Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[Lethalforce]

Bird those are just some examples not specific examples of things that no other plane makers in the world have been able to copy about the F-16. Datalinking the F-16 would provide a great deal of knowledge of the F-16's communication system that the chinese did not previously have,setting up the Datalinkage would have Chinese involvement would US be ok with that?? 20 + crew is to maintain the AWAC communications system. The Chinese would obviously work with Pakistan in setting this up to link planes,ground station AWAC communications the Chinese would be involved in the whole process.This would be a first time a foreign AWAC gets linked to an f-16 if this happens, I don't know any other countries that own F-16's where this has happened ? With the SAAB eeryie there are no such issues but i am not sure about the Chinese AWAC.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Chinese may have a quantitative advantage over the Taiwanese but not qualitative, the qualitative advantage the Taiwanese have is what USA wants to preserve the less the Chinese know about the F-16's the better since many NATO nations and US allies have the plane and it may be used in an adverserial role against Chinese aggression, many nations that own the F-16 are in the South China sea region.

You are right quite wrong on this my friend, Gone are days when Taiwan had qualitative advantage over China. China has poured in billions of dollars to modernize its AirForce and the results can be seen quite clearly. Taiwan operates F16 Block 20's and Mirage 2000-5, PLAAF has neutralized both these planes with their addition of J11's and J10. With the way China is progressing aviation industry, i really dont see Taiwan's AirForce standing a chance against PLAAF. China successfully pressured the Americans to block the sale of Block 52's, if this sale would have gone through than Taiwan might had a shot. With the way China's economy and PLAAF are progressing, their is very little Taiwan can do if the Chinese decide to attack unless the Americans intervene.

 

[Lethalforce]

You are right quite wrong on this my friend, Gone are days when Taiwan had qualitative advantage over China. China has poured in billions of dollars to modernize its AirForce and the results can be seen quite clearly. Taiwan operates F16 Block 20's and Mirage 2000-5, PLAAF has neutralized both these planes with their addition of J11's and J10. With the way China is progressing aviation industry, i really dont see Taiwan's AirForce standing a chance against PLAAF. China successfully pressured the Americans to block the sale of Block 52's, if this sale would have gone through than Taiwan might had a shot. With the way China's economy and PLAAF are progressing, their is very little Taiwan can do if the Chinese decide to attack unless the Americans intervene.

The Chinese are still inducting many of the planes and engines issues are still a problem ,when more are inducted possibly in the next 5-10 years this maybe true since China has many other planes also.

http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/?tag=turbofan-engine

 

[mughaljee]

Dear, we are getting ZDK-03 which is loosely based on KJ200 and not KJ2000.
Again, we are not getting KJ2000.

Brother Explain above.

 

[gambit]

4)any data received from the AWAC would possibly reveal weakness and strengths in the F-16's capabiity and avionics , how it is able to manuever 9G turns,thrust to weight ratios and vertical acceleration all things which are more or less classified and only known to US government presently.

Please excuse for making a ridicule of this, but that's got to be amongst the funniest things I have heard in a long time.

Communication revealing how you manuever 9g turns? what your TWR is? Look at it this way, we are talking to each other right now (me and you)-- do I know your weight and height? or your body mass? or how fast you can run?

Communication takes place through standard interfaces. That means, you define a standard of how to input data and what the output is and you transmit using that standard. No internal working has to be revealed in order to do that. The only exception is, if you do not even want to reveal your communication interface (fearing the other can spy on your communication or jam it, etc. Those are quite secured.).

But in no way will you reveal TWR, or how you do 9g turns. That's got to do with physical design of the plane. Btw, everyone knows the TWR of the F-16. Also, data is not something you have to physically carry that you need 20 people to do it.

Datalinking US BVR missiles using Chinese AWACS is something that looks impossible but delivering situational awareness, etc should be quite easy.

The analogy fails because unlike the AWACS, you have no knowledge of the environment and is not watching the responses in real time. If know the layout of his house, down to the walls and furniture, and if you can observe him getting up to get a beer out of the fridge, you can infer much about his physical condition. Everyone is familiar with the environment -- air and sky. Radar provides the real time observation.

 

[truepakistani17]

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Indian Phalcon AWACS will be compatible with every aircraft in the IAF inventory. Right? On the other hand PAF would be operating 2 different AWACS i.e. Saab 2000 and KJ-200, but these would serve as specialised AWACS platforms, one only for western aircraft and the other only for chinese.

Now are there any developments to make these two AEW&C systems universally compatible with the PAF inventory? Because operating a single AWACS platform at any time, is a lot more cost-efficient, streamlined and is less prone to training issues/errors than having two specialized aircrafts.

just answer mw one thing,,,, why is it so that when they do it we call it diversification and when we do it it is called derailing?????

 

[truepakistani17]

Brothers,
clear one thing, KJ-2000,
are we getting this with TOT. ?

brother, one thing is clear,,
we are not getting kj2000,,,,
it is the kj 200 that PAF s going for and is with ToT,,

 

[Quwa]

As difficult as it may be, Pakistan will have to develop its own data-link interface that is interoperable with Link-16 for use on JF-17, FC-20, ZDK03, etc.

 

[MZUBAIR]

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Indian Phalcon AWACS will be compatible with every aircraft in the IAF inventory. Right? On the other hand PAF would be operating 2 different AWACS i.e. Saab 2000 and KJ-200, but these would serve as specialised AWACS platforms, one only for western aircraft and the other only for chinese.

Now are there any developments to make these two AEW&C systems universally compatible with the PAF inventory? Because operating a single AWACS platform at any time, is a lot more cost-efficient, streamlined and is less prone to training issues/errors than having two specialized aircrafts.

