Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[blain2]

Israel has different requirements compared to us. The fact that they are ordering Eitam does not mean that putting the Phalcon on a Gulfstream gives the same amount of capability as one on an Il-76. It depends on the requirements.

Malay respond factually if you know what the requirements are. It is not sufficient to state their requirements are different and then walk away assuming the IL-76 carries a whole lot more than anything else on the market. I have yet to see a general overview of the Phalcon layout to see where the goods are stored. At least SAAB and IAI have provided the same for their respect AEW and CAEW platforms.

Thus far all I have seen from the Indian posters is a blind assumption that bigger is better. This was never the case and in the future too most of the AEW solutions will prove otherwise with crew comfort being an exception.

 

[TOPGUN]

lol... well congrats to you.... but your AWACs makes me nervous buddy..... so.... I CONDEMN .... and

Hey listen dont act like a child plzz be respectful you are guest here act like a matture person come with some knowledge other then bashing your comments that don't make sense rather then create tension here for no reason we are getting wat meets our req's and your country is getting wat they req anyhow iam not wasting anymore time on you haters to me are a waste of time

 

[blain2]

I think you have failed to notice this news "Sweden is also considering replacing the SAAB 340 Argus with the SAAB 2000 Erieye system, as the larger internal volume of this airframe allows for the installation of additional control consoles and communications equipment – allowing the aircraft to be employed as a much more effective airborne command & control post"

Thanks for bringing it to our attention but I did notice that having read that article/content many times over. This was one of the first few ASRs forwarded to the Swedes by the PAF as their own platform did not have on board operators while PAF wanted these. Larger internal volume is desirable, however how much is the question. Israelis, the Swedes, Australians and Turks among many others are going ahead with much smaller platforms for their AEW capabilities.

The Israelis have fitted 6 operator consoles on their Gulfstream 550s. An aircraft which is smaller than SAAB 2000. They have mission capabilities that are at least at par (saying that to make you folks at ease) with the IAF Phalcons if not exceeding those of the IAF's IL-76 based Phalcons.

The key is that technology is changing and miniaturization is a natural evolution. As such, bigger does not necessarily mean better in all aspects of AEW performance.

 

[King Julien]

Hey listen dont act like a child plzz be respectful you are guest here act like a matture person come with some knowledge other then bashing your comments that don't make sense rather then create tension here for no reason we are getting wat meets our req's and your country is getting wat they req anyhow iam not wasting anymore time on you haters to me are a waste of time

no sir.... please read my posts again.....
I did acknowledge that erieye system is impressive..... no offense was intended on my part, i request you to read those posts again...

 

[blain2]

Of course you can put the system in smaller aircrafts too, just look at the difference from the israeli 707 Phalcon and now the G550 Phalcon. There are 2 points that still speaks for a bigger aircraft, one that you can carry a rotodome with full detection rate to all sides and I still doubt that the two sided arrays of Erieye, or DRDO AWACS can equal that.

Its a static rotodome (as such no moving parts). The same deal with Erieye radar. What matters is the placement of emitters. SAAB officially and openly state that they provide full 360 degree coverage for threat assessment on SAAB 2000 Surveillance System. That to me is a more credible statement than all of the nay-sayers who constantly harp on data from Argus days which provided a 150 degree coverage on each side of the dorsal array.

Second that you have more space for more equipment like malaymishra123 said, but also for a bigger crew too.
The G550 can do 9h missions, but with a bigger crew on board and air refueling the A50 Phalcon can do much longer missions and if you take the size of India into account, you need a huge number of aircrafts if they had to land every 9 h right?

Crew comfort is a totally different thing. My issue is with the assumption that the bigger size of the aircraft automatically means more equipment thus a better platform. Nobody thus far has provided any concrete evidence of what really requires the airframe of an IL-78 when IDFAF are operating an aircraft which has at least the same (or potentially even more) gadgetry on their Gulfstream jets than the IAF IL-78s. I would be ok if someone told me that we have dual 15000 watt Power Supplies for the ECM equipment etc. etc. that take considerable space but thus far I have seen nothing.

IAI definitely are not marketing their Phalcon system on the basis of platforms. They will integrate the solution on big, medium and small aircraft (as small as GF550) based on what the customer wants.

Btw, here are some nice inside pics of the IAF Phalcon:

http://images.google.de/imgres?imgu...refox-a&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&sa=N&um=1

Thank you. These do look pretty impressive.

 

[Munir]

If the Il-78 is such a great platform then why is the first statement of the IAF that they will move to another platform? Bigger doesn't mean better. Saab is king in providing superb SA and if they linki it to ground stations or other assets then it is probably well tested and top tech. Even if the Phalcon is a top machine it is still small system compared to the Ericson... And the huge ground calculation power is a real time asset...

