Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Singha » 05 Sep 2008 17:39

SSKs are not cheap and Unkil cannot hand them out free. to me it seems producing a few
more A90B under license or Marlin would be the cheaper option

namit k
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 10 Jul 2008 21:58
Location: Diamant-Land

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby namit k » 05 Sep 2008 18:35

Congress halts $230M for Pakistan F-16s

http://www.indusbusinessjournal.com/ME2 ... DDC8FD9249
WASHINGTON – Two senior members of the U.S. House of Representatives have moved to suspend the release of nearly $230 million in counter-terrorism funds by the administration of President George W. Bush for upgrades to Pakistan's aging F-16 fighter-jet fleet. A growing number of federal lawmakers contend that Pakistan values its F-16 jets more for their contribution to its military rivalry with India than for routing out terrorist insurgents holed up along the Afghan border.

Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, asked the Bush administration in late July not to shift $226.5 million in federal anti-terrorism aid to the Pakistani military, saying they feared the plan would impede efforts to stop terrorism and that they needed more time to study it.

"We are concerned that the administration's proposal to use military assistance to pay for the F-16 upgrades will divert funds from more productive counter-terrorism tools like helicopters, [tube-launched, anti-tank] missiles and night-vision goggles," Ber­man and Lowey said in a joint statement issued July 29. "We have requested a hold on the administration's planned reprogramming pending additional information. The hold ... will provide time for Congress to make a more considered judgement in consultation with the administration and the government of Pakistan."

Image



As president of the United States, Bush may still transfer the money against the wishes of Berman and Lowey, but such requests are usually honored by the White House.

The U.S. Department of State first disclosed the plan July 23 in a two-page notification to Congress, in which it stated that upgrading the avionics, targeting and radar systems of Pakistan's older F-16 attack jets would "increase the survivability of the aircraft in a hostile environment" and make them "a more valuable counter-terrorism asset that operates safely during day and night operations." The State Department added that the modernized systems would also boost the accuracy of the jets' support of Pakistani ground troops, thus lessening the risk of civilian casualties.

The letter did not go over well on Capitol Hill, where federal legislators publicly questioned how the upgraded F-16s – which many U.S. lawmakers believe Pakistan uses to counter any military threat posed by India -- would be put to use fighting al-Qaeda and Taliban militants. Federal officials have expressed frustration in recent years over what they see is Pakistan's failure to do its part in the fight against terrorist forces along the country's shared border with Afghanistan.

"We need to know if this is the best way to help Pakistan combat al-Qaeda and the Taliban," Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont who chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Appropriations, said in a statement.

Some members of Congress also noted the timing of the State Department's action, which came less than a week before the July 28 meeting between President Bush and newly elected Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani; the talks focused on cooperation between the two countries in the fight against terrorism. Several lawmakers floated the possibility that the letter was meant to win favor with Gilani, who took office in March. However, the New York Times – citing unnamed State Department officials – said the timing of the notification was driven by deadlines imposed by Bethesda, Md.-based defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp., which makes the F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft.

The State Department's proposal represents about two-thirds of a $300 million military-aid package that Pakistan will receive this year. According to Berman and Lowey, the 2008 fiscal year state- and foreign-operations bill that Congress passed last December requires that military aid to Pakistan be used for counter-terrorism and related law-enforcement activities designed to thwart al-Qaeda and Taliban operations.

Under the original plan sent to Congress in April, the Bush administration intended to use $226.5 million in antiterrorism funds to refurbish a pair of Pakistan’s Lockheed P-3 Orion planes – an older, turboprop-powered aircraft used by various militaries around the world for maritime patrol, reconnaissance and anti-submarine defense, as well as buy it new airfield navigation aids and overhaul the country's problem-plagued fleet of AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters.

The Cobra served as the foundation of the U.S. Army's attack helicopter fleet from 1967 until the mid-1980s, when it was replaced by the AH-64 Apache helicopter. The Pakistani Army has used the Cobra as its primary gunship helicopter since the mid-1970s, when Cobras donated by the Iranian military quelled a tribal uprising in Pakistan's Baluchistan province. In recent years, the Cobras have been proven effective against al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgencies in Pakistan's mountainous Waziristan area.

