What's new

Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

.
AESA , but scans only in the vertical..
What does it mean? No 360 degree Scan? Or AESA in vertical and PESA in horizontal? if thats the case than how is it possible? Is there any AWAC out there which uses AESA and PESA in such layout?
He means that for an AWACS, the beam is shaped thus...

radar_fan_beams.jpg


A radar's beam shape is 90 deg from its antenna's shape. So if you go to the extreme as illustrated above, you will have a 'fan' shaped beam, then all you have to do orient the antenna to suit how you want to scan.
 
.
A saab damage assessment and evaluation team has been in kamra for some days now and has already ordered parts for the repair of the damaged saab awacs.

more news later

if they were complete write-off's as some are claiming, then the saab damage assessment team is not required. a write-off is a write-off and PAF has enough knowledge to 'salvage' parts which are re-useable.
 
. .
if they were complete write-off's as some are claiming, then the saab damage assessment team is not required. a write-off is a write-off and PAF has enough knowledge to 'salvage' parts which are re-useable.
who ever said that is talking through his a$$ (with due respect).
the sqd will be "almost" back to its full strength shortly : )
 
. .
who ever said that is talking through his a$$ (with due respect).
the sqd will be "almost" back to its full strength shortly : )

Quoting from your own post:

our over the horizon capability (saab) has been damaged severally and almost to the point of extinction.
i will let every one on one secret that our awacs (saab) sqd will never ever be at full strength again and it would only be a miracle if we can bring the sqd. back to two third or even half of the original strength.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-army/202635-attack-paf-base-minhas-191.html#ixzz27q5gmZyZ
 
. .
Erieye Radar in layman's language


The Erieye radar system is an Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system developed by Saab Microwave Systems of Sweden. It is based on an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA).

The radar is an active, phased-array, medium to high PRF pulse Doppler sensor that can feed to on-board operator architecture or downlink data.

Its antenna is fixed and the beam is electronically scanned, which provides superior detection and significantly enhanced tracking performance compared with older style radar-dome antennas.

The radar provides a broadside sector of 150º on each side and has an instrumental range of 280 miles (450km). It works from low level up to more than 82,000ft (25,000m) and has an effective surveillance area of 193,000 sq. miles (500,000km2). The system can track 500 sea and 1,000 air targets simultaneously, identified either manually or automatically.

For example, the radar can detect/track air targets, sea targets and hovering helicopters simultaneously in a split second. This is applied in a dense hostile electronic warfare environment, in heavy radar clutter and at low target altitudes. It detects small air targets, hovering helicopters, cruise missiles and small sea targets such as jet skis etc. It works in E/F band (3GHz) incorporating 192 two-way transmit/receive modules.

The Erieye system has full interoperability with NATO air defense command and control systems and other LINK 16 equipped assets.

well,the above highlighted statement suggests a dual channel TRMM architecture of SAAB,
but just to tell you my dear friend,LRDE has "patented" the technology of 8-channel TRMM which renders very high density to DRDO's AWACS.

hope you will like this link-
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1279046.html
 
.
Quoting from your own post:

before jumping the gun u should have read my post more carefully.
i said that "sqd will be almost back to its full strength". the import bit being "almost", now if ur an intelligent person i am sure u can make out what i am trying to say.
their are no contradictions in my post.
 
.
before jumping the gun u should have read my post more carefully.
i said that "sqd will be almost back to its full strength". the import bit being "almost", now if ur an intelligent person i am sure u can make out what i am trying to say.
their are no contradictions in my post.

Sorry I must be below average intelligence. Almost can mean anything:

1) We have lost 1 bird but we will keep going until we get replacements or make do with what we have.
2) We have not lost a bird but is damaged and will be almost back to full strength.

So which is it and if you can say almost then why not come out with straight!
 
.
dont worry some people are best at hypocrisy and he seems to be one of them
You have just joined the forum, hardly 5 posts are in your account. You have no right to target any member, especially who has been on the forum for a far longer period.

Learn to respect others and their views, even if they may have flaws or not match your opinion. Be professional and mature and then talk over it.
 
.
before jumping the gun u should have read my post more carefully.
i said that "sqd will be almost back to its full strength". the import bit being "almost", now if ur an intelligent person i am sure u can make out what i am trying to say.
their are no contradictions in my post.

Brother, your post that nuclearpk have quoted say that we will never be able to bring the SAAB Squadron to full strength and it will be a miracle if are able to bring it to even two third or half of its strength. Then you say it will be almost back to full strength.
Almost back to full strength in no way mean two third or half of original strength or does it?

Sorry to say this but the posts are quite childish..

Nuclearpk have done a good job by keeping his eye open, showing goof presence of mind to show how authentic you INSIDE reports really are.

Many senior members who sources have proved right time and time again were saying that there was no substantial loss in Kamra Attacks but you insisted the other way. Such contradictory posts show your credibility.
A squadron will almost be broght back to its full strength that will be half of original strength? :P

They say kay Zada bolnay wala hmasha Nuksan uthata ha, so it is wise to talk about matter one is sure about!
you are new here, just trying to teach you PDF ways, no offense!
Hope you take it positively

best regards!
Arsalan
 
.
before jumping the gun u should have read my post more carefully.
i said that "sqd will be almost back to its full strength". the import bit being "almost", now if ur an intelligent person i am sure u can make out what i am trying to say.
their are no contradictions in my post.

It isn't a glass of water that it is almost full. Or a training process that it is almost complete.

The plane is either there or it is not.

After the attack, my opinion was that it is not there. And at this moment, I still think like that. Albeit I am not privy to to what happened afterwards. But I wouldn't be surprised if a damage assessment went wrong somewhere within PAF.
 
.
Brother, your post that nuclearpk have quoted say that we will never be able to bring the SAAB Squadron to full strength and it will be a miracle if are able to bring it to even two third or half of its strength. Then you say it will be almost back to full strength.
Almost back to full strength in no way mean two third or half of original strength or does it?

Sorry to say this but the posts are quite childish..

Nuclearpk have done a good job by keeping his eye open, showing goof presence of mind to show how authentic you INSIDE reports really are.

Many senior members who sources have proved right time and time again were saying that there was no substantial loss in Kamra Attacks but you insisted the other way. Such contradictory posts show your credibility.
A squadron will almost be broght back to its full strength that will be half of original strength? :P

They say kay Zada bolnay wala hmasha Nuksan uthata ha, so it is wise to talk about matter one is sure about!
you are new here, just trying to teach you PDF ways, no offense!
Hope you take it positively

best regards!
Arsalan

OK GUys Lets settle down.
We said things based on info that we got. It may have been wrong or our posts leflected the haste and anxiety associated with what was a shocking event for all of us. The fact which has been established is that one plane's nose cne suffered some damage which is being looked at and repaired. WE ARE ALL GREATFUL TO ALLAH that the damage was not more severe. Let us move on from here instead of this you said this and I said that debate.
Araz
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom