Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[blain2]

Sorry that I came across just now. Just to correct the facts. Argentinians had 3 Squadrons of Mirage 111 and its Israeli versions the Desher. They had only 5 "Super Etendards". It was only Super Etendards that could carry "Exocest" missiles. They also had a large number of A-4s.

Most of the attacks were by iron bombs using A-4 Skyhawks; no match for Naval Harriers. Mirages were used mostly as fighter escorts. Royal Navy sunk nearly half the Argentinian Airforce and lost/damage 8 capital ships including a troop transport vessel of her own. Two of the kills were by Exocest, rest thru normal bombing.

At that time there was no air strip in the Falklands where jets could land. Local air support was by Pucaras. All Argentinian jets were flying from 4 hundred miles away and thus not able to get into a sustained dog fight with 40 or so Harriers of the Royal Navy. Still it was a close run thing and only an "Iron Lady" of Margret Thatchers nerve could persevere.

Jury is still out as to whether Falkland war was worth it. War was actually won once UK atomic submarine sunk 'Gen Belgrano' sinking 300 or so Argentinian sailors. Argetinians lost heart. Argentina had 2 diesel electric submarines and also an aircraft carrier '25 of May' but Navy never did any thing. As a matter of fact it was only the Airforce that fought from the Argentinian side. Land war was also a minor event.

The IAI suplied aircraft to FAA included the "Nesher". The rest you are pretty much on mark. For those interested in a very very good reading on contemporary air campaigns only need to look up Lon Nordeen's "Air war in the missile age".

 

[Contrarian]

you guys are seriously off topic LOL
this threat is about AWACS

 

[Keysersoze]

Ok then lets get back to the topic (there have been a few more developments since the last post )

It's interesting that Pak has opted for two different AEW systems however do you not think that they could have opted to use the same airframes for both systems?(either the P-3 or the SAAB 2000) It would have made the logistical situation a little easier.....Both airframes look equally capable of taking either radar system.

 

[blain2]

It would have if the same service was going to operate them. This is not the case...and also the integration would have been a challenge (try getting a dual side AESA made by Ericsson installed on a LM platform and you will very quickly see how cost goes up considerably).

Pakistan opted with solutions that have already been implemented (Hawkeye2000 on P3s) or were easily doable for the integrators (as in the case of Saab2000 with Erieye).

The other point is that PN already operates P-3s and the logistics would be simplified for the service if the AEW&C platform is also P-3.

For Airforce, it was more an issue of capability....if I recall correctly, Hawkeye's performance in certain theaters was not up to expectation thus PAF altogether stayed away from it....the challenges are lesser when the same platform has to be used in maritime roles.

I think the initial plan was to purchase additional Erieyes for the PN as well, however I believe the USG sweetened the deal by offering the P-3 based Hawkeye2000 to the PN (I believe the GoP would save considerable money as money for these would come from FMS/assistance instead of the GoP financing as is the case with the Erieyes).

 

[EagleEyes]

I wonder that too, but unfortunately Pakistan is going for another platform in development for the joint AEW system being built by China and Pakistan.

I guess the case with the logistics is not being looked at or PAF can afford to go through.

 

[Keysersoze]

Perhaps the Chinese system is not yet at the level of qaulity required and is seen as being a more long term project for Sino-Pak designers. The experience gained from operating two different systems will of course be invaluable.

I suppose another issue would be the integration of the various aircraft types in to a viable system.

I am curious as to the differences between the performance over sea as opposed to over land. The E2 system is better over water?

 

[araz]

I dont understand this development. Pakistan is acquiring Saab with Ericson AWACs, for its airforce, and Hawkeyes 2000 based on P3s for its Navy. It is understandable if one assumes that the 2 systems have different utilities for the 2 forces concerned. However we also go on and sign an agreement with China to jointly develop an AEWACs system. This is where it gets confusing for me. So far we have spent $1.85 Billion on the 2 systems and obviously the research would mean more money. Joint development in its own right is an indicator that both parties are not satisfied with the product they have at hand at the moment(ie the chinese AWACS system). The only logical conclusion is that the AWACs capability being acquired will be looked at closely with a view to enhancing the capability of the system that is being developed. That would be an interesting thought because an offshoot of this thought would be who then is paying/contributing to the cost of the systems that are being acquired? Could somebody in the know shed some light on the matter.
WaSalam
Araz

 

[blain2]

I am curious as to the differences between the performance over sea as opposed to over land. The E2 system is better over water?

I am not sure of the exact specifics, however I remember reading something about this in the mid-late 80s where it was mentioned that PAF rejected the E-2C (after evaluation) because of its inability to differentiate between clutter etc. esp in mountainous regions (all of Pakistani Northern Areas) because back then, the primary CAP sorties were being flown over the northwest to thwart Soviet/Afghan aircraft from violating Pakistani airspace.

