India vying for air superiority

[wiseone2]

I don't see how they can stop it.

Without access to F-16 software I do not know if you want to install a new data link

 

[Penguin]

Without access to F-16 software I do not know if you want to install a new data link

And what if one were to use it to link Erieye (already capable of controlling F-16) and ZDK03 (Capable of controlling JF-17, M3/5 ROSE, F7) and ground-based Command and Control, allowing them all to share data?

In 2006, the PAF ordered four Saab Erieye AEW&C systems from Sweden. It had originally hoped to acquire six systems, but the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir required the PAF to trim its order. Using the Saab 2000 turboprop airliner, the Erieye is an AESA-based radar system with a detection range of up to 450km. Using data-link communication, the Erieye can pass its sensor data to ground-based control stations as well as to friendly fighter aircraft. The Erieye can be configured to communicate with assets using the Link-11 and Link-16 systems; the system can also be configured to communicate on other data-link networks as well.

In 2009, the PAF supplemented its AEW&C fleet with four Karakoram Eagle AEW&C systems. The Karakoram Eagle is comprised of a ZDK03 passive electronically-scanned array (PESA) radar housed on a Shaanxi Y-8F600 transport aircraft. It is not known if the PAF intends to have the Karakoram Eagle upgraded with an AESA radar, such as the KJ-500, though it could be possible as a mid-life update. Though unconfirmed, the Karakoram Eagle may have also been integrated with equipment to enable it communicate on Link-16, which is used by the PAF’s F-16s.[13] Other specifics, such as the ZDK03 radar’s range, are unknown or unverified.

http://quwa.org/2016/03/15/pakistans-c4isr-part-2-land-airborne-surveillance-systems/

See also http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ips-squadron-with-new-aewc-aircraft/24140709/

 

[aanshu001]

and how many Erieye are left with PAF to linked with F-16 to provide round the clock cover during conflict

And what if one were to use it to link Erieye (already capable of controlling F-16) and ZDK03 (Capable of controlling JF-17, M3/5 ROSE, F7) and ground-based Command and Control, allowing them all to share data?


http://quwa.org/2016/03/15/pakistans-c4isr-part-2-land-airborne-surveillance-systems/

See also http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ips-squadron-with-new-aewc-aircraft/24140709/

 

[wiseone2]

And what if one were to use it to link Erieye (already capable of controlling F-16) and ZDK03 (Capable of controlling JF-17, M3/5 ROSE, F7) and ground-based Command and Control, allowing them all to share data?


http://quwa.org/2016/03/15/pakistans-c4isr-part-2-land-airborne-surveillance-systems/

See also http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ips-squadron-with-new-aewc-aircraft/24140709/

isn't all the whole point of AWACS and AEW systems to eliminate ground relay stations ? The AWACS platform has to communicate with ground based air defense to make sure friendly aircraft are not being shot. Beyond that the USAF AWACS platforms direct the entire air battle from the sky. I am not sure how applicable it is for IAF and PAF

 

[CorporateAffairs]

India is way behind China in air superiority.
NaMo needs to do a lot on this.
Anyways will take another decade to be online with the Chinese on this subject.

 

[Penguin]

isn't all the whole point of AWACS and AEW systems to eliminate ground relay stations ? The AWACS platform has to communicate with ground based air defense to make sure friendly aircraft are not being shot. Beyond that the USAF AWACS platforms direct the entire air battle from the sky. I am not sure how applicable it is for IAF and PAF

You ignored the second portion of my post. Relay Erieye-ZDK03 would be just a work around. But if an Erieye and ZD-03 are both up and share their information to see the same tactical picture, all combat aircraft can then be controlled from their respective control aircraft.

 

[Penguin]

and how many Erieye are left with PAF to linked with F-16 to provide round the clock cover during conflict

Two I believe. Plus those 4 ZDK-03, which control 90 JF17, 75 Mirage 3, 82 Mirage 5 and 184 F7 (Chinese Mig 21)

India has 3 Beriv A50EI in service, with 2 more on order. Plus 2 Embraer ERJ-145 AEWCS undergoing testing, and 1 more on the way. For all its 240+ Su-30MKI, 69 Mig29, 50 Mirage 2000, 245 Mig 21, 145 Jaguar and 120 Mig27.

That's 2 Erieye for 76 F16s in the case of Pakistan (38 per Erieye) and 4 ZDK03 for 431 aircraft (108 per ZDK03)
And at best 8 AEWC (including aircraft that aren't there yet) for 871 aircraft in the case of India (109 per AEWC aircraft)

Any questions?

 

[YeBeWarned]

@Penguin Sir very nice Replies to our Indian Members .. Really Appreciate your writings here

 

[WaheguruJiKaKhalsa]

just waiting for rafale to come to indian side

 

[R!CK]

Two I believe. Plus those 4 ZDK-03, which control 90 JF17, 75 Mirage 3, 82 Mirage 5 and 184 F7 (Chinese Mig 21)

India has 3 Beriv A50EI in service, with 2 more on order. Plus 2 Embraer ERJ-145 AEWCS undergoing testing, and 1 more on the way. For all its 240+ Su-30MKI, 69 Mig29, 50 Mirage 2000, 245 Mig 21, 145 Jaguar and 120 Mig27.