 

[ironman]

Thanks for bringing it to our attention but I did notice that having read that article/content many times over. This was one of the first few ASRs forwarded to the Swedes by the PAF as their own platform did not have on board operators while PAF wanted these. Larger internal volume is desirable, however how much is the question. Israelis, the Swedes, Australians and Turks among many others are going ahead with much smaller platforms for their AEW capabilities.

The Israelis have fitted 6 operator consoles on their Gulfstream 550s. An aircraft which is smaller than SAAB 2000. They have mission capabilities that are at least at par (saying that to make you folks at ease) with the IAF Phalcons if not exceeding those of the IAF's IL-76 based Phalcons.

The key is that technology is changing and miniaturization is a natural evolution. As such, bigger does not necessarily mean better in all aspects of AEW performance.

I'm not an expert in this matter but after reading this news "IAF may replace AWACS with 'modern aircraft' in future", I think you have made a good point.

 

[blain2]

Look at the explaination of the radar arrays and the detection range from minute 2:11!
Is it me, or is the radar beam only detecting in the 150° aerea to both sides and not to the front and back and this is a official Saab video!
It's only searching from front right to back right, then switching to the left side to do the same and not a full 360° search.

Here the MESA system on the 737. The interesting part is also the explaination of the radar arrays in minute 2:28!

[url="

- MESA Surveillance Radar[/url]


So it has 3 arrays and the 2 on the side provides only 130° of coverage!

360 degree "coverage" is a confusing term. Erieye does 360 degree detection of targets (the same as MESA) as it has visibility to 30 degrees in aft/fore spheres with certain sensors (ESM and not via the radar arrays themselves). What is supposedly a challenge for Erieye is sustained tracking in the same 30 degree spheres in front/aft. The solution to that is to fly patterns that ensure that the side arrays provide coverage if needed or have a couple of systems fly patterns which provide overlapping coverage for supposed blind spots. I do not think that in a defensive role or one in which the threat is most probably uni-directional, the 360° coverage matters as much, but I think a combination of the radar and ESMs would ensure that Erieye has pretty good SA.

The other point which is unknown is how the architecture of the antenna on top of the Erieye is laid out. If there are tx/rx nodes on the front and aft of the antenna then similar to Wedgetail, Erieye would have considerable insight into the supposed blindspots. I have not seen any indepth documentation on the Erieye aside from the statements by SAAB stating 360 coverage.

 

[sancho]

Crew comfort is a totally different thing. My issue is with the assumption that the bigger size of the aircraft automatically means more equipment thus a better platform.

Crew comfort wasn't my point either, more that the IAF Phalcon can do way longer missions (maybe even 24h) with more personal and air refueling. A smaller platform like EMB 145 can be refueled too, but offers not the space for all the equipment and that much personal, so the mission time is limited by the human factor.
Also if you want a rotodome, you have to go for such a big platform that can carry the weight, or find other solutions (see below).

What matters is the placement of emitters. SAAB officially and openly state that they provide full 360 degree coverage for threat assessment on SAAB 2000 Surveillance System.

360 degree "coverage" is a confusing term. Erieye does 360 degree detection of targets (the same as MESA) as it has visibility to 30 degrees in aft/fore spheres with certain sensors (ESM and not via the radar arrays themselves). What is supposedly a challenge for Erieye is sustained tracking in the same 30 degree spheres in front/aft. The solution to that is to fly patterns that ensure that the side arrays provide coverage if needed or have a couple of systems fly patterns which provide overlapping coverage for supposed blind spots.

EXACTLY and these are the main points to me too!
I believe you that Saab officially said that, but the key point is how?
After checking all the sources I posted and the presentations of Erieye, MESA, and Phalcon system(on Gulfstream), it is clear to me now that the key differences are not the systems, but the platforms. The aircrafts and more important the type of radar that is used!

Saab 2000 Erieye uses only 2 radar arrays to both sides, with a repeatedly quoted coverage of 150°.
The MESA has these side arrays too and like the presentation said gives 130° of coverage. BUT it also has a top radar that covers 50° to front and 50° to the back.
The Phalcon system on the Gulfstream uses 2 side arrays, and 2 arrays to the front and back.
The IAF Phalcon system uses a rotodome to achieve full 360° coverage.

The simple fact that the US and the Israeli system have to use additional radar arrays(or rotodome in IAF Phalcon, or E 3) to achieve 360° coverage should make clear, that the Erieye can't provide the same. Even if they were able to get some detection via sensors like you said (note that not even the official presentation video of Saab shows any scans, or detections to front, or back!), it can't be equal to the detection ranges and capabilities it has to the sides.
Jane's said nearly the same, that Erieye offers SOME detection to those areas, but without tracking capabilities. So the statement of Saab that it has 360° could be ok, but it is doubtful how good the detection to those "blind spots" are without radar arrays.

