Pakistan's Special mission aircrafts Information Pool

[aliyusuf]

As I had said a bunch of times, if we're not going to get new off-the-shelf fighters before Azm, then let's take a serious look at adding the Erieye ER, new stand-off jammers, and a tanker/transport (like KC-390) all to support the JF-17s.

Aren't the 3 additional Erieyes are actually the ER version? That is what I heard. Can you please check and confirm?

 

[Tank131]

Aren't the 3 additional Erieyes are actually the ER version? That is what I heard. Can you please check and confirm?

I have read that the new erieye are not the ER version but the same previous version with that said, given their feb performance, i would not be surprised if there is a move to get the ER version (either as a follow on or as an upgrade).

 

[khanasifm]

I have read that the new erieye are not the ER version but the same previous version with that said, given their feb performance, i would not be surprised if there is a move to get the ER version (either as a follow on or as an upgrade).

Per AFM article on erieye covering all version till Greek buy the actual performance in test was way beyond the instrumented and the function is controlled via software forexample the ground mapping and surveillance was suppressed based on customer needs bottom line you have to pay additional $$

It’s open architecture so you can get commercial hardware and modify, anyway I think of there is a justifiable need then paf will go for it in future otherwise good to go

Paf went with more erieye even though ka-3 were far cheaper so this means erieye out performs ka-3 and paf is happy with it

6 ac fleet cover north and central pak while south is covered by 4 ka-3 may be add one more if needed in future

 

[Tank131]

Per AFM article on erieye covering all version till Greek buy the actual performance in test was way beyond the instrumented and the function is controlled via software forexample the ground mapping and surveillance was suppressed based on customer needs bottom line you have to pay additional $$

It’s open architecture so you can get commercial hardware and modify, anyway I think of there is a justifiable need then paf will go for it in future otherwise good to go

Paf went with more erieye even though ka-3 were far cheaper so this means erieye out performs ka-3 and paf is happy with it

6 ac fleet cover north and central pak while south is covered by 4 ka-3 may be add one more if needed in future

By KA-3 are you referring to the ZDK-03? Im not familiar with this system.

 

[aliyusuf]

I have read that the new erieye are not the ER version but the same previous version with that said, given their feb performance, i would not be surprised if there is a move to get the ER version (either as a follow on or as an upgrade).

I have also read the Quwa article on Pakistan acquiring 3 additional Erieyes. But I would like to have a confirmation though.

 

[khanasifm]

By KA-3 are you referring to the ZDK-03? Im not familiar with this system.

Yeh

 

[Haris Ali2140]

I have also read the Quwa article on Pakistan acquiring 3 additional Erieyes. But I would like to have a confirmation though.

Are you talking about the kits that arrived a few months ago.

 

[aliyusuf]

Are you talking about the kits that arrived a few months ago.

Well I am not actually sure when they arrived but seems like you are right, that is what I meant.

 

[Haris Ali2140]

Well I am not actually sure when they arrived but seems like you are right, that is what I meant.

They arrived about a month or two after Feb. and were mentioned in the annual report of defence acquisitions.

 

[Tank131]

One thing i remain confused about is the actual number of erieye. Originally 4 were there, then 2 were lost. I was under the impression both were repaired. Was it only 1 repaired? Can someone shed light on this?

Interesting to also think that PAF repaired at peast one of the systems and was given the certification to do tye overhaul by Ericsson after they saw the work. I wonder that tye AESA that people are saying Pakistan is supposedly developing, could it be based on the knowledge gained from the time spend reparing the erieye?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

One thing i remain confused about is the actual number of erieye. Originally 4 were there, then 2 were lost. I was under the impression both were repaired. Was it only 1 repaired? Can someone shed light on this?

Interesting to also think that PAF repaired at peast one of the systems and was given the certification to do tye overhaul by Ericsson after they saw the work. I wonder that tye AESA that people are saying Pakistan is supposedly developing, could it be based on the knowledge gained from the time spend reparing the erieye?

We originally had 4.

We then had 1 plus 3 damaged.

We recovered 2.

We bought 3 more.

Total: 6 (as originally planned pre-earthquake).

One thing i remain confused about is the actual number of erieye. Originally 4 were there, then 2 were lost. I was under the impression both were repaired. Was it only 1 repaired? Can someone shed light on this?