That's 2 Erieye for 76 F16s in the case of Pakistan (38 per Erieye) and 4 ZDK03 for 431 aircraft (108 per ZDK03)
And at best 8 AEWC (including aircraft that aren't there yet) for 871 aircraft in the case of India (109 per AEWC aircraft)

Any questions?

I'm usually all praise for your posts which are very rich in content. However I'm surprised after going through this thread.You are counting AWACS like apples here when you say Pakistan has 8 and India has 5 and that automatically gives Pakistan an edge?

I do accept the fact that IAF is low on force multipliers like AWACS and AAR for a two front war but I think they are adequately provided for western sector. 3 Phalcons and 6 AAR is enough for western sector as per estimates due to smaller land area with the western neighbor as well as higher range of Su series. Also as per IAF doctrine, Su-30 MKI is called mini-awacs.

As for the way you counted units, capability of AWACS matter more than the number of units available. Infact, its preferable to have less number of units but with higher capability in a limited battle space, so as to avoid airfield clutter and reduce the total number of platforms for effective communication. Capability wise, a single Phalcon with a higher number of work stations and 360 degree coverage is enough for the entire western sector. As per IAF doctrine, while 1 Phalcon is flying another is on the tarmac ready to take shift and a 3rd inside hangar for maintenance. A single Phalcon carries more work stations and has more loitering time than an entire fleet of Erieye. There are crew rest rooms inside a Phalcon that facilitate operators to work in shifts for longer duration operation during war. I'm not even bringing into discussion the fact that Erieye has 270 degree vision like DRDO AWE&C against 360 degree coverage of Phalcons?

And Sir you are seriously counting third generation fighters from both sides in an air war to count them for AWACS discussion? I'd be surprised if both sides use them beyond point defense and air patrol.

An eg. for the logics you applied, Someone with 3 Corolla is better than someone with 2 Hummer because he has more number of cars. If the requirement is for off-roading, we know which is better.

@PARIKRAMA @Abingdonboy

P.S: Hope to read more quality posts from you and Thanks for being a walking encyclopedia on the naval domain. Please don't consider my post as disrespectful.

Good Day!

 

[Penguin]

I'm usually all praise for your posts which are very rich in content. However I'm surprised after going through this thread.You are counting AWACS like apples here when you say Pakistan has 8 and India has 5 and that automatically gives Pakistan an edge?

Pakistan purchased 4 Erieye and 4 ZDK03. 2 Erieyes are out of action, which leaves 6 in service, which is what I said.
India has 3 Beriev A-50EI in service with 2 more on order and 2 DRDO AEWs equipped Embraer jets are undergoing tests, with 1 more forthcoming. That makes at best 5 AEWC in service today with 3 more forthcoming. WHich is what I said.

I have to go at this time and will come back to address the rest of your post later.

 

[cerberus]

Have count how many Aerostat we have also include it in coun't

 

[cirr]

Indian Navy will take care of PAF in near future. Air force only for China

Your tiny tiny airforce needs to expand by a factor of 10 min. before standing any chance fighting the PLAAF.

 

[Penguin]

I'm usually all praise for your posts which are very rich in content. However I'm surprised after going through this thread.You are counting AWACS like apples here when you say Pakistan has 8 and India has 5 and that automatically gives Pakistan an edge?

I said the the area the IAF AEWC aircraft need to cover is far larger. I never used the term edge or advantage/disadvantage. Your terminology reveals your thinking.

I do accept the fact that IAF is low on force multipliers like AWACS and AAR for a two front war but I think they are adequately provided for western sector. 3 Phalcons and 6 AAR is enough for western sector as per estimates due to smaller land area with the western neighbor as well as higher range of Su series. Also as per IAF doctrine, Su-30 MKI is called mini-awacs.

: Feb 3, 2016, The Indian Air Force has drawn up plans to procure up to eight aerostat radar platforms to bolster low-level air and sea surveillance.
The IAF procured two Aerostats from Israeli firm Rafael at a cost of Rs 338 crore and inducted them into service in 2007 and 2008. A report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) revealed that one of the aerostats was damaged in 2009 as standard operating procedures were not followed while bringing it down, rendering it non-operational.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-04-28/india-seeks-new-radar-carrying-aerostats
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/iaf-to-procure-8-aerostat-radars/191264.html

As for aerostats, are they currently in service? Are they comparable to AEWC (or are they mainly for ground/surface surveillance) Please note the difference between surveillance (versus tracking targets and controlling aircraft)

As for this 'mini-awacs' capability: that just means the Su-30MKI can act as a director or command post for other aircraft. The target co-ordinates can be transferred automatically to atleast 4 other aircraft. This feature was first seen in the MiG-31 Foxhound. The F15 brought look/down shoot down capablity which has been used this way to direct other aircraft onto low level targets.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=kj...DoAQgwMAI#v=onepage&q=mini-awacs f-16&f=false

I would think that any aircraft can share data with another aircraft provided both have a compatible datalink, and then it is ust a matter of deciding who will control who.

