Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[SBD-3]

no no, the radar anteena of erieye is not a rotating one. it is in a bar shape, you must have seen it many time. the radar do not rotate but gives a 360 degree coverage by perhaps induction of som sensors at the ends or the bar aswell!
some well informed person regarding this feild may give you more technical knowledge but one thing is for sure that it do not rotate and use some senors on the sides to gibe 360 coverage!

regards!

Prdon me for not making it clear I ment that will the aircraft have to rotate rather than erieye radar cuz plane have to fly in circles to get 360 degree coerage

 

[MastanKhan]

Prdon me for not making it clear I ment that will the aircraft have to rotate rather than erieye radar cuz plane have to fly in circles to get 360 degree coerage

Hi,

I don't believe that I am reading this---God almighty please----ROFL----

 

[Arsalan]

Prdon me for not making it clear I ment that will the aircraft have to rotate rather than erieye radar cuz plane have to fly in circles to get 360 degree coerage

no this is not he case brother, this never can be!! as munir sir said that it is a case of controlling the beam, that may be what i said to have sensors all around the radar rather than just on its sides! anyway a AWACS flying in circles is a bit funny, this is not the case!

actually this have been discussed in detail with some member giving indetail knowledege about the working of this radar! you may find it on this thread and i will also try to look for it and post it for a review!

regards!

 

[SBD-3]

no this is not he case brother, this never can be!! as munir sir said that it is a case of controlling the beam, that may be what i said to have sensors all around the radar rather than just on its sides! anyway a AWACS flying in circles is a bit funny, this is not the case!

actually this have been discussed in detail with some member giving indetail knowledege about the working of this radar! you may find it on this thread and i will also try to look for it and post it for a review!

regards!

Thanx that would be just fine

 

[gambit]

Prdon me for not making it clear I ment that will the aircraft have to rotate rather than erieye radar cuz plane have to fly in circles to get 360 degree coerage

Hi,

I don't believe that I am reading this---God almighty please----ROFL----

Neither can I...

Gents...Please (re)read my explanation on beam control on an ESA antenna back on page 48 of THIS thread.

 

[Manticore]

sirs, someone asked me several questions regarding paf awacs,, they are technical questions and i have no clue .plz help me out. thanks,.


1) In PHALCON, the ESM is totally integrated with the the PSR, meaning thereby, that its ESM suite can also generate the track even if the aircraft switches on its AI, does this facility prevails in ERIEYE also???

2) In ERIEYE, if the bank of the aircraft is incraesd more than 5 degrees, the airborne radar switches off, is this flaw( or any same type of flaw) remaines valid for PHALCON also?????

3) ERIEYE being a vunerable platform itself, What is the self protection of ERIEYE???

4) PHALCON having 11 control positions as compared to 5 of ERIEYE, isnt this difference a major one to grade PHALCON as AWACS and ERIEYE as AEW&C??

5) PHALCON having the full facility to act as C4, and data sharer through DL, in case of ground based C4, is knocked down, is ERIEYE capable of it

 

[blain2]

sirs, someone asked me several questions regarding paf awacs,, they are technical questions and i have no clue .plz help me out. thanks,.


1) In PHALCON, the ESM is totally integrated with the the PSR, meaning thereby, that its ESM suite can also generate the track even if the aircraft switches on its AI, does this facility prevails in ERIEYE also???

2) In ERIEYE, if the bank of the aircraft is incraesd more than 5 degrees, the airborne radar switches off, is this flaw( or any same type of flaw) remaines valid for PHALCON also?????

3) ERIEYE being a vunerable platform itself, What is the self protection of ERIEYE???

4) PHALCON having 11 control positions as compared to 5 of ERIEYE, isnt this difference a major one to grade PHALCON as AWACS and ERIEYE as AEW&C??

5) PHALCON having the full facility to act as C4, and data sharer through DL, in case of ground based C4, is knocked down, is ERIEYE capable of it

Please go through this entire thread. All of your points have been addressed in many of the posts. Some quick answers:

1. Yes. Erieye actually uses its ESM to track in the rear and aft sectors.

2. This does not make any sense. The radar cannot just switch off due to a banking turn.

3. Why is Erieye a vulnerable platform? Why would any other platform not be vulnerable from that standpoint? Secondly, Erieye boasts a very good SPS, as good as any others on the market.

