Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[hoodhood1]

Heard PAF is looking into Chinese AWACS like Y8 (An-12) and A-50 (IL 76) both have revolving radar on top. Electronics can come from Italy or France and even USA.
I think PAF should look into A-50, as it flies faster and being a Russian airframe it's very rugged and needs less turn around time after each mission.

 

[Keysersoze]

Heard PAF is looking into Chinese AWACS like Y8 (An-12) and A-50 (IL 76) both have revolving radar on top. Electronics can come from Italy or France and even USA.
I think PAF should look into A-50, as it flies faster and being a Russian airframe it's very rugged and needs less turn around time after each mission.

Dude comparatively the A50 is crap. India turned it down as well and they have more chance of getting them than Pak.

 

[Contrarian]

A-50 is indeed crap. That is the main reason India went for a much more expensive platform, Phalcon. A-50 was initially offered, and Russia did not just want to sell the Il-76 plane to India for the Phalcon to be installed. They wanted to sell the 'Mainstay' itself.

Its damn old technology!

 

[hoodhood1]

Then I am sure Pakistan and China are cooking something else. A better Cookie.

 

[fatman17]

there are 13 pages of discussion on this issue and frankly have not read them all. pak options in order of deliveryare:

5 Saab erieye systems
3 pc-3 fitted with the hawkeye 2000 systems (5 pc-3 have been allocated according to the EDA data available on DSCA site)
chinese y-8 (?) would be much down the road.

 

[blain2]

A-50 is indeed crap. That is the main reason India went for a much more expensive platform, Phalcon. A-50 was initially offered, and Russia did not just want to sell the Il-76 plane to India for the Phalcon to be installed. They wanted to sell the 'Mainstay' itself.

Its damn old technology!

I think the reference is to the platform (IL-76 etc.) and not the rotodome technology of A-50 Beriyev as was demonstrated by the Russians in the late 90s. With Pakistan inducting Ukraining IL-76 refuelers, it may make sense for a Chinese AEW solution to be integrated with the same airframe.

 

[Keysersoze]

I think the reference is to the platform (IL-76 etc.) and not the rotodome technology of A-50 Beriyev as was demonstrated by the Russians in the late 90s. With Pakistan inducting Ukraining IL-76 refuelers, it may make sense for a Chinese AEW solution to be integrated with the same airframe.

There has been a problem with Russian delivery of the IL-76 so it is unlikely that the IL-76 will be used. I am not sure about its ability to stay on station for very long. The P-3's for example have the ability to stay on station for 14+ hours. I am not sure if the IL's will be able to maintain station for that long. (However I am not 100% on that if anyone has any other data)

 

[ied_blast]

well whatever AWACS system PAF goes for .......it must have some defence shield
against "AWACS slayer" KS-172

 

[Bull]

Well Pakistan, i guess has gone into a AWACs overkill. Why so mnay AWACS to support a 300 odd fighter fleet, while India has just 3 or 5 for its 650 odd fighters with much larger area to cover? Is it that IAF has underdone or PAF overdone itself.

 

[su-47]

India has only ORDERED 3. i guess we'll be building a few more in india. I dont think 3-5 AWACS can support such a large fleet spread over such a large area.

 

[Keysersoze]

Well Pakistan, i guess has gone into a AWACs overkill. Why so mnay AWACS to support a 300 odd fighter fleet, while India has just 3 or 5 for its 650 odd fighters with much larger area to cover? Is it that IAF has underdone or PAF overdone itself.

Well it is known that India is trying to increase the numbers of AWACs via it's indigenous program.
The two systems that Pak has selected have pro's and cons according tho their operational environments. (The Erieye works better over mountainous terrain and has a AESA radar whilst the Hawkeye works better over water with a longer range). The Chinese systems would be integrated with the Chinese aircraft.
The numbers being procured will mean less wear and tear on airframes (less time for them to be in the air.) As well 24 hour coverage when required (In war time)

 

[Keysersoze]

well whatever AWACS system PAF goes for .......it must have some defence shield
against "AWACS slayer" KS-172

Lol well it does.............

1) First you have to detect the Awacs in the electronic environment. AESA radars can perform severe jamming
2) Then you have to assume that the Awacs won't notice the launch platform.
3)That the inertial guidance would be worth anything against something that moves quite fast.
4)The large size of the missile would render it vulnerable to interception from other missiles.

 

[EagleEyes]

Well Pakistan, i guess has gone into a AWACs overkill. Why so mnay AWACS to support a 300 odd fighter fleet, while India has just 3 or 5 for its 650 odd fighters with much larger area to cover? Is it that IAF has underdone or PAF overdone itself.

AWACs and over kill?

AWACs will provide 24 hours support over the air space, and not even super duper Su-30MKI will dare to enter. This is why we have bought 6, and building more with the Chinese.

 

[ied_blast]

Lol well it does.............

1) First you have to detect the Awacs in the electronic environment. AESA radars can perform severe jamming
2) Then you have to assume that the Awacs won't notice the launch platform.
3)That the inertial guidance would be worth anything against something that moves quite fast.
4)The large size of the missile would render it vulnerable to interception from other missiles.

questions one by one for ur 4 points

1- AESA radar? from where u will get aesa radar
2- well ks 172 can be launched as far as 400km....i dont think any system whatever
in PAF can detect it.....comment?
3- large? u call it a large .....its a fighter base missile not a space launcher.

 

[Bull]

AWACs and over kill?

AWACs will provide 24 hours support over the air space, and not even super duper Su-30MKI will dare to enter. This is why we have bought 6, and building more with the Chinese.

Well i meant why so many?