Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[amardeep mishra]

Then please.. enlighten a Communications engineer who is working on digital signal processing systems on how the Erieye is Inferior to the DRDO Awacs.



1) That depends, on who makes it and what its designed to do. If you mean the same radar family, same maker, and same purpose, then finer discrimination (assuming you have the signal processor to handle it, favors a BETTER detection thresh-hold across the same interval for the array with the more T/R modules. It can be more sensitive for the given radiated signal. More chances for an interpretable signal return exist.

So till there is concrete proof that the DRDO T/R modules are better than those made by SAAB.. Im not buying it.

2)And what is the length on the Saab 2000?

3)No such restriction? How did you make that claim? Both are side looking planar arrays with a generally acceptable 160 field of "perfect" scanning .. and variable search ability within a further arc.. which is NOT 240 on the Erieye.
Your statement is nothing more than self appeasement... unless the DRDO system has two extra arrays like the Boeing MESA for front and back.. I am already beginning to doubt the veracity of your claims overall.

4) Erieye has no Satcom link.. nor was one asked for... The operational requirements of the Erieye do not imagine it to go beyond ground telemetry stations at ANY time.

Your analysis seems very flawed since it seems to be based on assumed Data and not concrete.
No ACTUAL concrete company published data exists on the Erieye Radar's T/R modules, Scanning cone .etc fitted on the PAF Saab 2000. Please do not make the flawed judgement on thinking that the Erieye on the SAAB-2000 is the same as the ERIEYE on the Saab 340 or EMB-145 . There is a marked difference in the equipment(and the relative price we payed for it).
I am very aware of this since I have worked on the integration of the system into our existing C4I network and know enough about it to call your estimate completely incorrect.

sir,this is a video hope this helps
India's Airborne Early Warning & Control System [AEW&CS] development programme - YouTube

 

[SQ8]

From skimming it( I hate boring Desi presentation, especially in the typical baritone style of mil officers here.. they put me to sleep).
The DRDO system suffers from the very same sort of limitations in RADAR coverage that the Erieye does..which it makes up for (or at least pretends to like the erieye) using 360 ESM coverage.

The sophistication in the T/R modules is debatable since this is India's first effort ..one does not have a previous product to gauge the level of sophistication from..or in my case.. no hands on exp of the product to say otherwise.
Saab on the other hand.. has been making AESA radars since the mid 90's.
And has a R&D dept well versed in the topic..
The Saab 340( with its systems) shown as an example in the video .. is a VERY inferior animal when compared to the Saab 2000 Erieye and its systems...this I know from first hand exp.. no hearsay.

 

[amardeep mishra]

From skimming it( I hate boring Desi presentation, especially in the typical baritone style of mil officers here.. they put me to sleep).
The DRDO system suffers from the very same sort of limitations in RADAR coverage that the Erieye does..which it makes up for (or at least pretends to like the erieye) using 360 ESM coverage.

The sophistication in the T/R modules is debatable since this is India's first effort ..one does not have a previous product to gauge the level of sophistication from..or in my case.. no hands on exp of the product to say otherwise.
Saab on the other hand.. has been making AESA radars since the mid 90's.
And has a R&D dept well versed in the topic..
The Saab 340( with its systems) shown as an example in the video .. is a VERY inferior animal when compared to the Saab 2000 Erieye and its systems...this I know from first hand exp.. no hearsay.

Sir, since you are an engineer, I can fairly assume that you are aware of the technical and mathematical terminology we use in our community
The radar parameters like range are NOT deterministic things but probabilistic variables which depend on Pd (probability of detection) and Pf (probability of false alarm) among other things like SNR, etc, Ican't write the equation here because I'm on my cell now,
Pd follows "rice density function"and Pf follows gaussian probability density function
these are very important terms in signal processing when you as an engineer have to determine a reasonable threshold
Though, my dear friend, designing a signal or data processor is not a great challenge these days, the real problem lies in manufacturing t/r modules which have all the components embedded in a single chip, the second most challenge is dissipating heat from radar systems (here I'm specifically talking about airborne AESA carried in nose of fighter jets)...the cooling chalenge becomes formidable as the nose of the jet gets smaller, I mean, cooling challenges are more immense for smaller jets than bigger fighters with about 1m diameter
Even today, there are GaN HEMT available which can provide 80W/module, though their usage is not possible in airborne radars simply because of cooling requirements

 

[amardeep mishra]

From skimming it( I hate boring Desi presentation, especially in the typical baritone style of mil officers here.. they put me to sleep).
The DRDO system suffers from the very same sort of limitations in RADAR coverage that the Erieye does..which it makes up for (or at least pretends to like the erieye) using 360 ESM coverage.

The sophistication in the T/R modules is debatable since this is India's first effort ..one does not have a previous product to gauge the level of sophistication from..or in my case.. no hands on exp of the product to say otherwise.
Saab on the other hand.. has been making AESA radars since the mid 90's.
And has a R&D dept well versed in the topic..
The Saab 340( with its systems) shown as an example in the video .. is a VERY inferior animal when compared to the Saab 2000 Erieye and its systems...this I know from first hand exp.. no hearsay.