You might be right that PAF can counter that with flying patterns and more aircrafts, but that is big effort to counter that disadvantage of the radar right?

 

[maverick2009]

We spent the last 3 Years slating the SU30MKI has being nothing special.

Now the Phalcon Awacs arive are we about to start the same threads ???

Quiet simply both the induction of nearly 100 su30mki and the first of 3 highly advanced Phalcon Awacs as taken the entire Air capability of the IAF to a completely different plain to previous.

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

And the same is said of the Awacs . Nothing in sight as yet.

 

[sancho]

We spent the last 3 Years slating the SU30MKI has being nothing special.

Now the Phalcon Awacs arive are we about to start the same threads ???

Quiet simply both the induction of nearly 100 su30mki and the first of 3 highly advanced Phalcon Awacs as taken the entire Air capability of the IAF to a completely different plain to previous.

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

And the same is said of the Awacs . Nothing in sight as yet.

Please maverick, don't start such postings again! This is not about which side has the better AWACS, but to understand and compare those systems. Erieye will suit PAF aswell as the Phalcon will IAF, so no need to blame the other.

 

[blain2]

We spent the last 3 Years slating the SU30MKI has being nothing special.

Now the Phalcon Awacs arive are we about to start the same threads ???

Quiet simply both the induction of nearly 100 su30mki and the first of 3 highly advanced Phalcon Awacs as taken the entire Air capability of the IAF to a completely different plain to previous.

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

And the same is said of the Awacs . Nothing in sight as yet.

PAF does not need to answer on an aircraft vs. aircraft basis. PAF has plans that are going through their paces to ensure that PAF vs. IAF situation remains the same as in any other past war which is to suggest that IAF will not have air superiority over the Pakistani air space completely. I do not see how this situation changes much given the modernization going on within both Air Forces.

The only difference currently is that PAF's modernization plans are afoot and a lot of the capabilities are being acquired. During this transition period, admittedly things look a bit one sided, but then IAF do not have a lot of their capabilities in place either. There are other ways to counter the current imbalance. But then that is a different issue.

On the last point, at least I have not said that MKI is nothing special. It is a good aircraft for the IAF, but as any other aircraft to be considered from a threat perception standpoint, PAF is doing the same with regards to it and building capabilities which would address its shortcomings (essentially BVR is the only area which requires attention). Other things such as AEW only increase the existing SA. Otherwise PAF is definitely not blind to IAF activity. The TPS-77 grid affords a fairly intrusive insight to the PAF with regards to IAF activities.

What does the 100 strong MKI fleet and Phalcon do to Pakistan when PAF is also equipping with Erieye this calendar year and bringing on BVR equipped aircraft?

 

[blain2]

Crew comfort wasn't my point either, more that the IAF Phalcon can do way longer missions (maybe even 24h) with more personal and air refueling. A smaller platform like EMB 145 can be refueled too, but offers not the space for all the equipment and that much personal, so the mission time is limited by the human factor.
Also if you want a rotodome, you have to go for such a big platform that can carry the weight, or find other solutions (see below).

Again what equipment? Same old points without any factual info.

EXACTLY and these are the main points to me too!
I believe you that Saab officially said that, but the key point is how?
After checking all the sources I posted and the presentations of Erieye, MESA, and Phalcon system(on Gulfstream), it is clear to me now that the key differences are not the systems, but the platforms. The aircrafts and more important the type of radar that is used!

Saab 2000 Erieye uses only 2 radar arrays to both sides, with a repeatedly quoted coverage of 150°.
The MESA has these side arrays too and like the presentation said gives 130° of coverage. BUT it also has a top radar that covers 50° to front and 50° to the back.
The Phalcon system on the Gulfstream uses 2 side arrays, and 2 arrays to the front and back.
The IAF Phalcon system uses a rotodome to achieve full 360° coverage.

The simple fact that the US and the Israeli system have to use additional radar arrays(or rotodome in IAF Phalcon, or E 3) to achieve 360° coverage should make clear, that the Erieye can't provide the same. Even if they were able to get some detection via sensors like you said (note that not even the official presentation video of Saab shows any scans, or detections to front, or back!), it can't be equal to the detection ranges and capabilities it has to the sides.

The point being what? Do you think that the aircraft becomes blind because it does not have tracking capabilities in 30 degree aft and forward spheres? I would think that if this was a serious enough concern, Erieye would not have had this many buyers. That is something to think about. Secondly, Pakistan had the option of going with full 360 degree coverage on the E-2 solution but decided against it.

