PAF Vs IAF Command and Control Systems

[deckingraj]

But a construction contractor contradicts him by bringing in thirty articles on fuel consumption..air drag..etc.
would you not be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the person whole field it is.. or to the contractor?

Certainly to the person whose field it is...but if the person is talking something which is not usual and is a trade secret then my thinking cap will surely raise some suspicions....

 

[silent hawk]

Well could you PM me on that?

Not much is known but students studying in there say that there is an entire floor developing some C4I system for army.

 

[deckingraj]

Not much is known but students studying in there say that there is an entire floor developing some C4I system for army.

No offense but My advice, do not put in names especially when something is being worked upon and intentions are not to disclose it...Mind it i am not saying that RAW or MOSSAD are watching this but it is not ethical to share what you are not supposed to(assuming you have a lot of inside knowledge)

 

[silent hawk]

Trojan another Pakistani Company Developing C4I systems

Trojans, The cutting edge in technology

The consoles they show are very similar to the consoles shown in PAF calendar.

What is PAF's Project Vision?

 

[silent hawk]

No offense but My advice, do not put in names especially when something is being worked upon and intentions are not to disclose it...Mind it i am not saying that RAW or MOSSAD are watching this but it is not ethical to share what you are not supposed to(assuming you have a lot of inside knowledge)

Point accepted I have removed the names from my post. kindly edit the quote and remove names from your post as well. Thanks

 

[SQ8]

raj..
does the Us north korea scenario apply even a bit to us?
A little background story from me then just to support what I claim;..My father ran a popular resort property in the vicinity of Murree..at that time ..Kayani was Corp commander kashmir at the time.. Being the only resort property in Pakistan it was frequented by many dignitaries and guests..
i was still a teenager back then..and lived on the property..My father as is expected of all those in the hospitality business had developed good contacts with all the influential guests coming in and going out..and that is where his friendship with some of the people in the right places where it comes to my claim comes in.
It was routine for my father to invite people back over to our residential suite..since he is an avid fan..of music..(if you were a musician in the 80's..whether Indian or Pakistani..and came to Houston..you knew my father).
and so these late night entertainment/discussions.. tea etc would go on.(no women or wine..sorry).
It was during this time that a PAEC international conference was held..and was preceded by a party/ propaganda event held at the place commemorating chagai..where a model of the mountain was made in the auditorium..a whole display etc etc.. was recreated..with the actual scientists present as chief guests..they gave a briefing on the test.. and even showed an in house video of Shaheen in development and testing..
It was during these times I found out..that we had 60 or so operational warheads with us..and could make more on a short notice if asked.
If it was announced then.. would it have made a difference.. possibly..possibly no.
was it a false figure.. could have been.. but the closed nature of the gathering would make no sense..(I was not there..I was out attending the concert that was taking place..man I miss AWAZ when they were together.. "tu ..meray liyee.. jaadoo ka charag hai )
Would Indian intelligence be aware of it..QUITE likely..


So.. if required.. as I dont like posting names..I can PM you the specifics on people..and the locations..and timings..which I know aren't compromising on anything..but its just something I dont prefer openly.

The reason I posted it..
was to just make the point..that there are others out there.. who have had more experiences than me.. and sometimes they state a number or a fact for the reason simply because that is what their knowledge and exp tells them.

So if the automotive engineer I mentioned gave you a story that fit in his scenario..would your thinking cap consider it?

HOWEVER..
There are many.. posers on the internet.. from everywhere..
some can be very convincing..
so it is always prudent..as I know you all do. to recheck on some facts.. cross check..and it best.. defer to those who are in the field.or the professionals..
There is always the fellow claiming to have built the F-22's radar out of " intense molecular inversion" of "flux capacitors"...

 

[humza_313]

well lets be realistic guys aprt from using word processors and spread sheets our army is at the moment not gared for a good c41/it system.

i think people here confuse IT and C41 one with word processing. which is not the case.

the real c41/ it infrstructure is best described by the following keywords

1. Comunicate: to communicate eltronicly during battle fileds without the enmy finding out i.e. encripted anlog and digitial data transfer
.
2. real time operations: i.e. the status of each fighting unit can be assesd realtime where orders are issued and realtime battle information is sent in to hq for appropriate action.