4. The number of on-board console does not dictate AWACS vs. AEW&C. The terminology has changed and all of the systems on the market are now known as AEW&C.

5. Erieye is fully Data linked to all nodes capable of receiving data traffic from it. This is a function of the end station, not of the Erieye. Otherwise Erieye can conduct communications over Link-16/22 architecture with any other node.

 

[Arsalan]

Neither can I...

Gents...Please (re)read my explanation on beam control on an ESA antenna back on page 48 of THIS thread.

thank you sir for indicating the page number, that was what i was looking for to explain the issue to Mr.Hassnain. i gues if he or aanyone else gets something wrong it is the duty for more informed people like yourself to guide them! and no doubt that you have been doing so!! that is for what we are on this forum,,, sharing knowledge!

thankyou for your post

regards!

 

[Manticore]

Please go through this entire thread. All of your points have been addressed in many of the posts. Some quick answers:

1. Yes. Erieye actually uses its ESM to track in the rear and aft sectors.

2. This does not make any sense. The radar cannot just switch off due to a banking turn.

3. Why is Erieye a vulnerable platform? Why would any other platform not be vulnerable from that standpoint? Secondly, Erieye boasts a very good SPS, as good as any others on the market.

4. The number of on-board console does not dictate AWACS vs. AEW&C. The terminology has changed and all of the systems on the market are now known as AEW&C.

5. Erieye is fully Data linked to all nodes capable of receiving data traffic from it. This is a function of the end station, not of the Erieye. Otherwise Erieye can conduct communications over Link-16/22 architecture with any other node.

thanks blain2...... ive gone through the thread a couple of times, but the abbreviations esm, pcr,ai,c4,dl..were way over my head and confusing for me used by the indian person who asked me.
thanks again

 

[MastanKhan]

thank you sir for indicating the page number, that was what i was looking for to explain the issue to Mr.Hassnain. i gues if he or aanyone else gets something wrong it is the duty for more informed people like yourself to guide them! and no doubt that you have been doing so!! that is for what we are on this forum,,, sharing knowledge!

thankyou for your post

regards!

Hi Arsalan,

How are you? Indeed it is our job to share our input----but then when the poster poses that he has enough knowledge and wants to talk the talk, we expect the poster to be knowledgeable and that they have done their homework---. We all make mistakes.

---our poster " gambit' had a wonderful post on this topic a few days ago---seems like our junior poster missed it altogether or didnot care to read it.

 

[SBD-3]

accept my appologies
it was missed cuz i was returning to site in breaks due to loads of office work

 

[Arsalan]

Hi Arsalan,

How are you? Indeed it is our job to share our input----but then when the poster poses that he has enough knowledge and wants to talk the talk, we expect the poster to be knowledgeable and that they have done their homework---. We all make mistakes.

---our poster " gambit' had a wonderful post on this topic a few days ago---seems like our junior poster missed it altogether or didnot care to read it.

now these are the post which make you a perfext member for the badge of Senior Member! thankyou sir!!

regards!

 

[SBD-3]

Its good to be back
i was reading about KJ-2000 and the site stated

The system is presumably similar, but slightly inferior to the Israeli Phalcon system with a fixed rotodome housing three AESA antennas in a triangular configuration

can any one explain the comparison b/w the two

Chinese Military Aviation

 

[gambit]

Its good to be back
i was reading about KJ-2000 and the site stated

can any one explain the comparison b/w the two

Chinese Military Aviation

There is a direct relationship between freq and physical antenna dimensions. A freq can have different beamwidths on different antenna sizes.

Radar Systems

Radar Frequency

Finally, the frequency of the radio carrier wave will also have some affect on how the radar beam propagates. At the low frequency extremes, radar beams will refract in the atmosphere and can be caught in "ducts" which result in long ranges. At the high extreme, the radar beam will behave much like visible light and travel in very straight lines. Very high frequency radar beams will suffer high losses and are not suitable for long range systems.

The frequency will also affect the beam-width. For the same antenna size, a low frequency radar will have a larger beam-width than a high frequency one. In order to keep the beam-width constant, a low frequency radar will need a large antenna.