Berman, Lowey Propose Alternative Aid Package for Pakistan

If Congress approves the State Department plan to pay for the upgrades to Pakistan's F-16 fleet, it could be several years before the jets are flight-ready, which raises more questions about whether the funds should be spent on counter-terrorism measures that could be put into use more quickly. In their July 29 statement, Berman and Lowey expressed awareness of Pakistan's "considerable economic challenges," which they acknowledged have impacted the country's ability to fund the necessary upgrades to its F-16 fleet, and said that the United States remains committed to helping Pakistan's newly installed democratic government address the problem. The two lawmakers proposed that Congress release $200 million in economic assistance to the Pakistani government to relieve some of the budgetary constraints that it currently faces.

"This will help Pakistan set its own spending priorities while preserving U.S. military aid for its intended purpose – counter-terrorism activities against al-Qaeda and the Taliban," Berman and Lowey said.

Pakistan acquired its first F-16s in the early 1980s as part of a program to modernize the country's air force. In 1979, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan – which Pakistani officials deemed a threat to their country's national sovereignty – spurred the country to look for a new generation of fighter aircraft. France responded by offering the Pakistani Air Force its Mirage 2000 jet, but senior officers were more interested in acquiring American F-16 or F-18L fighters.

Initially the U.S. government – which by law must approve all military deals between American companies and foreign governments – refused to sell the F-16 or F-18 jets to Pakistan. Instead, the United States offered Pakistan a choice of three jets that couldn't match the F-16's firepower, speed and maneuverability: the F-20 Tigershark, a light fighter developed by Northrop Corp. that never went into production; the F-5E/F Tiger II, a light fighter jet also produced by Northrop that saw only limited action with the U.S. Air Force in Vietnam but is still widely used by other militaries worldwide; and the A-10 Thunderbolt II, a single-seat, twin-engine, straight-wing jet aircraft developed for the U.S. Air Force by Fairchild-Republic to provide close air support of ground troops by attacking tanks, armored vehicles and other ground targets.

But the election of Ronald Reagan as president of the United States in 1980 would change that. Reagan, a Republican who rejected the previous administration’s strategy of détente and would later order a massive buildup of the U.S. military, approved the sale of F-16s to Pakistan shortly after he entered the Oval Office in 1981. That year, the U.S. government agreed to sell 34 General Dynamics F-16A and 12 F-16B "Fighting Falcon" aircraft to the Pakistan Air Force. The jets were delivered under the "Peace Gate" foreign military sales program – the first six were delivered in 1983 under "Peace Gate I," and the remaining 34 arrived over the next three years, under the "Peace Gate II" program.

Between 1986 and 1988, Pakistani F-16s engaged in frequent skirmishes with Soviet and Afghan military aircraft. Pakistan's F-16s typically carry two heat-seeking, short-range, multi-directional AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles on the wingtips; as well as a pair of AIM-9P Sidewinder missiles on the outermost under-wing racks. Sponsored by the U.S. Air Force, the AIM-9P is an offshoot of the AIM-9L and is primarily intended for export to countries that can't afford, don't need, or are not allowed to receive the AIM-9L/M missiles.

Pakistan's F-16 fleet is also capable of delivering Precision Avionics Vectoring Equipment, or Paveway, laser-guided bombs, which are manufactured by Raytheon Missile Systems of Tucson, Ariz. Pakistan signed a $161 million contract with the U.S. government last December to purchase a large number of the Paveway bombs for its F-16 fleet; 11 months earlier, the Bush administration approved a $284 million purchase agreement between Pakistan and Raytheon Missile Systems for 700 air-to-air missiles.

During the Reagan years, Pakistan signed purchase agreements for about 70 F-16 jets, yet only 40 of them were delivered before the U.S. government cut off all aid and military sales to the country in 1990, citing Pakistan's ongoing and secret development of nuclear weapons.

Bush Administration Reverses U.S. Government Policy toward Pakistan

But in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the Bush administration reached a deal with the Pakistani government that permitted the country to buy newer, more advanced F-16 jets, as part of an incentive for the South Asian nation to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. In the years since, Pakistan has significantly ramped up its purchases of American-made military hardware. In 2006 alone, the country signed a $1.4 billion purchase agreement for up to three-dozen new F-16C/D fighter jets and $640 million in missiles and bombs. The deal included an aid package for $891 million in upgrades to the Pakistan Air Force's oldest F-16s.

