What's new

Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

. .
But how better they would be intercepted? By PAF Fighters having 100km BVRs or Ships with Type 054A/Ps having 70km max considering it has HQ16B version? Air Launched Anti Ship Missiles have larger range than 70km


Sea Spray 7300E doesn't gives over-the-horizon coverage?
Sea Spray 7300E likely offers over-the-horizon coverage, but would it offer as much range as the ZDK03? Moreover, by data-linking to an AEW&C, the LRMPAs and Sea Kings can also switch-off their radars (reduce exposure to Indian EW). As for SAMs, they're the first line of defence for the Type 054A/P and MILGEM, the sooner the ships are aware of an incoming missile threat the better.
 
.
they're the first line of defence for the Type 054A/P and MILGEM, the sooner the ships are aware of an incoming missile threat the better.
So would you feel comfortable for them facing aerial targets or would you let your Fighters with BVRs to intercept the enemy jets carrying AShMs before they are launched towards your Ships?
 
.
So would you feel comfortable for them facing aerial targets or would you let your Fighters with BVRs to intercept the enemy jets carrying AShMs before they are launched towards your Ships?
I never said I want ships with SAMs instead of fighters.

I said that I want AEW&C support for ships so that the ships can identify threats as early as possible, and work to counter them earlier. This is independent of whether the PAF will send fighters with BVR or not (which it will), but it doesn't take away from the need of equipping ship air defences to act faster and more effectively.

The ship's air defence is its first line of defence, it's something it can control right at the moment it picks up a threat. So, the better that ship can do that job, the better it'll be for the PN, PAF, etc.
 
.
So, upon some research, it looks like Pakistan had purchased 3 Baseline SAAB 2000's back in 2018, this aligns with the order being for 3 ish systems too, especially considering that the cost for our previous 3 systems was very similar. If this is actually for us, this is big news.
 
. .
Still seems we have enough AWECs but are some what short on fighters now..
Erieye system us perfect for f16s and aim120 but what about jf17 & sd 10..
I doubt sd10 can talk to erieye
 
. .
Still seems we have enough AWECs but are some what short on fighters now..
Erieye system us perfect for f16s and aim120 but what about jf17 & sd 10..
I doubt sd10 can talk to erieye

I think there is urgent need for the Western borders; they are looking for 24x7 , 360 degree Surveillance on all borders.

As for JF-17/SD-10, it very easy to do using Link-17 since this is simply a communication protocol. Just as the Erieye's software is programmed to recognize Link-16 communication protocol at the GUI, it can be every easy programmed to recognise Link-17 communication protocol.
 
.
Still seems we have enough AWECs but are some what short on fighters now..
Erieye system us perfect for f16s and aim120 but what about jf17 & sd 10..
I doubt sd10 can talk to erieye
This also means something else too having huge fleet of Erieye? PAF will induct more F16s.

are these in addition to 6 AEW in PAF?
Yes I believe PAF would have around 9 Masha Allah
 
. .
Still seems we have enough AWECs but are some what short on fighters now..
Erieye system us perfect for f16s and aim120 but what about jf17 & sd 10..
I doubt sd10 can talk to erieye


Yes, you are right, we are in an enviable position of having excellent C3 and networking capability via a very large AWECS fleet but need more fighters. As I said in other Sniper Pod thread, if US willing to sell us brand new Sniper pods and Afghan peace talks progressing we should be able to get US nod to buy used F-16s from Europe
 
. .
If new order which SAAB has gotten is only of radar system and not the entire plane. Than it's most likely us other wise it's not us.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom