Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[Patriot]

Sancho Operator Station is simply not the issue.Saab Video mentions that if needed Saab can setup more Ground Operator Stations connected to Saab 2000 via Secure DATA16 Link so therefore if we need more then 6 operators then we can setup more ground stations connected to Saab 2000..it offers very good C4I Capability.

 

[SBD-3]

To date there is no answer even today to SU30MKI from PAF

you have every right to be happy bro
thanks God you didn't say ambassidor is better than limmo

ok comming to the point of MKI so if you would remeber last violations of IAF into pak airspase it was reported that Falcons had locked the "errorously wondering" MKI with a MIG-29 backing and the MKI bugged out so that should satisfy you that falcons do; lemme make it a little more clear DO have the capasity to lock the "invincible" MKI
oh! and the source was BBC not a pakistani channel I hope you will take it as reliable source

 

[Contrarian]

Sancho Operator Station is simply not the issue.Saab Video mentions that if needed Saab can setup more Ground Operator Stations connected to Saab 2000 via Secure DATA16 Link so therefore if we need more then 6 operators then we can setup more ground stations connected to Saab 2000..it offers very good C4I Capability.

That is a major disadvantage. Read up on the initial posts of this thread. The difference between the amount of processing capabilities b/w SAAB 2000 and the Il-76. Il-76 becomes an independent node in the air, while the SAAB 2000 makes the Erieye ground station dependent for processing.

 

[gambit]

That is a major disadvantage. Read up on the initial posts of this thread. The difference between the amount of processing capabilities b/w SAAB 2000 and the Il-76. Il-76 becomes an independent node in the air, while the SAAB 2000 makes the Erieye ground station dependent for processing.

Not necessarily a negative. If your data link is sufficiently robust against interference, and that include deliberate interference, and if it is sufficiently fast with good bandwidth, you can offload those processing burden to the ground station, leaving only scanning. Two or more airborne platforms in this configuration would allow each to concentrate on specific sectors of the sky.

 

[Patriot]

That is a major disadvantage. Read up on the initial posts of this thread. The difference between the amount of processing capabilities b/w SAAB 2000 and the Il-76. Il-76 becomes an independent node in the air, while the SAAB 2000 makes the Erieye ground station dependent for processing.

Nope, this is not correct.You need to watch Saab Official video.It has 6 onboard stations which can act independently however if customer wants more stations they can set those on ground so in addition to those 6 operation stations you get more.It can OPTIONALLY Be connected to ground station to create a main C4I system.

 

[Contrarian]

Not necessarily a negative. If your data link is sufficiently robust against interference, and that include deliberate interference, and if it is sufficiently fast with good bandwidth, you can offload those processing burden to the ground station, leaving only scanning. Two or more airborne platforms in this configuration would allow each to concentrate on specific sectors of the sky.

Necessarily a negative per me mate. The difference is whether you 'choose to' use the ground stations or whether you 'have to' beyond a certain amount.

 

[Contrarian]

Nope, this is not correct.You need to watch Saab Official video.It has 6 onboard stations which can act independently however if customer wants more stations they can set those on ground so in addition to those 6 operation stations you get more.It can OPTIONALLY Be connected to ground station to create a main C4I system.

I got you in the first go. If PAF wants more stations, ground stations can be setup. More likely than not, no additional stations would be needed. My point was about the need for it, considering bigger platforms offer all that plus more.

 

[Munir]

 

[blain2]

But that fousing on targets will be done via the radar arrays, not through sensors, so it remains as an issue right? Also at the moment there is only this statement of Saab that proves there is some detection in front and back, but how capable is it? I mean what kind of targets can you detect in what range?
As I said before, the fact that they don't even show some detection, or scans in that areas in their own presentation says something don't you think?

Only would be an issue if the flight path is linear. The SAAB 2000's short 180 degree turns are not advertised without reason.

As I have said, lacking specific information about the two systems, its hard to even contemplate that Erieye users would be impacted by the fore/aft tracking issues that are of a nature which would severely impact operational performance. All that has been discussed is based on general specs which are neither conclusive nor very detailed.

I guess we will have to see what the experiences of the two air forces are as they deploy the systems. I think both sides have done enough homework for them to be able to use these systems effectively. In the past even lesser capable systems have been put to greater usage than what these new platforms afford to the two air forces.

 

[blain2]

Sancho Operator Station is simply not the issue.Saab Video mentions that if needed Saab can setup more Ground Operator Stations connected to Saab 2000 via Secure DATA16 Link so therefore if we need more then 6 operators then we can setup more ground stations connected to Saab 2000..it offers very good C4I Capability.

There are quite a few other benefits of the SAAB system as well in comparison to the Phalcon. In due time people will read about them.

 

[blain2]

That is a major disadvantage. Read up on the initial posts of this thread. The difference between the amount of processing capabilities b/w SAAB 2000 and the Il-76. Il-76 becomes an independent node in the air, while the SAAB 2000 makes the Erieye ground station dependent for processing.

No it does not. The SAAB 2000 is a full-fledged AEW system. It does not require a ground relay station which was a requirement for the Swedish Air Force's Argus solution because they did not have on-board consoles. The versions in use with the Hellenic Air Force and the one to be deployed by the PAF does not require any consoles on the ground. The aircraft is an independent node in the air that is fully capable of relaying data to any other DL compliant node in the air, at sea or on the ground.

As I have mentioned before, this was one of PAF's key ASRs. We did not need a duplicate GCI network with the Erieye acting as an input node into the GCI. The Erieye will be the central node in the air defence grid.

 

[blain2]

I got you in the first go. If PAF wants more stations, ground stations can be setup. More likely than not, no additional stations would be needed. My point was about the need for it, considering bigger platforms offer all that plus more.

Not really. His point is if needed, that can be a case with Phalcon too. You have a secure DL and you download and upload between the ground consoles and those on the AEW platform.

Erieye has 5 operator consoles for fully autonomous operations. IDFAF's GF550 has 6 to do the same.

 

[blain2]

Necessarily a negative per me mate. The difference is whether you 'choose to' use the ground stations or whether you 'have to' beyond a certain amount.

To lay this debate to rest, with Erieye system being delivered to Pakistan and the ones that HAF are operating, you do not have to use the ground stations.

 

[Munir]

Correct. The Greecs were asking on board operators cause the original has only one station which controls the sending of data... The Saab2000 version is fully capable. It has options to use groundstations but it can handle the job without it. If you do a toptech job and you can use a few supercomputers on the ground then I bet you can do it faster then if you are up there without those computers...

 

[SBD-3]

this is KJ-2000 I think we are getting Y-8