3. integrate: this is where we realy lack. there seems to be very little or no cordination amongst the arms i.e. airforce navy and army. the army is always striving for airsupport which is now being addresed by buying more combat chopers which will reduce but not ensure the saftey of the ground troops.

my soloution to the problem
1. airforce******* they r not supperior to the army hence a major emphesis should be put on ordering them to fight less air battles and more CAS battles.
this can be achieved by requiring airforce aircraft pilots to fly a minnumu of 35% - 45% of their total air hours in CAS.

ARMY: They should wake up and smell the rosesi.e. there is no such thing as a plan without air supprioirty. army units as a compulsory part should require atleast one joint excersie withthe airforce once a year i.e. every unit would be required to do so.

3. a joint command and infrstructure should be set up so that the airforce may be ordered automaticaly to send in aircraft t support army postions when called upon and the nearest aircraft should automaticaly be ordered to engage the enmy. THE ARMY SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF AIRCRAFT THEY COULD CALL ON BEFORE THEY GO INTO BATTLE TO ENSURE COMPLET DISTRUCTION OF THE AGGRESSOR.

 

[silent hawk]

well lets be realistic guys aprt from using word processors and spread sheets our army is at the moment not gared for a good c41/it system.

i think people here confuse IT and C41 one with word processing. which is not the case.

the real c41/ it infrstructure is best described by the following keywords

1. Comunicate: to communicate eltronicly during battle fileds without the enmy finding out i.e. encripted anlog and digitial data transfer
.
2. real time operations: i.e. the status of each fighting unit can be assesd realtime where orders are issued and realtime battle information is sent in to hq for appropriate action.

3. integrate: this is where we realy lack. there seems to be very little or no cordination amongst the arms i.e. airforce navy and army. the army is always striving for airsupport which is now being addresed by buying more combat chopers which will reduce but not ensure the saftey of the ground troops.

my soloution to the problem
1. airforce******* they r not supperior to the army hence a major emphesis should be put on ordering them to fight less air battles and more CAS battles.
this can be achieved by requiring airforce aircraft pilots to fly a minnumu of 35% - 45% of their total air hours in CAS.

ARMY: They should wake up and smell the rosesi.e. there is no such thing as a plan without air supprioirty. army units as a compulsory part should require atleast one joint excersie withthe airforce once a year i.e. every unit would be required to do so.

3. a joint command and infrstructure should be set up so that the airforce may be ordered automaticaly to send in aircraft t support army postions when called upon and the nearest aircraft should automaticaly be ordered to engage the enmy. THE ARMY SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF AIRCRAFT THEY COULD CALL ON BEFORE THEY GO INTO BATTLE TO ENSURE COMPLET DISTRUCTION OF THE AGGRESSOR.

Close Air Support missions are those missions which army can undertake on thier own. These sort of missions are a pilots nightmare due to risk of fatricide. They are to be used as a last resort to gain an advantage or re-enforce a weakness. The guiding principle is to use CAS like a reserve. Using it wisely is essential the result of the War will depend on it.

The Airforces preference is to fly interdiction missions. Missions which the army cannot undertake but directly affect the battle.

As far as joint exercises are concerned the recently concluded Azm-e-Nau is a good example.

I don't really understand what you are cribbing about

 

[humza_313]

Close Air Support missions are those missions which army can undertake on thier own. These sort of missions are a pilots nightmare due to risk of fatricide. They are to be used as a last resort to gain an advantage or re-enforce a weakness. The guiding principle is to use CAS like a reserve. Using it wisely is essential the result of the War will depend on it.

The Airforces preference is to fly interdiction missions. Missions which the army cannot undertake but directly affect the battle.

As far as joint exercises are concerned the recently concluded Azm-e-Nau is a good example.

I don't really understand what you are cribbing about

yes azm-e-nau is a good example..!

it also included a few joint strikes by the paf and amry..! but that does not have anything to do with the c4i systems that are being developed for the army..!

 

[silent hawk]

yes azm-e-nau is a good example..!

it also included a few joint strikes by the paf and amry..! but that does not have anything to do with the c4i systems that are being developed for the army..!

Really I heard the system was succesfully trial tested in the exercise.

 

[humza_313]

Really I heard the system was succesfully trial tested in the exercise.

well i had no idea about that..! but the exercise was great..!
i enjoyed high mark more..! ill search on this testing though..!

