The Indo-Israel Phalcon Radar System Deal: Pakistan's Likely Response

[FGFA]

The PAF will be acquiring 3 erieye platforms not 5. The other 3 are going to be Chinese systems which are not yet ready for induction. India will receive the last of its 3 Phalcons by 2011, which is also slated as the year of delivery of PAF's Erieye's. Who knows, we may buy more Phalcons if the DRDO bird fails, which I guess would actually more good than bad.

Russia and India have worked on the KS172, which is an AWACS killer. It is essentially an Air-to-Air missile with a 300 km plus range to get to the AWACS. The missile I believe is in final stages before induction, although there is no concrete news that India is acquiring it immediately.

Novator K-100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

India join the partnership in 2005 on wards. As India is the main investor in the K-100, it would first see service on her Su-30MKI aircraft. Russia might be a customer, depending on funding. No in-service date has yet been suggested.

The Novator KS-172 AAM-L (also known as R-172) is an extremely long-range air-to-air missile developed in Russia to arm CIS Sukhoi Su-27 and Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' aircraft.

The KS-172 was first shown as a mock-up at an air show in Abu Dhabi in 1993, but the poor financial situation of the post-Soviet CIS meant that it was not funded, although flight testing was reportedly done. Revival of development has been broached at several points, in 1997 as a purely Russian project, and more recently with discussions taking place in 2004 with India to launch an Indo-Russian co-venture to produce the missile, which would then arm Indian Su-30MKI aircraft.

The KS-172 may have been based on the airframe of the 9K37M1 Buk-M ( NATO reporting name SA-11 'Gadfly') surface-to-air missile. It used a two-stage rocket engine with a flight speed of about Mach 4 and a claimed maximum range of 400 km (250 mi). The AAM-L flies to the vicinity of the target by inertial navigation, then activates its own active radarThis article is about the device. For the fictional character in M A S H see Corporal Walter (Radar) O'Reilly. antenna (approximately 40m (130ft) in diameter) rotates on a track to observe activities near the horizon. Radar is an acronym for ra dio d etec for terminal homing.

The AAM-L missile is intended for use against AWACS, tankerA tanker is usually a vehicle carrying large amounts of liquid fuel. The most common use of the word is when referring to a large ship, carrying petroleum products. Apart from pipeline transport, tankers are the only method of transporting large quantitie, and maritime patrol aircraft, giving an air force the ability to attack these vital assets without having to engage their fighterA fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for attacking other aircraft. Compare with bomber. Fighters are comparatively small, fast, and highly maneuverable, and have been fitted with increasingly sophisticated tracking and weapons syst escorts. Enhanced-range versions have also been suggested as possible anti-satellite weaponAnti-satellite weapons (ASATs) are weapons designed to be used against artificial satellites. The development and design of anti-satellite weapons has followed a number of paths. The initial efforts by the USSR and the USA were using air-launched missiless.

The weapon is planned for carriage by Su-27/Su-30, Su-35, and Mikoyan MiG-31The Mikoyan MiG-31 ( NATO reporting name Foxhound is a high-speed interceptor developed to replace the MiG-25. It was the most advanced interceptor fielded by the Soviet Union before its collapse. Development The MiG-25 Foxbat despite Western panic about aircraft.
Specifications (estimated)

* Length: 7,400 mm (24 ft 3.5 in)
* Wingspan: 750 mm (2 ft 5.5 in)
* Diameter: 510 mm (20 in)
* Launch weight: 750 kg (1,650 lb)
* Speed: Mach 4
* Range: 400 km (250 mi)
* Guidance: inertial navigation with active radar for terminal homing
* Warhead: 50 kg (110 lb)

KS-172 or K-100-1 Range

 

[UchihaCG]

i am stunned to hear that.
If it's fit for the SU-27 and 35 couldn't it be adjusted to be on the MKI? the specs are just amazing.

I'd love to buy one.