Chinees AEW&C can be linkied to JF-17, but they can also support Mirage and F-16 through wirless comunication.

There must be some thing that can support western techs in Chinees AWECS, similarly PAF getting 4 Saab so PAF would have any strategy to use them with western pr chinees AC

 

[MZUBAIR]

You should better read something on the topic before coming on the forum and speak about things which you don't know.

Radars don't talk to each, aircrafts communicate via the datalink which sends the data in its own format after getting it from the aircraft avionics or radar or the controllers transmit the output of the radar to the pilots and control them.

Learn first how aircraft communicate with each other.

Radar gives the info and the info is transmitted to the other aircraft which is received by the receiving aircraft communication equipment and it then transforms the data received to the MFDs of the controller.

Same case with AWACS, they send the information through the communication equipment, received by the aircraft and displayed.

Its all about how the data is transmitted between the radar processors and the communication equipment in the aircraft, which is then send.

Same case like your computer, you have a DSL line which is basically sending electronic signals, you surf the net, you have no idea what communication is happening between the systems. Your modem/LAN card receives the signals via cable, but the computer processor processes the data, interprets it, sends it to the video card, which further sends the data to the monitor.

Hope so you got the point that how aircraft communication would work too, even if we have Chinese radar, but if it can be made to communicate with western datalink system, then we have no issue in whether we have a chinese awac or western awac or even aircraft.

Good informative post.......and well said

 

[MZUBAIR]

Chinese may have a quantitative advantage over the Taiwanese but not qualitative, the qualitative advantage the Taiwanese have is what USA wants to preserve the less the Chinese know about the F-16's the better since many NATO nations and US allies have the plane and it may be used in an adverserial role against Chinese aggression, many nations that own the F-16 are in the South China sea region.

How can u define qualitative technology.

Nodoubt coming J-10B anf JF-17 is qualitywise comparable to any 4.5th and 4th generaion AC.

Quality = Reliablie + Efficient + Satisfaction.
Chinese AC hav all the 3 quality attributes.

 

[MZUBAIR]

Bird those are just some examples not specific examples of things that no other plane makers in the world have been able to copy about the F-16. Datalinking the F-16 would provide a great deal of knowledge of the F-16's communication system that the chinese did not previously have,setting up the Datalinkage would have Chinese involvement would US be ok with that?? 20 + crew is to maintain the AWAC communications system. The Chinese would obviously work with Pakistan in setting this up to link planes,ground station AWAC communications the Chinese would be involved in the whole process.This would be a first time a foreign AWAC gets linked to an f-16 if this happens, I don't know any other countries that own F-16's where this has happened ? With the SAAB eeryie there are no such issues but i am not sure about the Chinese AWAC.

R u Indian !!!!!!!!

Even Americans use Chinees products and admire the quality, so wts up to u .........ur so much against to them.

 

[wangrong]

The Chinese are still inducting many of the planes and engines issues are still a problem ,when more are inducted possibly in the next 5-10 years this maybe true since China has many other planes also.

China Military Power Mashup|Tag Archive|Turbofan engine

notice the WS-15

 

[Sapper]

Originally Posted by Sapper View Post
Dear, we are getting ZDK-03 which is loosely based on KJ200 and not KJ2000.
Again, we are not getting KJ2000.

Brother Explain above.

1. Pakistan is getting ZDK-03.
2. Pakistan is not getting KJ2000.
3. Pakistan is not getting KJ200.
4. ZDK-03 may be similar to and can be compared to KJ200.
5. ZDK-03 is not similar or comparable to KJ2000.

e.g. PAF got F7PG from China, which are "based" on J7, but PAF did not get J7, they got F7PG, similar but not same.

Similarities between proposed ZDK-03 and KJ200.
1. Similar turboprop platform i.e. Y8 or quite possibly Y9.
2. Balanced beam AESA/PESA radar.
3. Smaller platform when compared to Indo-Israel's Phalcon, Chinese KJ2000 and American E3 Sentry, but comparable to Saab2000.

Dis-similarities between proposed ZDK-03 and KJ2000.
1. Different platforms, IL78 vs Y8/Y9
2. Different size class, Very Big vs Big.
3. Crew size, 40 vs 20.

Thus the proposed ZDK-03 is loosely based on KJ200. But not at all similar or comparable to KJ2000, even if features a radome (which is still not clear).

Hope i have explained my points. Forgive me if my previous post was confusing.

Regards,
Sapper

 

[mughaljee]

1. Pakistan is getting ZDK-03.
2. Pakistan is not getting KJ2000.
3. Pakistan is not getting KJ200.
4. ZDK-03 may be similar to and can be compared to KJ200.
5. ZDK-03 is not similar or comparable to KJ2000.

e.g. PAF got F7PG from China, which are "based" on J7, but PAF did not get J7, they got F7PG, similar but not same.

Similarities between proposed ZDK-03 and KJ200.
1. Similar turboprop platform i.e. Y8 or quite possibly Y9.
2. Balanced beam AESA/PESA radar.
3. Smaller platform when compared to Indo-Israel's Phalcon, Chinese KJ2000 and American E3 Sentry, but comparable to Saab2000.

Dis-similarities between proposed ZDK-03 and KJ2000.
1. Different platforms, IL78 vs Y8/Y9
2. Different size class, Very Big vs Big.
3. Crew size, 40 vs 20.

Thus the proposed ZDK-03 is loosely based on KJ200. But not at all similar or comparable to KJ2000, even if features a radome (which is still not clear).

Hope i have explained my points. Forgive me if my previous post was confusing.
Regards,
Sapper

Yes you explained very well. U R My Hero.