 

[blain2]

I dont understand this development. Pakistan is acquiring Saab with Ericson AWACs, for its airforce, and Hawkeyes 2000 based on P3s for its Navy. It is understandable if one assumes that the 2 systems have different utilities for the 2 forces concerned. However we also go on and sign an agreement with China to jointly develop an AEWACs system. This is where it gets confusing for me. So far we have spent $1.85 Billion on the 2 systems and obviously the research would mean more money. Joint development in its own right is an indicator that both parties are not satisfied with the product they have at hand at the moment(ie the chinese AWACS system). The only logical conclusion is that the AWACs capability being acquired will be looked at closely with a view to enhancing the capability of the system that is being developed. That would be an interesting thought because an offshoot of this thought would be who then is paying/contributing to the cost of the systems that are being acquired? Could somebody in the know shed some light on the matter.
WaSalam
Araz

I think you have the right idea. The other thing is to fulfill the tactical requirements of the PAF/PN versus strategic requirement for the AEW&CS platforms. The Erieye and Hawkeye2000 would provide an OTH capability to PAF/PN in the near to intermediate future, however from the looks of it, Pakistan believes that working with Chinese, it would have a much better AEW&CS capability eventually in the long run....I think a wise and prudent approach any which way you look at it.

 

[EagleEyes]

Pakistan Air Force, Chinese aviation ink MoU on AWACS

Pakistan-China Air Force
Pakistan Air Force on Friday signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a Chinese Aviation Company for Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), officials said.

Pakistan Air Force and Chinese Aviation Industries have agreed for long-term collaboration and co-development in the fields of aircraft manufacturing and other related fields including AWACS, a statement from the PAF said.

In this regard an MOU was signed at Islamabad between Pakistan Air Force and a Chinese Aviation Company, CETC, for the improvement and further development of Chinese Airborne Early Warning System, it said.

The same may be delivered to Pakistan in coming years, the statement said.

It said that Pakistan Air Force is already collaborating with another Chinese Aviation Company, CATIC, for the co-development and co-production of JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft.

Eight JF-17s are expected to be delivered to Pakistan during 2007, the statement said.

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0611248709175135.htm

 

[alamgir]

eyrie cannot be compared with phalcons...phalcons r way to advanced than eyries.eyries r suitable for small airforces.phalcons can easily jam the elctronics of eyrie and make it isolate from its ground based radars and PAF aircrafts.then it will be an easy target for IAF fighters.

Ericsson ERIEYE SAAB 2000
Thursday, 05 October 2006
The Saab 2000 regional transport turboprop aircraft was developed by Saab Aircraft of Linköping, Sweden. The aircraft first flew in March 1992, and Swiss became a first launch customer. Production of the aircraft seized in 1999, with around 60 Saab 2000 aircrafts operational world wide, but the limited production started again for Pakistan Air Force with the requirement of up to seven aircrafts equipped with Ericsson Erieye PS-890 side looking active phased-array pulse-Doppler radar.

The aircrafts maximum cruise speed capability is around 370 KTAS (knots true airspeed), 685km/h and the maximum range is 2,868km. Saab 2000 allows operators in high speed performance to interchange fleet timetables with fighter aircrafts on 500nm routes. The aircraft is capable of reaching its destination to over 1,000nm in a flight time of three hours.

ERIEYE
ERIEYE is the first high-performance, long-range Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) system based on active phased-array pulse-Doppler radar.

This new-generation system is installed on Saab 2000 turboprop aircraft. It meets full AEW&C requirements for detecting and tracking targets at ranges of up to 450 km over land or water.

ERIEYE is a complete AEW&C system, including radar (with integrated SSR/IFF), electronic support measures, communications and data links, comprehensive command-and-control facilities and self-protection system.

The ERIEYE radar, with its fixed electronically scanned antenna and use of adaptive radar control techniques, has superior resolution accuracy. When compared to traditional rotodome-based solutions, it provides enhanced detection and tracking performance, including the active simultaneous tracking of multiple targets. In addition, the radar offers significantly improved resistance to electronic countermeasures (ECM).

State-of-the-art command-and-control system gives the on-board mission-system crew full capability for AEW&C roles as well as maximum flexibility for other peacetime and war missions. ERIEYE is fully interoperable with and easily integrated into NATO Air Defense Command Systems.

Flight Desk
Saab 2000 aircraft is equipped with a Rockwell Collins Pro Line 4 avionics suite with integrated avionics processor (IAP), a traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) and an engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS). The flight control systems include an attitude heading and reference system (AHRS) and a digital air data system (DADS).

Design
SAAB 2000 aircraft design is based on Saab 340, but with a longer fuselage and larger wing.


Flight Desk
Saab 2000 aircraft is equipped with a Rockwell Collins Pro Line 4 avionics suite with integrated avionics processor (IAP), a traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) and an engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS). The flight control systems include an attitude heading and reference system (AHRS) and a digital air data system (DADS).