 

[Ammyy]

IAF wants radars for hilly terrain

NEW DELHI: IAF now wants a major induction of long-range surveillance radars (LRSRs) and high-power radars (HPRs) to bolster air defence coverage in ''hilly terrain'' in the hinterland as well as along the borders with China and Pakistan.

This comes after IAF has already inked contracts for 19 LLTRs (low-level transportable radars), four MPRs (medium-power radars) and 30 indigenous medium-range Rohini radars, among others.

Apart from lightweight mountain radars for high altitude areas, plans are also afoot to procure nine more Aerostat radars to add to the two EL/M-2083 Israeli Aerostats inducted earlier as well as two additional Awacs (airborne warning and control systems) to supplement the first three Israeli Phalcon Awacs bought under a $1.1-billion deal.

The overall aim of all this is to ensure Indian airspace, which still has several gaping holes, especially over central and peninsular India, becomes impregnable against hostile aircraft, drones and helicopters.

As for the LRSRs and HPRs, IAF's global request of information (RFI) says these active aperture phased array radars, which will ''be used for air defence surveillance, command and control in hilly terrain'', should be able to classify large, medium and small aircraft, drones and helicopters at a range of 450 to 600km automatically.

Though IAF is yet to specify numbers, the procurement is likely to be large since the RFI specifies that the project will involve a ''phased manufacturing programme'' leading to indigenous production under transfer of technology.
With advanced ''electronic counter-counter measures'', the LRSRs and HPRs should also be capable of being integrated into the IACCS (integrated air command and control system).

Read more: IAF wants radars for hilly terrain - The Times of India IAF wants radars for hilly terrain - The Times of India

IAF wants radars for hilly terrain - The Times of India

 

[Ammyy]

Indian Air Force to Possess Network Centric Warfare Capability by 2011 says Vice Air Marshal P V Naik

India is rapidly moving towards developing network centric warfare (NCW) capability, Vice Chief of Air Staff Air Marshal P V Naik has said. "NCW is vital. You cannot survive today for long against a good adversary without this capability," said Indian Air Marshal at the Nellis Air Force Base, where IAF is participating in the prestigious Red Flag exercise.

Speaking to journalists after celebrating the Independence Day with Indian airmen, he said the Indian armed forces will have this capability by 2010-2011.

"At present we do not have it, we are just about network enabled. But we are in the process of developing this capability." Pioneered by the United States Department of Defence, NCW relies on computer processing power and networking communications technology to provide shared information of the battle space among armed forces. This shared awareness increases synergy for command and control, resulting in superior decision- making, and the ability to coordinate complex military operations over long distances for an overwhelming war-fighting advantage.

Providing further details about Indian efforts towards network centricity, Air Marshal Naik said the backbone of this entire system will be a fibre optic-based network called Air Force Network (AFNET), on which will be riding the Integrated Air Command and Control Systems (IACCS). IACCS will provide the connectivity for all the airborne platforms and ground platforms.

Indian Air Force to Possess Network Centric Warfare Capability by 2011 says Vice Air Marshal P V Naik | India Defence

 

[paritosh]

I wonder if I am dragging this into a off topic debate or you are..
Martial races.. where the **** did I ever mention Martial races.. or race superiority or martians..

Now..
for the answeres to your first paragraph..
its Two tests.. however..not neccecarily of the same missile..but the same engine configuration.
Ignore the Ghauri.. its the North Korean Nodong..
the Shaheen was developed using a baseline engine from the Hatf series..Chinese input from M-11 missiles.
the guidance system on it.. was designed in house by NDC.
The shaheen engine was tested back in 99 in flight.. along with the first guidance system..
Nobody expected the thing to blow the target flag out of the circle.. let alone even make it to the circle.. it did.
Next test verified a newer guidance system.. refined engine..and slight changes in stage size...
At the same time.. low rate production started...
But since I heard this by word of mouth...you wont believe it...okay.np

There is Pakistani input in the design process of the JF-17..with aerodynamics.. electronics.. systems engineers..along with pilots.
half of the Jf-17 design team in 2003 was sourced from Pakistan.
But since they arent a "component" in the strict sense of the word..
You dont have to believe me.. okay..np

well the other side of having word-of-mouth specs is that no one can prove you wrong...