Interesting to also think that PAF repaired at peast one of the systems and was given the certification to do tye overhaul by Ericsson after they saw the work. I wonder that tye AESA that people are saying Pakistan is supposedly developing, could it be based on the knowledge gained from the time spend reparing the erieye?

It wouldn't be possible. AESA radar tech boils down to the semiconductors in use, and we have no such industry or base for such work at this time. If anything, our work on the Erieye repair project was a plus from an aircraft repair and integration standpoint. So, hypothetically, if PAC starts manufacturing Saab 2000s under license, it would know how to make special mission aircraft using that platform.

 

[Tank131]

We originally had 4.

We then had 1 plus 3 damaged.

We recovered 2.

We bought 3 more.

Total: 6 (as originally planned pre-earthquake).


It wouldn't be possible. AESA radar tech boils down to the semiconductors in use, and we have no such industry or base for such work at this time. If anything, our work on the Erieye repair project was a plus from an aircraft repair and integration standpoint. So, hypothetically, if PAC starts manufacturing Saab 2000s under license, it would know how to make special mission aircraft using that platform.

So what is this talk i have heard from some members here that Pakistan is working on an AESA radar if it doesn't even have the basic industry to support such a project?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

So what is this talk i have heard from some members here that Pakistan is working on an AESA radar if it doesn't even have the basic industry to support such a project?

It's one of those situations where we can't speak in generalities.

So, "developing an AESA radar" can mean multiple things, each different based on the reality of the one designing said system.

In Pakistan's case, we're not developing an AESA radar from scratch wherein we are using our own semiconductors to build TRMs (as we literally don't have an industry to actually make these things, at any level).

Rather, Pakistan is designing an AESA radar model with a combination of off-the-shelf technology (esp. TRMs) and local technologies where doable.

So, what's the benefit? Well, it's one way of circumventing the constraint of having the Chinese and Europeans say, "no, we don't want to share our source codes because we don't trust the Chinese/Europeans." This way, it's a Pakistani radar platform, we'll own the source codes and we'll manage integration and testing.

This doesn't have anything to do with the Erieye's AESA radar because (1) the primary focus of the work PAC did was on restoring the airframe and (2) integrating the radar and subsystems to the aircraft. It wasn't related to radar technology, and in any case, it wouldn't have learned much because, as noted above, we don't have an industry to develop and manufacture TRMs at this time.

 

[Caprxl]

So, what's the benefit? Well, it's one way of circumventing the constraint of having the Chinese and Europeans say, "no, we don't want to share our source codes because we don't trust the Chinese/Europeans." This way, it's a Pakistani radar platform, we'll own the source codes and we'll manage integration and testing.

& why would we be needing to do that apart from advancing in technology??
I think there is something cooking in the heads of PAF especially PAC,

1) a platform which could use both Chinese & European weapons at the same time?

2) who said that such a platform could only be used by PAF, a perfect chance to export as well according to the customer need, whatever they prefer / able to integrate, European or chinses weapons of their choice or both.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

& why would we be needing to do that apart from advancing in technology??
I think there is something cooking in the heads of PAF especially PAC,

1) a platform which could use both Chinese & European weapons at the same time?

2) who said that such a platform could only be used by PAF, a perfect chance to export as well according to the customer need, whatever they prefer / able to integrate, European or chinses weapons of their choice or both.

Why? Control.

In Pakistan, if you want to make any argument for indigenization, it must center on the idea of control.

Folks tried for decades to talk about industrial development, the economy, etc, and all that flew over the heads of our leaders in the military and government alike.

But control is a whole other issue.

This idea that now China can openly say, "oh we don't feel comfortable sharing our source codes" is total BS for the PAF. For now, it's directed against Western subsystems, but later, it could be against Pakistani systems too.

With a Pakistani AESA radar model in the works, the Chinese and Europeans can say "no" to integrating their stuff onto it. However, if they deny us a certain kind of missile, and then we develop said missile, our own radar would allow us to operationalize our capability.

As we start embarking on supersonic or ramjet-based weapons, this control is going to be critical, especially when long-range/stand-off-range systems are involved (which can have a strategic impact).

Moreover, I don't think we'll export our radar models, not until we master semiconductor technology some many decades into the future. We wouldn't want anyone else to know what we're carrying in our own jets, and though we could make an export variant, there's a risk (e.g., that one common factor) there too.