Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[Quwa]

Aren't you Bilal Khan? Most of the articles on Quwa are written by Bilal Khan. Big fan of the website!

I'm the Quwa BK, but BK 777 is a retired PAF officer.

 

[ziaulislam]

Could also be Pakistan. A genuinely credible member - @Bilal Khan 777 - claimed that the PAF was working on replacing the Erieye it lost in 2012. It had secured the Saab 2000 it'll use, so it may now be ordering the Erieye system. As to why Sweden wouldn't disclose the name; in Pakistan's case, it is probably a matter of not wanting to upset India.

given the fact that deal is so small and limited, it is an existing customer not a new one, so there is ogood probablity that might be us

 

[nomi007]

in which Numbers??

most probably 3-4

 

[Super Falcon]

Pakistan Airforce should focus on procuring bigger AWACS based on IL 78 Or Boeing 777 Like a rotating dome in it we have smaller platforms which means it has a limited range of 400 to 500 km but if we get two advanced AWACS in range of 800 to 1000 kam it is very flexible option specifically for all 3 forces

 

[Thorough Pro]

Rotating DOME is old tech, you don't need mechanical movement for AESA

Pakistan Airforce should focus on procuring bigger AWACS based on IL 78 Or Boeing 777 Like a rotating dome in it we have smaller platforms which means it has a limited range of 400 to 500 km but if we get two advanced AWACS in range of 800 to 1000 kam it is very flexible option specifically for all 3 forces

 

[SBD-3]

Pakistan Airforce should focus on procuring bigger AWACS based on IL 78 Or Boeing 777 Like a rotating dome in it we have smaller platforms which means it has a limited range of 400 to 500 km but if we get two advanced AWACS in range of 800 to 1000 kam it is very flexible option specifically for all 3 forces

Why wasting funds on procuring a third platform when
1-Even the two haven't been fully integrated to combat assets yet. Pakistan is not a country of the size of Russia,China, US or India.
2-Debts of both are still being serviced.

Rotating DOME is old tech, you don't need mechanical movement for AESA

Hawkeyes and Sentries still use this "Old tech". Its not about whether your dome rotates or not. It's about the capabilities of Radar and Systems being housed by AWACs and their ability to do their function as desired.
here's an example of what makes up an AWACS beyond the dome.

 

[ebrahym]

@Quwa Awacs should have long endurance right?
and the flying objects having long endurance are airships
many countries like UK, Israel are going for blimps
are we gonna see it or gonna focus on current AWACS acquisition
they will certainly be cost efficient?
or is airship based AWACS even viable?

 

[Quwa]

@Quwa Awacs should have long endurance right?
and the flying objects having long endurance are airships
many countries like UK, Israel are going for blimps
are we gonna see it or gonna focus on current AWACS acquisition
they will certainly be cost efficient?
or is airship based AWACS even viable?

I wouldn't know of the PAF's plans, but in regards to airship-based AEW&C, it is an interesting idea. I can see detractors pointing out the lower speed as a disadvantage, but one could argue that prop-based AEW&C have the same general problem. If one can do it at stand-off range with no threats, then it could be a worthwhile idea, especially if one is in possession of very powerful long-range radar technology.

 

[ebrahym]

but in regards to airship-based AEW&C, it is an interesting idea. I can see detractors pointing out the lower speed as a disadvantage, but one could argue that prop-based AEW&C have the same general problem. If one can do it at stand-off range with no threats, then it could be a worthwhile idea, especially if one is in possession of very powerful long-range radar technology.

will it be cost efficient as well ?
maintenance wise and room for gadget installation as most of Lighter than air concept has to be filled with lighter than air gas

 

[Quwa]

will it be cost efficient as well ?
maintenance wise and room for gadget installation as most of Lighter than air concept has to be filled with lighter than air gas

Cost efficiency depends on a few things - e.g. the cost of maintaining the specific aircraft and its components, the cost of the radar system and its maintenance, etc. It's impossible to give a general statement.

For example, the U.S. could build an airship AEW&C, but only produce 2 or 3 of its kind. In of itself, this system could be very expensive to maintain, especially if the platform is not being used in the wider market. Alternatively, an AEW&C based on a commercially available platform with dozens of international users and a glut of spare parts could be cheaper to maintain.

Cost efficiency can only be judged on a case by case basis.

 

[JamD]

@Quwa Awacs should have long endurance right?
and the flying objects having long endurance are airships
many countries like UK, Israel are going for blimps
are we gonna see it or gonna focus on current AWACS acquisition
they will certainly be cost efficient?
or is airship based AWACS even viable?

I think this is the world's largest current airship (Airlander 10):
https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/downloads/Airlander-21.pdf

It can carry a payload of 20,000 kg (same as Y-8), but it can only go up to 16,000 ft (compared to 34,000 ft for Y-8). This sacrifices the detection range (I did a quick calculation):

Considering the reduction in detection range especially for low flying targets, I doubt it would be cost effective considering I am comparing the ZDK-03 with the largest airship I could find.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I think the Airlander 10 could make for a good ISR asset over low-AAW threat environments, such as COIN. We could fly one of these over an area for five days in a single sortie. One could potentially load a powerful ground facing SAR and use this as an airborne command post to manage land and air friendlies over FATA.

 

[araz]

I think the Airlander 10 could make for a good ISR asset over low-AAW threat environments, such as COIN. We could fly one of these over an area for five days in a single sortie. One could potentially load a powerful ground facing SAR and use this as an airborne command post to manage land and air friendlies over FATA.

Would it not be at risk from enemy fire. I dont think it will work well .
A

 

[Dazzler]

I think the Airlander 10 could make for a good ISR asset over low-AAW threat environments, such as COIN. We could fly one of these over an area for five days in a single sortie. One could potentially load a powerful ground facing SAR and use this as an airborne command post to manage land and air friendlies over FATA.

That poor little boy just crashed on its second test flight.

 

[nomi007]