Does the erieye in PAF's inventory has l-band IFF? I would like to know that
And secondly, the t/r module count on indian aewcs system is lill bit higher than erieye, so I can assume without the loss of generality that drdo's awacs will have numerically bigger power aperature product
And thirdly erieye lacks a satcom (which is rather essential in this age of net centric warfare) you simply can't undermine the importance of satcom in today's warfare...
Being a communication engineer you can better appreciate what I'm saying here...
ok, sir, now I gotta go, have class in 5 mins, signal processing......I will write about our phased array in evening...

 

[amardeep mishra]

for example there exists a simple empirical relationship between SNR and pd, pf, which is given by SNR = A + 0.12 AB +1.7 B, where A = ln[0.62/Pf] & B = ln [Pd/(1-Pd)]
where Pf=(1/TB);
and B=bandwidth of IF amplifier
and T is given by
T=(1/B)*(exp((V^2)/2Y));
in the above equation,V^2/2Y is also known as threshold to noise ratio(V being the threshold voltage and y being the rms value of noise)
and Pd=integral of (Ps(R)dR),from V to infinity.....here Ps is the probability density function of the detection(which in this case is rice's density function)

 

[BATMAN]

sir,this is a video hope this helps
India's Airborne Early Warning & Control System [AEW&CS] development programme - YouTube

When Pakistan bought Erieye, Indians spammed every thread on it.. stating, it does not have 360° scan and ironically always copy Pakistan.

 

[Donatello]

From skimming it( I hate boring Desi presentation, especially in the typical baritone style of mil officers here.. they put me to sleep).
The DRDO system suffers from the very same sort of limitations in RADAR coverage that the Erieye does..which it makes up for (or at least pretends to like the erieye) using 360 ESM coverage.

The sophistication in the T/R modules is debatable since this is India's first effort ..one does not have a previous product to gauge the level of sophistication from..or in my case.. no hands on exp of the product to say otherwise.
Saab on the other hand.. has been making AESA radars since the mid 90's.
And has a R&D dept well versed in the topic..
The Saab 340( with its systems) shown as an example in the video .. is a VERY inferior animal when compared to the Saab 2000 Erieye and its systems...this I know from first hand exp.. no hearsay.

Hi Oscar,

You do realize that you are feeding a troll? Whose every post implies that India has everything superior while the rest of us are stupid.

This thread is a Pakistan AWACs thread, not a vs thread. I hate to open up a thread to see an update, only to find Indian trolls at their favorite past time.

 

[amardeep mishra]

Hi Oscar,

You do realize that you are feeding a troll? Whose every post implies that India has everything superior while the rest of us are stupid.

This thread is a Pakistan AWACs thread, not a vs thread. I hate to open up a thread to see an update, only to find Indian trolls at their favorite past time.

Why don't you talk technical? Why can't we discuss on technical basis?
Are you up for this? Btw, when did I troll

 

[Bratva]

Why don't you talk technical? Why can't we discuss on technical basis?
Are you up for this? Btw, when did I troll

instead of talking technical your first line of argument was your awac is superior to ours and you start supporting your argument with unverified data. Is this what we call technical discussion?

Technical discussion is to support your argument with proven data and we have yet to see what you have claimed about drdo awac is really what it has.

Then prove that Saab awac has less t/r modules. Have you worked on both Drdo and Saab awac that you know one has more and one has less modules?

Second deficiency in your tecnical analysis is you have lack of knowledge about how PAF has tried to compensate blind supports by specially ordering Saab to have sensors in front and back to cover blind spots up to some extents. now the coverage is increased to 300 degress.

So first learn how to conduct technical discussions. Then come and talk with us

 

[amardeep mishra]

instead of talking technical your first line of argument was your awac is superior to ours and you start supporting your argument with unverified data. Is this what we call technical discussion?

Technical discussion is to support your argument with proven data and we have yet to see what you have claimed about drdo awac is really what it has.

Then prove that Saab awac has less t/r modules. Have you worked on both Drdo and Saab awac that you know one has more and one has less modules?

Second deficiency in your tecnical analysis is you have lack of knowledge about how PAF has tried to compensate blind supports by specially ordering Saab to have sensors in front and back to cover blind spots up to some extents. now the coverage is increased to 300 degress.

So first learn how to conduct technical discussions. Then come and talk with us

Sir, with due respect, the official site/dr kopp/dr merill m scholnik all say that erieye has 192 t/r modules as against 300 in drdo's....more over the array of drdo's awacs is 240 mm lengthier than the erieye, resulting in higher power apperature product (considering similar peak power of individual modules)
Secondly, erieye lacks satcom which is vital for today's net centric warfare

 

[Bratva]

Sir, with due respect, the official site/dr kopp/dr merill m scholnik all say that erieye has 192 t/r modules as against 300 in drdo's....more over the array of drdo's awacs is 240 mm lengthier than the erieye, resulting in higher power apperature product (considering similar peak power of individual modules)
Secondly, erieye lacks satcom which is vital for today's net centric warfare

once again irrevelant reply which website or official says pakistani specefic awacs has 192 t/r modules? any indian official claiming drdo has the 300 modules?