 

[Super Falcon]

uncle sam should never be trusted for sure dummy of indian and israelis

 

[sancho]

I do not want to turn this into a Phalcon Vs Erieye thread but if the Indians have inducted a Phalcon Awacs system mounted on an IL-76 Aircraft, paying much more, what are the inherent advantages of this system over the Erieye. I'm sure there would be some apart from the obvious ones such as speed, etc, otherwise India would also have chosen a lesser expensive/ smaller platform. No flaming/ ranting please.

The radar systems (Phalcon and Erieye) should be pretty comparable in it's capabilities, the main difference will be the platforms (A50/IL 76 and Saab 2000).
The A50 is much bigger and provides more space for more crew, more different systems and a bigger power plant. It also has the capability of in flight refueling, so the A50 Phalcon can do way longer missions. Another difference is the radar dome, that includes 3 radar arrays to achieve a 360° radar coverage. The Erieye has only a 2 arrays to the sides, that provides a radar coverage of 300°.
This will be enough for PAF, because they only has to concentrate on one border / one side and a smaller area. But for IAF the requirement is different, so a more capable platform was needed.
The first A50 Phalcon is already inducted and the second will be handed over in mid 2010, the tird in 2011. IAF has an option for 3 more and besides these DRDO is developing a similar 2 radar array system with EMB 145 as the platform (similar to Saab 2000 Erieye), with 3 already (first to be inducted by 2012).

 

[gambit]

The radar systems (Phalcon and Erieye) should be pretty comparable in it's capabilities, the main difference will be the platforms (A50/IL 76 and Saab 2000).
The A50 is much bigger and provides more space for more crew, more different systems and a bigger power plant. It also has the capability of in flight refueling, so the A50 Phalcon can do way longer missions. Another difference is the radar dome, that includes 3 radar arrays to achieve a 360° radar coverage. The Erieye has only a 2 arrays to the sides, that provides a radar coverage of 300°.
This will be enough for PAF, because they only has to concentrate on one border / one side and a smaller area. But for IAF the requirement is different, so a more capable platform was needed.
The first A50 Phalcon is already inducted and the second will be handed over in mid 2010, the tird in 2011. IAF has an option for 3 more and besides these DRDO is developing a similar 2 radar array system with EMB 145 as the platform (similar to Saab 2000 Erieye), with 3 already (first to be inducted by 2012).

Keep in mind that in radar detection, bigger is better, and that the antenna is not the array. The antenna contain the array. A physically larger array than its peer equal to superior effective detection range and a narrower main beam, which equal to superior multiple targets discrimination, as well as superior target information.

Now...For the radome that house the triangular array set-up. The radome's diameter is NOT the radar antenna itself. This is the deception that some tried to foist on the readers. Take circle and label the diameter as 10 meters. Now insert an equilateral triangle inside that circle, allowing half a meter of gaps at the three points of that triangle. The three sides represent the arrays, the items that actually does the transmitting and receiving of radar signals. Are any of their lengths the same as the radome's diameter? Probably not. Someone who has better graphics skills than I can hack up a drawing to illustrate this.

If each array of this triangular set-up is physically smaller than the competing radar system that has only two arrays, then most likely it will have inferior overall performance than the competitor, despite having superior overall coverage.

 

[raveolution]

i am stunned to hear that.
If it's fit for the SU-27 and 35 couldn't it be adjusted to be on the MKI? the specs are just amazing.

I'd love to buy one.

It is primarily being designed for the SU30MKI, since India is the launch customer. And yes, you can have one if you know some Russian General really well and have 10 mil $$$.

 

[bigmoneymaker]

paf must not compete on bit to bit basis with huge iaf!!!

 

[Skywalker]

The PAF will be acquiring 3 erieye platforms not 5. The other 3 are going to be Chinese systems which are not yet ready for induction. India will receive the last of its 3 Phalcons by 2011, which is also slated as the year of delivery of PAF's Erieye's. Who knows, we may buy more Phalcons if the DRDO bird fails, which I guess would actually more good than bad.