could you please tell me..how super computers are absolutely necessary in MIRV design.. is it impossible without it?
In any case.. Suparco has on occasion outsourced to the Chinese academy for time on their machine...is that worth publishing....on the internet?Isnt it possible for NDC to do the same? no.. so you dont have to believe me..okay.np

super-computers ease the pain by many degrees...can you not run directx11 on pentium 3?
you need simulations for testing missiles and nuke yields...developing them requires good computing power...but then the Chinese have theirs...so there is no further arguing any thing...you harp on the Chinese capacity...the only factor that remains is their willingness to share it all...definitely not to be found on the internet...and nobody would share their copy of "for-eyes-only" secret tell-all files right?

the solid state auto loader system for the Al-khalid..was designed by my company.. The systems integration..was done in house and by a private company outsourced to by HIT and a University group.
But that's ok.. Its not on the internet.. you dont have to believe me.

if the internet is to believed...then it is of a Chinese origin...but I take your word for it...

We cant do anything on our own.. since its not on the internet.. scanned or in article form otherwise.. you dont have to believe a thing.

Santro...
the merits and demerits of discussing top-secret military tech and it's authenticity is always semi-dubious over forums like this...
people talk about half-baked information readily available from reliable and semi-reliable sources on the net...decide on their authenticity or negotiate and bargain about the true standing of such and such and discuss them...if you have knowledge of a system...you can use the specs to compare your to ours...and not necessarily post pics of you posing with some secret govt doc you were not supposed to know existed...
my believing $h!t is not the point here...this thread's purpose is to compare them systems...now we posted some good info on our system's architecture...your lot dismissed it outright claiming
a)they know in-depth about our systems and their incapacity...(you somewhere talked about how being a Pakistani you are bound to know a tad more about your systems than us...right...I hope this handicap doesn't extend to the netherworld...)
b)the Pakistani systems are better...about which there is not an iota of technical info available on the information superhighway...

so after a) and b) being raised here...I in all humility am asking you to show me the money on this...so if it is all about my believing something and your not caring to help me with that...then the purpose of this thread is lost on this...
for you appear to be saying..."we have it...don't believe it??f.o!"

Now..
How do you brandish a C4I system?
Now.. lets assume.. that the pretty scans I just saw are of an operational system.. in that case.. you just gave your enemies the idea that you are pulling ahead.. they panic..they push more into their programs.. they put more money into competing with you here.. or in another weapon system..
You find out.. you feel set back.. you spend more.. the other guy.. who cannot keep up on this linear approach.. decided to upgrade his non-conventional arsenal.. do you see the pattern here..its called an arms race..we have been at it... for over...lets see.. 65 years or so??
Would you rather slow it down.. or speed it up..
Is it better to be satisfied with being better by the knowledge of having extremely high tech systems.. or by knowing all of that.. and knowing that the other guy is now more insecure because of it and is making more nukes??

ok...where do I begin???
C4I or logistics support and information exchange is not just a weapon it is the whole machinery....!
The C4I system of a country is specific to it's needs and can not be copied...to another model.it's not a tank or an a/c that can be wielded by most...
your C4I system if sufficiently efficient would let your enemies know that in case of war...your battle-comms would never go down and provide you with a swift edge...it's not a weapon that can be downed...cus we are not asknig the coordinates of your comms centres...
We would want you to believe that our comms lines would be uncluttered and fast...and the flow of info would bedazzle you and your forces...
we would not want you to believe that the su-30s from the lonewala base would be the first ones to attack sialkot...that is giving away military secrets...and suicidal...
so it is not at all about giving the enemies an idea of our war plans or blue-prints..or whadeva...it is just letting them know that we have efficiency running in our fiber-optical veins...it does instill fear...a fear more practical than mutually assured destruction of a thermonuke pis$ fight...
as far as the arms race is concerned...Deckin was spot-on in his post..

To answer your second last paragraph..
Have you ever heard of Operational security?.. its not only nations that practice it.. Apple..Microsoft.. all do it in some form.
Do you know everything there is to know about the F-22.. as you say the Americans publish everything?

if you start publishing everything...nobody would take a word of it.
the C4I system in our context is one of the most vast systems an army operates...it will go beyond the scope...but we can discuss tiny little specs like the backbone media...its rough tx rate...how are individual systems linked...is it laser tx or radio tx that works for individual systems...most countries do provide these details...while thye might not give you their jamming frequencies...they give you enough to let you know that it is potent.

