Pakistan Air Force [PAF] News and Discussions

[SABRE]

Sabre, do you have any links to news source saying that Phalcon being supplied to India will not have AESA, but traditional Rotodome?

Rotodome doesnt mean that Radar isnt AESA, it means a rotating top. (If I am wrong than correct me). But Phalcon is an Active Electronicaly Scaned Array radar.

You are also saying that major part of deal is radar in the next sentence. So ias claimed by you, the Radar is not the original Israeli one, major electronics are missing and IL-76 is very inferior to Boeing 707, then what did the Indian buy??

Where did you get the idea that I said the Phalcon radar to India is not the origional one developed by Israel???? I dnt recall saying that.

707 is larger platform than IL-76 & Boeing modified the aircraft to house some electronics in it.

& its not me saying that Israel wont sell all the electronic system, its the Israeli them selves. What I said is all from what I read on an Israeli site abt couple of years back.

Abt IAF having rotodome phalcon, I think I read it on an Indian site at the same time. (I was searching through information on Phalcon).

I could not find any reference to a Phalcon with normal Rotodome. Could some one confirm the existence of the same?

I dnt think there is rotodome Phalcon. The Israeli radar is placed in the nose seaction, while there are no pics of Chilian Phalcon available (I am not too sure whether Chilie even recieved the system).

 

[kams]

sabre,
The fact that Phalcon has AESA means that it does not require a rotodome. There is plenty of information available on the net about technical aspects of AESA. Chile did get Phalon in 1994. Here is a link giving some technical info on Phalcon and it has a pic of Condor (Chile's Phalcon).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalcon

The following link gives plenty of info on Phalcon along with many pics...including the Condor.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/phalcon/Phalcon.html

This link also shows couple of pics of IL-76 under the caption ' Phalcon delivered to India'...obviously a case of limited English vocabulary on the part of the Editor .

No information is available publicly regarding the specification of India's Phalcon. Guess we have to wait till 2007.

 

[tphuang]

I think you are getting a little too defensive here. The A-50/Phalcon combination places the radar on top of the platform rather than on the nose. Now, rotodome is probably not the best word to describe it, radome is probably better. Either way, no one is disputing that the Phalcon radar uses AESA technology. As for 707 vs IL-76, they both have their advantages. India chose IL-76, so they must have had reasons for doing so.

 

[aaaditya]

Sabre, do you have any links to news source saying that Phalcon being supplied to India will not have AESA, but traditional Rotodome? You are also saying that major part of deal is radar in the next sentence. So ias claimed by you, the Radar is not the original Israeli one, major electronics are missing and IL-76 is very inferior to Boeing 707, then what did the Indian buy??

I could not finf any reference to a Phalcon with normal Rotodome. Could some one confirm the existence of the same?

it is a aesa radar mounted in a stationery radome on the fuselage of the aircraft ,instead of the nose as on the israeli aircraft.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Theres a few terminologies in here that are being misused and thus confused.

in simple terms:

• Radomes were traditionally analogue - and revolved within the dome so as to sweep an area - ie they were mechanically steered.
• Digital radomes were interim development models - and I think this was pretty much the province of the Russians and Chinese when they were in development mode. ie it was a digital system housed within the existing radome structure. the sensors were not mechanically steered.
• Tower scanners are like the ones that were fitted to the WC and EC-121's
• Phalcon uses sidescan arrays and a forward sensor - typically flank arrays have a weakness in forward scanning - hence the israeli (and originally it was pulled from the US development aircraft) forward scanner to neutralise the blind or limited scan sport. This is the problem with smaller beam scanners in that (like eyrie) they have a limited frontal view and thus either start "racetracking" or need the support of other assets
• digital arrays are as said. they scan electronically and the beam of interrogation is thus dependant on the "field of view" of each panel element.
• mechanically digital arrays are steered through a limited range as well as using digital scanning concurrently.

You also have variations on this, eg the missile range P3 Orions which have a flat array built into the tail as well as having blisters and bulges for other detection.