Russia and India have worked on the KS172, which is an AWACS killer. It is essentially an Air-to-Air missile with a 300 km plus range to get to the AWACS. The missile I believe is in final stages before induction, although there is no concrete news that India is acquiring it immediately.

Novator K-100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry mate you have wrong figure..it is 5, one for training and 4 for routine missions. Initial order was for 6 but due to apparent reasons reduced to 5.

Chinese awacs (ZDK 200) would be 4 in all . still under development and most importantly its a JV custome made for PAF.

For navy most probably 2 hawk eyes on p3C orions.

 

[PakShaheen79]

KS-172... What is vincinity of target in terms of kilometers (From Launch aircraft)?? Can MKI's radar can guide a missile some 250 to 300 Km towards it target... or internal seeker has more range than other conventional seekers of BVR AAMs?

 

[dbc]

The radar systems (Phalcon and Erieye) should be pretty comparable in it's capabilities, the main difference will be the platforms (A50/IL 76 and Saab 2000).
The A50 is much bigger and provides more space for more crew, more different systems and a bigger power plant. It also has the capability of in flight refueling, so the A50 Phalcon can do way longer missions. Another difference is the radar dome, that includes 3 radar arrays to achieve a 360° radar coverage. The Erieye has only a 2 arrays to the sides, that provides a radar coverage of 300°.
This will be enough for PAF, because they only has to concentrate on one border / one side and a smaller area. But for IAF the requirement is different, so a more capable platform was needed.
The first A50 Phalcon is already inducted and the second will be handed over in mid 2010, the tird in 2011. IAF has an option for 3 more and besides these DRDO is developing a similar 2 radar array system with EMB 145 as the platform (similar to Saab 2000 Erieye), with 3 already (first to be inducted by 2012).

On another thread I said that the KJ-2000 and IAF Phalcon were comparable. Instead, I should’ve said that both platforms appear to have the same capability but unless you take the radome apart and examine the array, T/R module, radiation element spacing and lattice configuration you will not be able to assess the capabilities of the hardware. There are other factors that impact performance such as cooling mechanism, since the T/R module contains MMIC chips that are made of gallium arsenide (GaAs). GaAs have low thermal conductivity and efficient cooling is required to keep the system operating at peak performance. Here, the Phalcon has an advantage over the Erieye (air cooled) while the Erieye has greater endurance. The Phalcon has 360° coverage; you need two Erieye systems operating in tandem to achieve the same. Also, this platform is too expensive to use for constant surveillance of the border as you suggested. Effective use is to coordinate battle and help maintain air superiority over the battle field and this cannot always be achieved by one Erieye; 360° coverage is better. The choice of aircraft also impacts performance, the size and shape of the airframe, placement of the radome and the power plant (engine). For instance, the motion of propeller can cause modulation of the radiated signal another disadvantage is propeller aircrafts can assign less power to the AESA while a jet engine can generate more power useful for frying unprotected circuits on enemy planes or missiles.
There are so many factors to consider before you can conclude that one platform has an edge over the other and I haven’t even mentioned the most critical element the software that runs the system.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Now...For the radome that house the triangular array set-up. The radome's diameter is NOT the radar antenna itself. This is the deception that some tried to foist on the readers. Take circle and label the diameter as 10 meters. Now insert an equilateral triangle inside that circle, allowing half a meter of gaps at the three points of that triangle. The three sides represent the arrays, the items that actually does the transmitting and receiving of radar signals. Are any of their lengths the same as the radome's diameter? Probably not. Someone who has better graphics skills than I can hack up a drawing to illustrate this.

Sort of like this image, the view of the radome from the top with the triangle inside.

 

[gambit]

Sort of like this image, the view of the radome from the top with the triangle inside.