Jane's said nearly the same, that Erieye offers SOME detection to those areas, but without tracking capabilities. So the statement of Saab that it has 360° could be ok, but it is doubtful how good the detection to those "blind spots" are without radar arrays.

The ESM gear compensates for the fwd/aft spheres. I do not think that it is as considerable an issue as many Indian detractors of Erieye make it out to be (its natural to put down what we have and I understand that).

You might be right that PAF can counter that with flying patterns and more aircrafts, but that is big effort to counter that disadvantage of the radar right?

That is just an assumption on my part if the ESM coverage of the front and rear spheres is considered to be an issue. The other thing you have to consider is that the benefit of having an AESA capability on the AEW platform is its ability to be focused on specific targets of interest. So the whole issue around a constant need to have a 360 tracking (not detection) capability is also a non-essential capability in my opinion.

 

[hj786]

The length of a chord
2*AC*sin(BCA/2) = 2 * 350 * sin(2.61799388 / 2) = 676.148079
2*AC*sin(BCA/2) = 2 * 450 * sin(2.61799388 / 2) = 869.333244

If range is 350 km (under dense EW environment), one Erieye can monitor a straight line (border) ~650 km long. At maximum range 450 km, that goes up to ~800 km. Isn't the border ~1200 km long?

Despite coverage "issues" being talked about by certain posters, the entire border can be monitored easily by only two Erieyes, with overlapping coverage and under a dense EW environment. Claims of lack of coverage are completely unfounded.

We spent the last 3 Years slating the SU30MKI has being nothing special.
Now the Phalcon Awacs arive are we about to start the same threads ???
Quiet simply both the induction of nearly 100 su30mki and the first of 3 highly advanced Phalcon Awacs as taken the entire Air capability of the IAF to a completely different plain to previous.
To date there is no answer even today to SU30MKI from PAF
And the same is said of the Awacs . Nothing in sight as yet.

To date there is not a single decent post from maverick2009.
Flanker-H is nothing special. TVC doesn't help it dodge the latest TVC missiles. If flanker can be fitted with AESA, so can FC-20 and JF-17. What makes it so special?
PAF's answer of Mirage III/V and F-7 was enough when surgical strikes were being shouted about and it'll be the same story once F-16, Erieye and AMRAAM are in PAF hands, people like you will still be running around on the internet trolling with pointless posts like that one. Erieye, F-16, AMRAAM and Link-16 is in sight and PAF needs nothing more than these to answer the flanker-H.

 

[sancho]

Again what equipment? Same old points without any factual info.

The pics inside of the Phalcon shows nearly double as much consoles as used in smaller Saab 2000, EMB 145, or G550 right? And we know that it combines the AEW&C and intelligence capabilities that normally are in 2 different aircraft. So it must have more space for equipment and crew. Also it uses a rotodome that needs more power compared to Saab 2000, or G550, so it needs also a bigger power supply.
As you can see on this pic nearly half of the 737 is for equipment of the MESA radar:

Diagram of the internal layout of the Boeing 737 AEW&C, showing location of mission systems and radar. - Image - 737 AEW&C Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft

I agree with you that you can have this capabilities in lower size now, like the G550 Etiam proves (~400+ km detection range, full 360° coverage and all intelligence capabilities), but it still has also only an operation time of 9h, whereas A50, E3 and 737 can do missions up to 24h because of more crew.
For smaller countries like Israel, or Singapore a number of G550 Phalcons might be enough, but that's why I said you must take the size of India to account. Look at China, Russia, US, EU, or now Turkey, Australia, they all will use bigger systems mainly and add smaller if necessarry.

The point being what? Do you think that the aircraft becomes blind because it does not have tracking capabilities in 30 degree aft and forward spheres?

The point is that this kind of system has a weak point compared to 737 MESA, E3 and G550/A50 Phalcon. Of course it's not completely blind, but less capable of detecting and tracking in these aereas.

The ESM gear compensates for the fwd/aft spheres. I do not think that it is as considerable an issue as many Indian detractors of Erieye make it out to be (its natural to put down what we have and I understand that).

I didn't say it to put your system down, but to understand that the DRDO AWACS system that will use the same type of arrays (on EMB 145), will have the same disadvantage! I think the Erieye system on a better platform with more radar arrays could be as capable as the Phalcon system.

That is just an assumption on my part if the ESM coverage of the front and rear spheres is considered to be an issue. The other thing you have to consider is that the benefit of having an AESA capability on the AEW platform is its ability to be focused on specific targets of interest. So the whole issue around a constant need to have a 360 tracking (not detection) capability is also a non-essential capability in my opinion.

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?