Beamwidths are important in target resolutions, especially at long distances and even more crucial with multiple targets.

There is a problem call 'radar resolution cell'...

Definition: radar resolution cell

radar resolution cell: The volume of space that is occupied by a radar pulse and that is determined by the pulse duration and the horizontal and vertical beamwidths of the transmitting radar. Note: The radar cannot distinguish between two separate objects that lie within the same resolution cell. The radar resolution cell depth (RCD ) remains constant regardless of the distance from the transmitting antenna. It does not increase with range. The RCD is given by RCD = 150d , where the RCD is in meters and d is the pulse duration in microseconds. The height of the cell and the width of the cell do increase with range. These are given by W = (HBW )(R /57) and H = (VBW )(R /57), where W is the width of the cell, HBW is the horizontal beamwidth in degrees, R is the range, H is the height of the cell, and VBW is the vertical beamwidth in degrees. The range, R , is the distance from the radar antenna to the reflecting object, i.e., the target. The width and height will come out in the same units in which the range is given. For example, if the range is given in meters, the width and height of the radar resolution cell will be in meters. The 57 merely converts degrees to radians. If the beamwidths are given in radian measure, the 57 is omitted.

So with different antenna sizes, it is possible for freq X for one antenna to distinguish multiple targets compared to the same freq X on a different and smaller antenna that created a wider beamwidth. To narrow the beamwidth, which would create a sufficiently small resolution cell to distinguish multiple targets, a higher freq is necessary, but the trade off is decreased detection range. A B-52 can occupy several resolution cells in a single sweep (scan), whereas depending on the freq and the antenna size, two or more F-16s in a tight formation will be seen as one target. Not many people realize it but whenever the USAF Thunderbirds fly their tight four-ship diamond formation, many radars will see these four aircrafts as one target, sometimes even when they are within visual range.

So to answer your question...If, despite the dome assembly having three arrays instead of two, the individual arrays are smaller in physical dimensions than the arrays in the two array assembly, the entire triangular three array system can be inferior in long range detection than the two arrays system. Can -- not must. To compensate, this triangular three array system can have larger arrays, but that would mean a larger dome, which affects aerodynamics, weight allowances, etc...etc...

With the current US 'stealth' aircrafts, it is already problematic to detect a single 'stealth' aircraft in any resolution cell, now it is possible to have a dozen of them in tight formation, or stacked at different altitudes, and the radar would be no wiser as to what is out there.

 

[Arsalan]

There is a direct relationship between freq and physical antenna dimensions. A freq can have different beamwidths on different antenna sizes.

Radar Systems

Beamwidths are important in target resolutions, especially at long distances and even more crucial with multiple targets.

There is a problem call 'radar resolution cell'...

Definition: radar resolution cell



So with different antenna sizes, it is possible for freq X for one antenna to distinguish multiple targets compared to the same freq X on a different and smaller antenna that created a wider beamwidth. To narrow the beamwidth, which would create a sufficiently small resolution cell to distinguish multiple targets, a higher freq is necessary, but the trade off is decreased detection range. A B-52 can occupy several resolution cells in a single sweep (scan), whereas depending on the freq and the antenna size, two or more F-16s in a tight formation will be seen as one target. Not many people realize it but whenever the USAF Thunderbirds fly their tight four-ship diamond formation, many radars will see these four aircrafts as one target, sometimes even when they are within visual range.

So to answer your question...If, despite the dome assembly having three arrays instead of two, the individual arrays are smaller in physical dimensions than the arrays in the two array assembly, the entire triangular three array system can be inferior in long range detection than the two arrays system. Can -- not must. To compensate, this triangular three array system can have larger arrays, but that would mean a larger dome, which affects aerodynamics, weight allowances, etc...etc...

With the current US 'stealth' aircrafts, it is already problematic to detect a single 'stealth' aircraft in any resolution cell, now it is possible to have a dozen of them in tight formation, or stacked at different altitudes, and the radar would be no wiser as to what is out there.

that aws a good pack of information, thankyou!
anyway at the moment we are not getting the KJ2000 and neither it seems that we will be getting them in near future. for now our dependance is on erieye and i hope they are good enough for us and fulfill all our needs of a modren and reliable AWACS effective in hostile electronic enviorment