to lose a hostile being tracked in your blind spot, especially true if you tracking several terrain hugging supersonic cruise missiles or worst several supersonic anti-radiation missiles .
The Chinese system will not work with the Erieye, unless money and effort is expended in making the two systems compatible - an expensive proposition to say the least assuming both parties are willing to work together and agree to share IP.

Conclusion: Y'all will need more Erieye’s minimum 6, preferably 8 or 9.

 

[Patriot]

Some one bought a car for just "Standing his car inside roof" not for drive. Example of your comment lol Pakistan spending bn$$ for just primarily Aeriel Surveillance" wow how much money we have if we spend bn$$ on such hardware which we will use for just Primirly lol

Logically we bought Saab for DETECT Enemy Aircrafts and Enemy ground military in War situation or any incoming missile to us "which is Basic use of AWACS".

Stealth you are an idiot buddy.Sorry had to say this.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Assuming the green squares in Growler’s map represent an Erieye and ignoring the unfillable gaps in coverage that extends well into India in at least three places at any given time (remember 60° blind spots fore and aft) three Erieye's is not enough simply because you cannot fly 3 of the 4 platforms 24/7 during a crisis - you will need at least two spares. As for 360° coverage I am still convinced it is essential if not while scanning then certainly while tracking hostiles - because the last thing you want is to lose a hostile being tracked in your blind spot, especially true if you tracking several terrain hugging supersonic cruise missiles or worst several supersonic anti-radiation missiles .
The Chinese system will not work with the Erieye, unless money and effort is expended in making the two systems compatible - an expensive proposition to say the least assuming both parties are willing to work together and agree to share IP.

Conclusion: Y'all will need more Erieye’s minimum 6, preferably 8 or 9.

Count in the 4 Chinese ones too, which most probably would be having 360 coverage.

So 4+4=8, not a bad strength. Plus who knows we order more Eriieyes or even the Chinese systems, making the figure go past 10.

But i believe 8-10 would be sufficient enough, complemented by land based radars, a long range SAM system and a good sized AF.

 

[TangoViking]

The Hawkeye can't in any version scan 360 all at the same time, it acheives so called 360 by not having the fast refresh rate of a fixed system. If you have the dome rotating and spot a cruise missile... can you afford the many seconds it takes to get another update? No, so the E-2D method is to stop the dome and look into interesting areas. That also means it's no longer refreshing 360. By changing the array in the E-2C to a ESA in 2D they could reduce refresh rates without any redesign to the aircraft and functionallity. But still for priority tracking the array must be fixed like the arrays on ALL aesa-based AEW's around the world.

When would the PAF need full 360 on the radar? Both the IAF and PAF AEW's would naturally fly alongside the border to support the situational picture. The other option, flying towards the border means very soon you will be close to crossing over. In just a few minutes. That serves no purpose and is illogical. And then there's the ground radars and other AEW's that also watch the sky so the aircraft itself doesnt only have its own tactical methods for flying the radar and a long range SPS to rest on.

People who dismisses the ESM/IFF/HES-21 as only a RWR is blatantly wrong.

There's no reason why the Chinese systems wouldn't work with the erieyes in both contributing to the joint situational picture.

 

[blain2]

Assuming the green squares in Growler&#8217;s map represent an Erieye and ignoring the unfillable gaps in coverage that extends well into India in at least three places at any given time (remember 60&#176; blind spots fore and aft) three Erieye's is not enough simply because you cannot fly 3 of the 4 platforms 24/7 during a crisis - you will need at least two spares. As for 360&#176; coverage I am still convinced it is essential if not while scanning then certainly while tracking hostiles - because the last thing you want is to lose a hostile being tracked in your blind spot, especially true if you tracking several terrain hugging supersonic cruise missiles or worst several supersonic anti-radiation missiles .
The Chinese system will not work with the Erieye, unless money and effort is expended in making the two systems compatible - an expensive proposition to say the least assuming both parties are willing to work together and agree to share IP.

Conclusion: Y'all will need more Erieye&#8217;s minimum 6, preferably 8 or 9.

Please see post 1470 for some background on this now inane discussion.

As to the your points about the need for more, there should be realization that Over the Horizon radar coverage as afforded by the Erieyes is not the only asset available to Pakistan. We have a very well integrated ground based radar network available too. Although some gaps remain however between the ground based radars and the Erieyes, PAF will be in a very good overall situation to get early warning of any impending ingresses.

The threat to Pakistan is primarily uni-directional and in the past when we have had to face threats from both the Eastern and Western borders, we have employed our ground based radars to cater to such needs. The employment of Erieyes will be no different and more importantly, the Erieyes will fill the gaps that the ground based radar coverage has. As such optimal employment and sensor fusion is more important to the PAF than worrying about maintaining 3-4 AEW flights simultaneously on station 24x7 given the current envisaged threat.

In case of hostilities, IAF will be moving many of their assets closer to the Pakistan border in any case. In such cases, although early warning by Erieye will be better than what is available currently, even then it will be limited (this goes for India as well) because the attacking aircraft are so close to their intended targets. As such the role of Pakistani Erieyes will not just be providing early warning and doing so all on their own, because as stated, they will be backed by a pretty well integrated layer of recently upgraded ground based radars. Secondly, Erieyes will be providing the very essential control function to the combat assets and for this the numbers purchased from Sweden and those to be acquired from China will suffice.

Lets also not forget that contrary to your assertion, 360 degree coverage for the PAF was/is not a deal breaker as we were offered the most upgraded version of Hawkeye 2000 based on the APS-145 radar which not only provides very good tracking ranges, but also offers full 360 degree coverage. Despite this, PAF had issues with its performance in certain regimes/terrains and these requirements were met by the Erieye despite the full 360 degree coverage issue.