Then, the U.S. government agreed to divert $108 million in annual security aid to Pakistan so that the country could load the older jets with new equipment. The Bush administration promised Congress that the Pakistani government would finance the rest of the upgrades on its own. But now, with Pakistan facing severe economic hardships and political unrest – Pervez Musharraf, facing the threat of impeachment, stepped down as the country's president Aug. 18 – Pakistani officials have asked the U.S. government for additional funds to help defray the cost of upgrading the planes

Since Sept. 11, 2001 – when Musharraf agreed to become an ally of the United States in the fight against terrorism – the U.S. government has given more than $10 billion in military aid to Pakistan.
Last edited by Rahul M on 06 Sep 2008 11:05, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: edited link format. no need to to use the "url" or the "quote" code for simply posting urls, it screws up the "automatically parse URLs" option.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10049
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby sum » 05 Sep 2008 19:20

A couple of senators raise a objection and the programme stalls? (not that im complaining!!! :mrgreen: )
Also,
Under the original plan sent to Congress in April, the Bush administration intended to use $226.5 million in antiterrorism funds to refurbish a pair of Pakistan’s Lockheed P-3 Orion planes – an older, turboprop-powered aircraft used by various militaries around the world for maritime patrol, reconnaissance and anti-submarine defense, as well as buy it new airfield navigation aids and overhaul the country's problem-plagued fleet of AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters.

Wonder how the Orions will help in routing the Al-Q navy...No one raises objections to that?

namit k
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 10 Jul 2008 21:58
Location: Diamant-Land

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby namit k » 05 Sep 2008 19:35

sum wrote:A couple of senators raise a objection and the programme stalls? (not that im complaining!!! :mrgreen: )
Also,
Under the original plan sent to Congress in April, the Bush administration intended to use $226.5 million in antiterrorism funds to refurbish a pair of Pakistan’s Lockheed P-3 Orion planes – an older, turboprop-powered aircraft used by various militaries around the world for maritime patrol, reconnaissance and anti-submarine defense, as well as buy it new airfield navigation aids and overhaul the country's problem-plagued fleet of AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters.

Wonder how the Orions will help in routing the Al-Q navy...No one raises objections to that?

unkil - paki relations are wonderful, that's why it always looks like unkil is retarded because of his age ,:mrgreen:

n_lodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 17:51

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby n_lodhi » 06 Sep 2008 06:35

sum wrote:A couple of senators raise a objection and the programme stalls? (not that im complaining!!! :mrgreen: )
Also,
Under the original plan sent to Congress in April, the Bush administration intended to use $226.5 million in antiterrorism funds to refurbish a pair of Pakistan’s Lockheed P-3 Orion planes – an older, turboprop-powered aircraft used by various militaries around the world for maritime patrol, reconnaissance and anti-submarine defense, as well as buy it new airfield navigation aids and overhaul the country's problem-plagued fleet of AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters.

Wonder how the Orions will help in routing the Al-Q navy...No one raises objections to that?


The US approved release of these funds on August 30th. Earlier US$116 mil were relesed on August 17th. As further clarification on the current status of this program: 4 PAF F-16's are already undergoing the upgrade in the US since May this year. The other 42 F-16's will be upgraded by Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI), starting next year, after completion of upgrade of these four. The whole upgrade upgrade program will complete by 2011.

Also, the funds released by the US in August are not the only elements of this upgrade program. Other contracts for equipment related to this upgrade program that have been awarded so far are: for APG-68(V)9 radar sets, JHMCS, Have Quick I/II Radios, SNIPER pods and EW pods. Besides this, contracts for AIM-9M-8/9 (delivery starting 2008), AIM-120C5 (delivery starting 2008) and JDAM guidance kits have also been awarded so far.

n_lodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 17:51

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby n_lodhi » 06 Sep 2008 06:45

namit k wrote:
German defence minister arrives ISLAMABAD
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\09\05\story_5-9-2008_pg7_52

German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung arrived on Thursday for a one-day visit to discuss the security situation in the Tribal Areas and Afghanistan with Pakistani officials.

Diplomatic sources said Jung would meet his Pakistani counterpart Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar on Friday (today) and discuss the situation in Afghanistan. The German minister will also meet Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi. Sources said Berlin was concerned over the deteriorating security situation and increasing attacks on international forces in Afghniastan. They said an earlier planned news conference between the two defence ministers was also cancelled due to security reasons.

The sources said Jung might meet with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, but did not disclose more information about the meeting due to the premier’s tightened security following a sniper attack on his motorcade.

germans are looking to sell u-boats and some armament stuff,
how's our relations with german defence industry, cant we stop some german deals with terrorists


Were you able to stop Russians from selling RD-93 engines? Surely, there are better relations with Russia than Germany.