Once again satcom is an individual element which is not a necessity but rather a add on for awacs having it will not have great impact. Other wise prove it having it necessary for Saab Awacs. last but not the least let me show you how the REAL TECHNICAL ANALYSIS IS DONE INSTEAD OF RELYING ON XYZ YADA YADA CLAIMS.

If I am not mistaken, ZDK-03 features two AESA arrays instead of three on KJ-2000, therefore a rotating dome is needed. The lack of third array is purely a cost saving consideration.

Thats not the ONLY reason, another reason is that a larger array can be placed in a rotating dome giving more range, while placing triangular dome reduces the size of each array by ~20%.

A simple trignometric analysis shows that the maximum array size of triangular dome (like KJ2000 and Phalcon) is 20% less than a straight radial array along its diameter (like E-3-Sentry, E-2D-Hawkeye, ZDK03).

Moreover, previously the pulse doppler version of rotating domes gave a 20sec radar darkness over any perticular point due to the fact that they could only illuminate targets in direct line of sight in perpendicular to the array, but the AESA doesnot have that restriction. Instead AESA can electronically steer a radar beam to illuminate 60 degrees to either side of perpendicular. This covers 120 degree to each side totalling 240 degrees of instantaneous view, while leaving 60 degree on each corner in radar darkness. When rotating at same speed of 40 sec per rotation, same as with pulse dopler version, it will illuminate a full 360 degree circle in 6 seconds. Thus a target is re-illuminated 6 seconds after it goes into dark region. Also this is assuming ZDK-03 has AESA with 120 degree field of view, which is only an assumption. In actuality it might have 150 degree field of view AESA (like Erieye atop Saab2000) which will reduce re-acquisition time to 3 sec.

One more thing to note is that fixed dome suffers from constant side lobe attenuations in regions deviating close its electronic steering boundary, for extended periods of time; while giving good target data at regions close to perpendicular. On the other hand, rotating dome ensures maximum search precision for all 360 degrees within a maximum of 10 seconds, and that too without changing the heading of the platform itself.

If you ask me, having 20% plus range is much much more desirable than 3 seconds of radar darkness, besides being cost effective as well.

Regards,
Sapper

Now my first assumption is that two complimenting AESAs are placed inside the rotating dome, i.e. the similar kind of double sided Erieye configuration, but in rotating configuration. This is based on the assumption that
1. Dual sided aesa was already available with china on Y-8 platform at similar cost, but not opted for by PAF,
2. AESA is comparatively thin and does not require additional wasted space for dedicated transmitter assembly on the backside, since every single unit is itself a transmitter reciever on its own.
3. China already posses the technology to fit 3xAESA in a radome and 2xAESA in sandwitch-BalanceBeam configurations, placing the balance beam config would have been no problem to place into a rotating radome.

If thats the case for ZDK-03 (unless proven on the contrary) I will proceed with the following calculations.


Assume 40 sec per rotation, which is normal, and 120 arch illumination (60 deg from perpedicular) for AESA array, which is also normal.
360 deg per 40 sec = 9 deg per sec (RotationSpeed)

Assume a target is at 0-deg, Radar starts spinning, at radar's-0-deg, target is fully perpedicular and perfectly lit
Radar goes to 45-deg, still lit.
Radar goes 60-deg, still lit.
Radar goes 61-deg, target lost.
Now radar goes 90-deg, target is still lost.
Radar goes 119-deg, still lost.
Now radar comes to 120 deg, still lost for the array pointing 120, but the array facing exactly opposite to it i.e. at 120+180 deg = 300-deg has illumination till 360 deg, which is the same as 0-deg, target lit by opposing array, target acquired.

Now target lost at 61-deg ... and reacquired at 120-deg.
Lost-Time = 60-deg / RotationSpeed = 60 / 9 = 6.6 sec


I may be wrong, and ZDK-03 might only have a single AESA pointing to one side, as in legacy E3Sentry, in which case the re-acquisition will take 26 seconds to re-acquire target, but lets wait for the time when PAF or China releases specs. If thats the case apologies in advance.

Regards,
Sapper

 

[soul hacker]

 

[air marshal]

PAF first aircrew to fly Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&C in Pakistan - March 1, 2010. L-R: S/L Ali Raza, S/L Salman, S/L Adeel Zafar, W/C Inamullah, W/C Akhtar, W/C Farhan, W/C Tahir, S/L Jannisar, S/L Umer. [Picture courtesy: Directorate of Media Affair, PAF]

PAF first aircrew to fly Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&C in Pakistan. [Picture courtesy: Directorate of Media Affair, PAF]

 

[air marshal]

Wg Cdr Syed Inamullah and Wg Cdr Zulfiqar Ali, the first PAF aircrew to fly Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&C aircraft as Pilot-in-Command. [Picture courtesy: Directorate of Media Affair, PAF]

No. 33 Flying Wing - 2010. [Picture courtesy: Directorate of Media Affair, PAF]

 

[Abingdonboy]

Any idea why PAF went for the SAAB 2000 platform over others? especially a jet powered platform with longer range? Especially as (ironically) the majority of Eriye operators use the EMB-145 platform.