Design
SAAB 2000 aircraft design is based on Saab 340, but with a longer fuselage and larger wing.
Engine

Two Rolls-Royce Allison AE 2100A turboprop engines power the aircraft, each engine rate at 3,096kW and fitted with Lucas Aerospace full authority digital engine control (FADEC). The engine cowlings are manufactured by Westland and Hispano-Suiza.


There is a total usable capacity of 5,300 liters by two integral fuel tanks installed in the outer wing. The fuel system is fitted with an over wing gravity refueling station in each wing and one pressure refueling station in the starboard wing.


The Dowty six-bladed propellers, type R381, are constant speed propellers with auto-feathering and reverse pitch. The blades are fitted with electrical de-icing.

i think know you can change your mind that phalcon not better then erieye

 

[Keysersoze]

i think know you can change your mind that phalcon not better then erieye

Nice info, but the Phalcon is a better system.


HOWEVER it is not omnipotent.......(after all it lost out on 4 other tenders......)


Further info on the Erieye...(Info comes from World airpower journal)



· Range 450 km, limit was set in software by Swedish Air force (Software Controlled)
· In demo./test was able to track large high altitude target up to 500km
· Station altitude 8000m
· Uses NATO STD Mark XII IFF/SSR (Identification Friend/Foe, Secondary Search Radar)
· ELINT Task (Track and pulse description recording)
· Erieye Uses S-band 3Ghz narrow bean 1 degree, which is harder to jam.
· Swedish version has 120 degree each side of aircraft (plus/minus 120 degree, 240 degree) coverage and can track 300 air and 300 sea targets
· Brazilian version has 150 degree coverage
· Greece Erieye has 360-degree coverage and can track 1000 air and 1000 sea targets (track not search so able to provide all data).
· Further growth potential
· E2C APS145 can track 2000 (do not know if they add Air and Sea, Source manufacturer)
· Australian Wedge tail can track 3000 targets. (Source manufacturer)
· Russian A50 Early version detect 300 track 50-60 provide interception for 12-15, source another article)
· 3 aircraft are needed for 24 hours 1 patrol, can last up to 30 days.
· 2 a/c 75 nm station from base has 99% availability
· 4 a/c can provide 2 patrols with 1 on standby all times.
· Cost of ErieyeERJ145 ((on Compact a/c like ERJ145) $500/hour.
· E2C cost / hour is $2700 Vs E3C $8300
· High Altitude standard fighter (5m square RCS) range 350 km, Surface ship 320-350km
· Low flying cruise missile in ground clutter (<1m RCS) 150km
· ESC (Optional) has 450 km against standard fighter (RCS 5m sq.)
· IAI phalcon uses 1Ghz L band transmitter. Needs larger platform, its not complicated design but easy to jam since its bandwidth is 3 times of erieye S-band

· All platforms (SAAB 340, ERJ145 etc.) have > 8 hours station time (Design)

 

[Contrarian]

Key, the Israeli's make some of the BEST EW systems. I think its a folly to say that the Erieye would be able to jam the Phalcon.

Elta's experience in AESA radars is one of the best in the world. Green Pine, Phalcon, MF STAR, El/M 2052. They have designed ECCM features for all these AESA radars & are pretty well versed in that technology and consequently they also know how to tackle ECCM built into AESA radars. Now sweden also designs radars & ECCM, but its experience and level of achievements with AESA technology doesn't match up with Elta's. You can just compare sale of swedish EW equipment with that of israeli built by Elisra and Elta throughout the world. Even recently Rafael's Digital SHARK jammer won EW contract for a european corvette.

Elta's ELINT gear has been choosen by Australia for their Wedgetail AWACS. That should tell you how much state of the art their product is.
-airforce@PDF

Key, since i am not very knowledgeable in this area
Isnt L band far better than S band? And what all bands does the Phalcon use?

 

[ahussains]

eyrie cannot be compared with phalcons...phalcons r way to advanced than eyries.eyries r suitable for small airforces.phalcons can easily jam the elctronics of eyrie and make it isolate from its ground based radars and PAF aircrafts.then it will be an easy target for IAF fighters.

Very Nice a person is talking on the Web knows every thing about the Phalcons and Erieye and the Peoples who are Running the Entire Nations Airforce and Spending Billions of Dollar in the ****...

grow up and be realistic .. give some technical data and evidnece to support your comment

 

[Interceptor]

Jane Defence weekly

11 April 2007

A further major development for Saab in 2006 was the full and final go ahead for the sale of the Erieye airborne surveillance system to Pakistan. In what is effectively the formal launch of the Saab 2000 Erieye platform, the SEK8.3 billion order for the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) follows several years of negotiation. Systems, which developed the Erieye phased-array radar, the programme is now entirely controlled by Saab. The PAF will acquire six Saab 2000s, each fitted with the Erieye phased-array radar and configured with a number of onboard operators’ stations. The company will supply the aircraft, radar and most onboard systems (including the operators’ stations) but other mission equipment, such as the ‘identification friend or foe’ and communications systems will be largely from commercial off-the-shelf sources.