But if I know something.. whether its within my organization.. or by indirect reference.. should I blurt it all out..maybe.. or should I exercise caution. Just in case.
And that goes not just for me..
there are other members who are privy to info.. some say it openly...its their judgment call.. they know better. If I feel comfortable sharing a certain detail.. Ill do it...if not..you are more than welcome to be a skeptic.
There are other more knowledgeable members in their respective fields who post liberally..and with considerable detail.. but Whatever they post.. is everything that is freely available as collectible information on the internet. If tomorrow I find that okay.. look...there is that new purchase I heard about talking to my colleague.. on that website.. hey..lets talk about it.
But if I am having a chat with a senior in my organization..and he mentions something but says please do not mention it to anybody yet..I feel it best not to...it may something very trivial.. no james bond stuff.. but I can exercise the right to abstain from talking about it.
Should steve jobs have revealed everything about the iphone 4 after that prototype was lost and found?.. what if the iphone was not up to the hype..what if it spurred nokia to make a better competitor after knowing what it would be facing?

you are being paranoid...I have already written about how the C4I system's brandishing would give Pakistan the ability to make it's enemy believe in it's efficiency...Pakistan seeks efficiency...number would never do it for you...and the other thing being...your C4I system's hardware component would am sure have nothing unheard of...at best it can have short-distance laser comms...or microwave comms for long distances...what type of signal processing you utilize is your concern...but it would not be like the case with apple and nokia...companies that research and come-out with new ground-breaking technologies...even the most upgraded system with India and Pakistan would not be a world-beater...at least for the time being...

Now..for the record..I dont state ANYwhere that the IAF C4I is obsolete.. useless etc...please point out the post where I did do that.
In my opinion all that data published on wikipedia is on operational systems which are in the process of having their replacement or upgrade being developed..which DRDO has possibly not even disclosed.

you and this other Pakistani guy were back-slapping each other about how inferior our system is to yours...the details of which can not be disclosed...seemed senseless...

My contention is however.. with your countrymen.. who refuse to believe that we can keep up with you.. or at least make comparable..even if not better systems..

The only reason I am quoting you again and again and not the other guy is because...you are more logical than most of our lot and of a good temperament...and I expect you to have a good reason with proper backing to form a particular notion.

You of all are familiar with me from the start..
You have seen my posts at the beginning and their tone..
and now..
Wonder what caused the change..?

I would just say that you should not let the insane bring you down...
most of the clowns you interact with come blinded by patriotism.

 

[silent hawk]

Indian Air Force to Possess Network Centric Warfare Capability by 2011 says Vice Air Marshal P V Naik

India is rapidly moving towards developing network centric warfare (NCW) capability, Vice Chief of Air Staff Air Marshal P V Naik has said. "NCW is vital. You cannot survive today for long against a good adversary without this capability," said Indian Air Marshal at the Nellis Air Force Base, where IAF is participating in the prestigious Red Flag exercise.

Speaking to journalists after celebrating the Independence Day with Indian airmen, he said the Indian armed forces will have this capability by 2010-2011.

"At present we do not have it, we are just about network enabled. But we are in the process of developing this capability." Pioneered by the United States Department of Defence, NCW relies on computer processing power and networking communications technology to provide shared information of the battle space among armed forces. This shared awareness increases synergy for command and control, resulting in superior decision- making, and the ability to coordinate complex military operations over long distances for an overwhelming war-fighting advantage.

Providing further details about Indian efforts towards network centricity, Air Marshal Naik said the backbone of this entire system will be a fibre optic-based network called Air Force Network (AFNET), on which will be riding the Integrated Air Command and Control Systems (IACCS). IACCS will provide the connectivity for all the airborne platforms and ground platforms.

Indian Air Force to Possess Network Centric Warfare Capability by 2011 says Vice Air Marshal P V Naik | India Defence

No offence intended to anyone please.

In due course of time I shall prove how using various datum in this thead I had already reached this conclusion.

At present the sheer number of Pakistani companies dealing with C4I systems (Vision Defence System, AERO, Trojans, Project Vision, CARE) as compared to underdevelopment IACCS by Bharat Electronics should be an indication of Pakistan's edge in this domain