It's a business (money) oriented world that we live in today. Germans have all but sealed the submarine deal (U-214), and are also hoping to participate in the bidding for the advanced frigate program.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby ranganathan » 06 Sep 2008 07:10

Lol advanced frigate :rotfl: . Unlike china germany won't provide loan money to buy their own ships. The germans will gladly sell U-214 to india if india needs it but In needs much larger sub now, 2500-3000 tonne unlike pathetic navy (PN) which is a coastal force.

n_lodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 17:51

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby n_lodhi » 06 Sep 2008 07:16

Singha wrote:Erieye will help datalink the F-16's, but they will not be able to do so in the case of the Mirage fleet. Chinese origin fighter fleet will have AEW&C cover from 4 ZDK03. The ZDK03 contract is close to be being finalised for the required 4 aircraft - no delivery timelines mentioned.

:rotfl: so they will have Mirages independent based on voice cmds, Ereyie commanding the
F-solahs and Y8 commanding the JF-17. no other country has 2 types of AWACS commanding
segments of their fleet independently.

they could purchase 1 phalcon to datalink between the Ereyie and Y8. I am sure they are
keeping an eye out for used E2 if they can get some free to fight the taliban


Both Erieye and ZDK-03 will form part of the intended C4I integrated air defence network, so there is no issue of 2 types of AWACS commanding segments of the fleet. Besides even now US and Chinese radars form part of the air defence network.

On the subject of E2's, although it is old information now, but since you mentioned:

Pakistan – E-2C Hawkeye 2000 Airborne Early Warning Suite for P-3s
WASHINGTON, December 07, 2006 - The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan for refurbishment and modification of three excess P-3 aircraft with the E-2C HAWKEYE 2000 Airborne Early Warning (AEW) Suite, as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $855million.


This deal is not yet finalized.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Singha » 06 Sep 2008 12:44

Foreign Military Sale :rotfl:

and what will you pakis pay with? the WB money ?

everyone has a "integrated C4I AD network" , but with incompatible sources of HW and
acknowledgement that fleetwide datalinking is not possible between PRC and Swedish
platforms, you are reduced to voice commands only...same as a GCI but with airborne
controller. no passive radar feed.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Philip » 06 Sep 2008 13:49

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... istan.html

200,000 civilians flee fighting in north Pakistan
Intense fighting in the Bajaur tribal district in north Pakistan has forced more than 200,000 people to flee their villages, an International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) official has said.

By Our Foreign Staff
Last Updated: 7:17AM BST 06 Sep 2008

With Pakistani soldiers increasingly attacking the Taliban in the North West Territories innocent civilians are being effected. Nick Meo visited a Refugee camp just outside of Peshawar. ; http://link.brightcove.com/services/lin ... 1775769172 http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?c ... 1139053637

"There is a real war shaking the Bajaur region at the moment," said Pascal Cuttat, the head of the ICRC Pakistan delegation, with government forces "facing heavy opposition."

Pakistan's forces have launched a number of major military offensives in recent weeks against militants in the Bajaur district, which is thought to be an Al-Qaeda stronghold.

"In the last few weeks, we have a dramatic intensification of the armed conflict which has its flare-ups and this is the most difficult one," Cuttat said during a press briefing in Geneva.

At least 200,000 people have fled their homes in the semi-autonomous Bajaur district near the Afghanistan border in the past three weeks, according to Cuttat.

"About 80 percent of this displaced population was composed of women and children, and a few elderly," he said, while adding that the fugitives left with "literally nothing."

However, the majority of men opted to remain in their homes to protect their belongings and not leave their land during the harvest season, Cuttat said.

A large number of civilians travelled south to Marden and Peshawar, while others have headed north to the Lower Dir district.

Approximately, 14,000 travelled over the border to Afghanistan, fearing the fighting will drag on for a long time, Cuttat said.

The organisation, which fears a spread in diseases such a cholera, has provided drinking water to 50,000 people, as well as health facilities, tents and medicine.

"These displaced people urgently need vital items," Cuttat said.

Pakistani authorities declared a ceasefire during Ramadan, which began at the start of September.

namit k
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 10 Jul 2008 21:58
Location: Diamant-Land

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby namit k » 06 Sep 2008 20:14

n_lodhi wrote:
Singha wrote:Erieye will help datalink the F-16's, but they will not be able to do so in the case of the Mirage fleet. Chinese origin fighter fleet will have AEW&C cover from 4 ZDK03. The ZDK03 contract is close to be being finalised for the required 4 aircraft - no delivery timelines mentioned.