IAs for the way you counted units, capability of AWACS matter more than the number of units available. Infact, its preferable to have less number of units but with higher capability in a limited battle space, so as to avoid airfield clutter and reduce the total number of platforms for effective communication. Capability wise, a single Phalcon with a higher number of work stations and 360 degree coverage is enough for the entire western sector. As per IAF doctrine, while 1 Phalcon is flying another is on the tarmac ready to take shift and a 3rd inside hangar for maintenance. A single Phalcon carries more work stations and has more loitering time than an entire fleet of Erieye. There are crew rest rooms inside a Phalcon that facilitate operators to work in shifts for longer duration operation during war. I'm not even bringing into discussion the fact that Erieye has 270 degree vision like DRDO AWE&C against 360 degree coverage of Phalcons?

Erieye was conceived to share its data with grond control, which explains the smaller number of workstations. Not sure about the number of stations in ZDK03. IAF doctrine may be centered around 3, but it does not account for an aircraft transiting between based and area of operation (i.e. 1 on station, 1outbound, 1 on the tarmac refeulling, 1 inbound and 1 in maintenance. It is much the same with aircraft carriers, or SSBNs). As I indicated, the farther away from a battle zone your awacs are based, the more you need to keep 1 in the air on scene all the time. Erieye can actually detect but not track over part of the frontal arc and has a longer range (450km) than the Elta on the Beriev (370km). And all this still does not invalidate my point of area to be covered. So I think your criticism is a bit over the top. Every system has its own strengths and weaknesses, it is how you employ them that determine effeciveness in the end. Perhaps you simply can not stand that I - as objectively as I could - saw possibilities that IAF didn't automatically had advantage.

And Sir you are seriously counting third generation fighters from both sides in an air war to count them for AWACS discussion? I'd be surprised if both sides use them beyond point defense and air patrol.

In a for real conflict they could well be used. If they are used, they need to be controlled.

An eg. for the logics you applied, Someone with 3 Corolla is better than someone with 2 Hummer because he has more number of cars. If the requirement is for off-roading, we know which is better.

Are you suggesting Erieye and ZDK03 were designed to meet a different requirement than A50EI? That is ridiculous!
Still, at no point did I assume, state or suggest these aircraft are identical. But factually, they are there to detect targets and vector fighters onto them to take out targets. And that is what they all do. Period.

 

[R!CK]

I said the the area the IAF AEWC aircraft need to cover is far larger. I never used the term edge or advantage/disadvantage. Your terminology reveals your thinking.




http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-04-28/india-seeks-new-radar-carrying-aerostats
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/iaf-to-procure-8-aerostat-radars/191264.html

As for aerostats, are they currently in service? Are they comparable to AEWC (or are they mainly for ground/surface surveillance) Please note the difference between surveillance (versus tracking targets and controlling aircraft)

As for this 'mini-awacs' capability: that just means the Su-30MKI can act as a director or command post for other aircraft. The target co-ordinates can be transferred automatically to atleast 4 other aircraft. This feature was first seen in the MiG-31 Foxhound. The F15 brought look/down shoot down capablity which has been used this way to direct other aircraft onto low level targets.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=kjb_CQAAQBAJ&pg=PT34&lpg=PT34&dq=mini-awacs+f-16&source=bl&ots=uScGrDr7zq&sig=CcTyyfRf1_B5ZIJOJ10mKFW-das&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_-pWm2LrPAhWFSRoKHZoZDA04ChDoAQgwMAI#v=onepage&q=mini-awacs f-16&f=false

I would think that any aircraft can share data with another aircraft provided both have a compatible datalink, and then it is ust a matter of deciding who will control who.


Erieye was conceived to share its data with grond control, which explains the smaller number of workstations. Not sure about the number of stations in ZDK03. IAF doctrine may be centered around 3, but it does not account for an aircraft transiting between based and area of operation (i.e. 1 on station, 1outbound, 1 on the tarmac refeulling, 1 inbound and 1 in maintenance. It is much the same with aircraft carriers, or SSBNs). As I indicated, the farther away from a battle zone your awacs are based, the more you need to keep 1 in the air on scene all the time. Erieye can actually detect but not track over part of the frontal arc and has a longer range (450km) than the Elta on the Beriev (370km). And all this still does not invalidate my point of area to be covered. So I think your criticism is a bit over the top. Every system has its own strengths and weaknesses, it is how you employ them that determine effeciveness in the end. Perhaps you simply can not stand that I - as objectively as I could - saw possibilities that IAF didn't automatically had advantage.

In a for real conflict they could well be used. If they are used, they need to be controlled.


Are you suggesting Erieye and ZDK03 were designed to meet a different requirement than A50EI? That is ridiculous!
Still, at no point did I assume, state or suggest these aircraft are identical. But factually, they are there to detect targets and vector fighters onto them to take out targets. And that is what they all do. Period.

We are on different pages. Anyways appreciate your reply.

Good Day!