 

[WAR]

Thanks a lot to all for providing valuable info.

Here again, if I may ask, can anyone tell me in black and white about the growing perception that: "India's Phalcon would cover the whole of Pakistan, while the SAAB system would not penetrate the whole of India".

If it is true, then I suppose we should not have gone in number game (06 units of SAAB for Pakistan vis a vis 03 Phalcons of India). After all, its the efficiency of the system that matters in time of war. I am told that every Air Base of Pakistan would be under observation, and not a single aircraft flying from either PAF base would hide from the Phalcon's eye. Whereas SAAB would detect most of the bordering activities within India.

Now if this is a reality then, is it worth spending one billion dollars plus on such a system which does not fulfill your entire requirement??

 

[BilalK]

Does not matter if India could see the whole of Pakistan or not; as long as Pakistan can see well into Indian territory - enough to buy time for counter-offences or interceptions, I think the Erieyes will do.

Here is another article - and a quote, you should read the whole article too;
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/indiapakaew.htm

Over the last 30 years, many countries have attempted to develop indigenous AEW radar and their associated systems – until the arrival of the Erieye and Phalcon systems, only the USA and USSR really succeeded. Given the financial and technical difficulties involved in developing an indigenous AEW&C capability, Pakistan's decision appears well founded and in the long term may well result in a much more cost-effective and capable system than the recent decision in India may eventually deliver - only time will tell.

 

[swerve]

Thanks a lot to all for providing valuable info.

Here again, if I may ask, can anyone tell me in black and white about the growing perception that: "India's Phalcon would cover the whole of Pakistan, while the SAAB system would not penetrate the whole of India".

If it is true, then I suppose we should not have gone in number game (06 units of SAAB for Pakistan vis a vis 03 Phalcons of India). After all, its the efficiency of the system that matters in time of war. I am told that every Air Base of Pakistan would be under observation, and not a single aircraft flying from either PAF base would hide from the Phalcon's eye. Whereas SAAB would detect most of the bordering activities within India.

Now if this is a reality then, is it worth spending one billion dollars plus on such a system which does not fulfill your entire requirement??

There is no AEW system in existence - or ever likely to be - with the range to cover all of India from Pakistani territory. Simply a question of scale - and physics. India's too big. But Pakistan, being much smaller, can all be observed by AEW aircraft over Afghanistan, & all except perhaps the far SW, near Iran, can be observed by AEW aircraft over India. But AEW aircraft over Iran could only see part of Pakistan.

As for "not fulfilling your entire requirements" - the requirement was not to cover all of India (impossible!), but to cover those areas close enough to Pakistan to contain threats. All the Indian bases in Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat - except perhaps the far SE - and Kashmir should be observable by the Erieyes. Should be enough.

The point of having 6 aircraft isn't to play a "numbers game", it's to achieve geographically complete, 24 hour coverage, allowing for aircraft having to land for refuelling & replacement of crews, maintenance downtime etc.

 

[tphuang]

Theres a few terminologies in here that are being misused and thus confused.

in simple terms:

• Radomes were traditionally analogue - and revolved within the dome so as to sweep an area - ie they were mechanically steered.
• Digital radomes were interim development models - and I think this was pretty much the province of the Russians and Chinese when they were in development mode. ie it was a digital system housed within the existing radome structure. the sensors were not mechanically steered.
• Tower scanners are like the ones that were fitted to the WC and EC-121's
• Phalcon uses sidescan arrays and a forward sensor - typically flank arrays have a weakness in forward scanning - hence the israeli (and originally it was pulled from the US development aircraft) forward scanner to neutralise the blind or limited scan sport. This is the problem with smaller beam scanners in that (like eyrie) they have a limited frontal view and thus either start "racetracking" or need the support of other assets
• digital arrays are as said. they scan electronically and the beam of interrogation is thus dependant on the "field of view" of each panel element.
• mechanically digital arrays are steered through a limited range as well as using digital scanning concurrently.