We have these three items:

- Radome
- Antenna
- Arrays

The array assembly will be smaller inside the radome, which is really a protection from a particularly harsh environment -- airborne. The antenna itself is attached to the radome for stability but there are vibration isolation mechanisms. So if the individual arrays themselves are smaller than the Erieye, each array performance will be less capable than each individual array from the Erieye.

S100B Argus Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft - Air Force Technology

The 9m-long, 900kg antenna unit is mounted on the upper spine of the fuselage and gives the aircraft its distinctive appearance.

Same three elements apply here:

- Radome
- Antenna
- Arrays

Am willing to bet that the Erieye's antenna/array assembly is closer to its radome dimensions than the A-50's assembly to its circular radome. So far available public sources have the circular radome as about 11 meters in diameter.

If I have to chose between target resolutions or range, I would pick target resolutions at the expense of range. Today, only the US can wield heavy bombers like the B-52 and the B-1. Everyone else will deploy smaller fighter-bombers that can deceive a platform that has superior range but poor or perhaps even unintentionally deceptive target resolutions.

If the threat is from my next door neighbor, whatever distance are there between his air force and my valuables will be rapidly closing anyway, making superior range capability somewhat unneeded. If my next door neighbors are not my immediate threats but allow themselves to be conduits to long range heavy bombers, like the kind from the US, then I would want as much effective detection range as possible looking over their territories.

These are the kinds of decisions that we trust our leaderships to make for our security. Put yourselves in their shoes and see if you can handle the burden. The wrong decision would have disastrous consequences. Bad leadership is the worst situation a country could find itself in the midst of hostile neighbors.

 

[gambit]

On another thread I said that the KJ-2000 and IAF Phalcon were comparable. Instead, I should’ve said that both platforms appear to have the same capability but unless you take the radome apart and examine the array, T/R module, radiation element spacing and lattice configuration you will not be able to assess the capabilities of the hardware. There are other factors that impact performance such as cooling mechanism, since the T/R module contains MMIC chips that are made of gallium arsenide (GaAs). GaAs have low thermal conductivity and efficient cooling is required to keep the system operating at peak performance. Here, the Phalcon has an advantage over the Erieye (air cooled) while the Erieye has greater endurance. The Phalcon has 360° coverage; you need two Erieye systems operating in tandem to achieve the same. Also, this platform is too expensive to use for constant surveillance of the border as you suggested. Effective use is to coordinate battle and help maintain air superiority over the battle field and this cannot always be achieved by one Erieye; 360° coverage is better. The choice of aircraft also impacts performance, the size and shape of the airframe, placement of the radome and the power plant (engine). For instance, the motion of propeller can cause modulation of the radiated signal another disadvantage is propeller aircrafts can assign less power to the AESA while a jet engine can generate more power useful for frying unprotected circuits on enemy planes or missiles.
There are so many factors to consider before you can conclude that one platform has an edge over the other and I haven’t even mentioned the most critical element the software that runs the system.

The props can be filtered out. The USN's Hawkeye does it.

 

[raveolution]

KS-172... What is vincinity of target in terms of kilometers (From Launch aircraft)?? Can MKI's radar can guide a missile some 250 to 300 Km towards it target... or internal seeker has more range than other conventional seekers of BVR AAMs?

It has inertial navigation with midcourse guidance and active radar for terminal homing. Read up on the link to Wiki. Plus with the Irbis radar going onto the SU30 MLU, it would make the missile even deadlier.

 

[raveolution]

Sorry mate you have wrong figure..it is 5, one for training and 4 for routine missions. Initial order was for 6 but due to apparent reasons reduced to 5.

Chinese awacs (ZDK 200) would be 4 in all . still under development and most importantly its a JV custome made for PAF.

For navy most probably 2 hawk eyes on p3C orions.

So the final figure which I could get from Wiki and SIPRI was 4. The 5th aircraft is just the transport version without the radar. Also would like to know what is the current status of the ZDK200 and whether the deal for the aircraft has been signed or not. Thanks in advance.