You also have variations on this, eg the missile range P3 Orions which have a flat array built into the tail as well as having blisters and bulges for other detection.

Thanks for clearing it up, Gary. I'm just wondering, what kind of work does Israel need to do to convert between a radar that is stuck on the nose and a radar that is placed on the top.

 

[SABRE]

Two questions:

Q1/What is the Phalcon's radar range? (Not coverage, that is 360 degree). i.e ERIEYE has instrumented range of450km and a typical detection range against a fighter aircraft size target is in excess of 350km. (I cant find range of Phalcon's radar on the net).

Q2/ ERIEYE has "active phased-array pulse-Doppler radar" ... what is the function of the "pulse-doppler" feature ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm just wondering, what kind of work does Israel need to do to convert between a radar that is stuck on the nose and a radar that is placed on the top.

they basically have it but just don't use a top mounted radome. ie forward and side arrays provide them with enough of a capability.

there are benefits and negatives with all systems. in the case of Phalcon I'd question the marketing material that touts full 360 degree coverage - as the scanners are frontal and flank mounted - so there is a blind spot between the rear flanks. I could be wrong - but I've never seen anything that represents an array looking after the rear. Atypically, beam scanners are deficient in frontal scan capability - they lack the same degree of interrogation power as the flank arrays. early trojan horse type beam scanners typically had a butterfly wing shaped scanning pattern.

as for top mounted radomes - they are divided into mechanical steered and digital steered - the digital solution does provide more robust concurrency and speed of collection/detection. that doesn't mean that the mechsteer is obsolete - but lacks in some response time capability.

there there are also mech steered AESA.

 

[kams]

Two questions:

Q1/What is the Phalcon's radar range? (Not coverage, that is 360 degree). i.e ERIEYE has instrumented range of450km and a typical detection range against a fighter aircraft size target is in excess of 350km. (I cant find range of Phalcon's radar on the net).


Q2/ ERIEYE has "active phased-array pulse-Doppler radar" ... what is the function of the "pulse-doppler" feature ?

Q1 - I could not find any reliable reference to the range of Phalcon Radar. Various figures from 300 km (an Indian site) to 800 km (from pakistani site!!! and yes its not the otherway around ) have been quoted...Speculation?? may be.

Q2 - You may find some information at this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-doppler_radar
In short a pulse doppler radar can give you the spped of the target by sending radar pulses towards each target and measuring relative target movement between each pulse.

 

[adsH]

they basically have it but just don't use a top mounted radome. ie forward and side arrays provide them with enough of a capability.

Curious, The ECM and ECCM should be Housed within these side mounted Array housing, i wonder how much space would these take, ie the more space these take, less space would be availble for the AESA.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Q1 - I could not find any reliable reference to the range of Phalcon Radar. Various figures from 300 km (an Indian site) to 800 km (from pakistani site!!! and yes its not the otherway around ) have been quoted...Speculation?? may be.

You won't find any accurate source in the public domain. Detection ranges are always listed conservatively - for a reason. It is however greater than 350 km by some margin.

Q2 - You may find some information at this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-doppler_radar
In short a pulse doppler radar can give you the spped of the target by sending radar pulses towards each target and measuring relative target movement between each pulse.

Its the same kind of tech that Mercedes have on their cars bumper bars so that lousy drivers don't reverse or bump into others when they're parking their cars.

 

[SABRE]

Q1 - I could not find any reliable reference to the range of Phalcon Radar. Various figures from 300 km (an Indian site) to 800 km (from pakistani site!!! and yes its not the otherway around ) have been quoted...Speculation?? may be.

Couldnt be 300km. ERIEYE has instrumental range of 450km & 350km against target size of a fighter jet. Phalcon being bigger platform than ERIEYE. I think it should be more than 400-450km.

Q2 - You may find some information at this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-doppler_radar
In short a pulse doppler radar can give you the spped of the target by sending radar pulses towards each target and measuring relative target movement between each pulse.

Thanks, I already checked it one wikipedia ... I just thought information wouldnt be there before I posted my question here.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Curious, The ECM and ECCM should be Housed within these side mounted Array housing, i wonder how much space would these take, ie the more space these take, less space would be availble for the AESA.

Capability is also effected by available power as well as available space. smaller planes naturally have less on board power - that has a significant bearing on the absolute capability of the systems as more powerful systems require more power etc....

so its not just an issue of internal available real estate

 

[adsH]

Capability is also effected by available power as well as available space. smaller planes naturally have less on board power - that has a significant bearing on the absolute capability of the systems as more powerful systems require more power etc....

so its not just an issue of internal available real estate

Hmm the Eyries that PAF is aquiring, wouldn't SAAB 2000 platform have more space then the other platfroms the system has been intgrated on. I mean the EMB - 145 probably has a smaller cabin space.

I understand that you gain extended loiter time extra crew more supplies for longer duration flights with larger commercial airframes. But the way i see it, in the High-tech industry, space to house exceptional computing power is becoming less of an issue as days pass by us. We're probably behind in the Software side then Hardware now ie the Hardware development is ahead of software these days. Hardware (Processing power/electronics/Storage/Comms) are getting tinier and are consuming less power and potentially tripling our processing power. It would interesting to see who ends up with a more capable system at the end.

As far as i see it (As you may have stated Gary) both systems have there advantages and disadvantages.

 

[BilalK]

F-16 deal could lift Lockheed

Pakistan to buy up to 36 new Fort Worth-built jets.

11:57 AM CDT on Thursday, June 29, 2006

By RICHARD WHITTLE /The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON – The State Department has notified Congress of a proposed sale to Pakistan of up to 36 new Fort Worth-built F-16 fighter jets and 26 others the U.S. Air Force will retire.

The $5 billion deal, which could preserve up to 4,000 jobs at Lockheed Martin Corp.'s fighter plant well into 2010, also includes upgrades for Pakistan's existing fleet of 34 older F-16s, munitions for the planes and other support, the State Department said Thursday.

Critics of Pakistan's military government, which exploded a nuclear device in 1998, have opposed selling it advanced fighter aircraft. The Bush administration, however, has courted Pakistan as a key ally in the war on terror and the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

"The sale is part of a larger effort to broaden our strategic partnership with Pakistan and advance our national security and foreign policy interests in Asia," the State Department said in a written statement.

Congress can veto such a sale technically but has never exercised that power

Link
====================
====================

5bn USD is a bit too much for just 36 Block 52 (or even 52+), 26 F-16A/Bs (likely to be provided under EDA) and 60 MLU upgrades. Unless the PAF is planning to acquire another 36 Block 52s - the actual price is probably around 3bn USD.

 

[SABRE]

Darn, this is the 3rd time Congress is going to be notified. Each time Congress is notified Pakistan usually pulls back & changes the numer.

1st notification said 77 F-16s with 50 new C/D models
2nd Notifications said 18 new C/D models & 22 used.
3rd (this) says 36 bew C/D models 26 used


I hope this is the last, but I would like to see the number go up a bit. Total of 100 F-16s should be there atleast in PAF (including the ones in service).

 

[BilalK]

According to the following Janes Defence Weekly article (link); this may be an initial phase order - the 18 (or 36) F-16C/D Block 52s that is. It is possible that the PAF may order at least another 33 new built F-16C/D Block 52s; if done, the number of Block 52s will be at around 55-75. At the minimum, there will be at least two squadrons of F-16 Block 52s - with possibilities of up to two more.

I think the delays may have been caused by a change of type; its possible that the PAF will now order the advanced Block 52 or Block 52+. Information on the Block 52+. In my opinion, Block 52+ would be a better acquisition - especially for the long run. It would also explain in the sharp fall in numbers - as well as the delays.

The 26 used may be the ex-Peace Gate III/IV aircraft embargoed from Pakistan earlier; they are the youngest and it would be a jewl acquisition by PAF. These will apparently be bought under the EDA program - meaning PAF will only pay for the MLU upgrade.