:rotfl: so they will have Mirages independent based on voice cmds, Ereyie commanding the
F-solahs and Y8 commanding the JF-17. no other country has 2 types of AWACS commanding
segments of their fleet independently.

they could purchase 1 phalcon to datalink between the Ereyie and Y8. I am sure they are
keeping an eye out for used E2 if they can get some free to fight the taliban


Both Erieye and ZDK-03 will form part of the intended C4I integrated air defence network, so there is no issue of 2 types of AWACS commanding segments of the fleet. Besides even now US and Chinese radars form part of the air defence network.

On the subject of E2's, although it is old information now, but since you mentioned:

Pakistan – E-2C Hawkeye 2000 Airborne Early Warning Suite for P-3s
WASHINGTON, December 07, 2006 - The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan for refurbishment and modification of three excess P-3 aircraft with the E-2C HAWKEYE 2000 Airborne Early Warning (AEW) Suite, as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $855million.


This deal is not yet finalized.

how many AWACS will pak have in a decade, i've learnt it is 8+ but we are working with only 6?, are we not considering chnx?

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10049
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby sum » 07 Sep 2008 09:10

how many AWACS will pak have in a decade, i've learnt it is 8+ but we are working with only 6?, are we not considering chnx?

The Paki AWACS are smaller ranged and endurance compared to the giant Il-76 Phalcons....Also, we should be getting our homegrown AWACS in the air within 5-6 years( the Brazilian platforms have already been contracted) which are equivalent to the SAABs/Y-8s of the PAF...

So, within 6-8 years, we should be having 6(3 add-on order) Phalcons+2-3(??) DRDO AWACS...

Also, each set of 4 Paki AWACS seems to interlink with only half their fleet.. :-? The Chinese AWACS with Chinese fighters and the SAAB AWACS with the rest of the western fleet...IMHO, that is not a optimum way of operations and means that the fleet is not effectively utilised!!!

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby vivek_ahuja » 07 Sep 2008 13:24

sum wrote:
how many AWACS will pak have in a decade, i've learnt it is 8+ but we are working with only 6?, are we not considering chnx?

The Paki AWACS are smaller ranged and endurance compared to the giant Il-76 Phalcons....Also, we should be getting our homegrown AWACS in the air within 5-6 years( the Brazilian platforms have already been contracted) which are equivalent to the SAABs/Y-8s of the PAF...

So, within 6-8 years, we should be having 6(3 add-on order) Phalcons+2-3(??) DRDO AWACS...

Also, each set of 4 Paki AWACS seems to interlink with only half their fleet.. :-? The Chinese AWACS with Chinese fighters and the SAAB AWACS with the rest of the western fleet...IMHO, that is not a optimum way of operations and means that the fleet is not effectively utilised!!!


There is a difference between AEW, AEW&C and AWACS. Let's not mix them up. The Phalcon is an AWACS. The DRDO birds will be AEW&C, while the erieye is an AEW aircraft.

It has a lot to do with how much command and control you can initiate from within the aircraft that separates them out. Coordinating massive air operations requires people dedicated to being airborne controllers. You can have these people on the ground or in the air. If they are in the air, you can have them on board a separate C3 bird or on board the radar aircraft itself. If the latter is the case, then the aircraft is an AWACS, and is therefore a self contained aerial operations direction centre.

If the controllers are not on the same aircraft, then the aircraft itself is an AEW. AEW&C is in between somwhere, though I am yet to be convinced by some of the definitions for this classification.

Having said that, I am yet to see the PAF buying Airborne Command Posts or ACPs. In this case their control nodes for air operations are still going to be on the ground even if the AEW is in the air. For a country with no strategic depth this is a serious weak point in the system. All this stuff about datalinking etc is meaningless if you have no higher control on the direction of the air operations. Take out the ground control nodes, and you cripple the PAF's ability to wage air war. The Phalcon overcomes this defect for the IAF and since we have strategic depth, the DRDO AEW aircraft also fit in within the above CONOPs.

-Vivek

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10049
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby sum » 07 Sep 2008 15:22

It has a lot to do with how much command and control you can initiate from within the aircraft that separates them out. Coordinating massive air operations requires people dedicated to being airborne controllers. You can have these people on the ground or in the air. If they are in the air, you can have them on board a separate C3 bird or on board the radar aircraft itself. If the latter is the case, then the aircraft is an AWACS, and is therefore a self contained aerial operations direction centre.

If the controllers are not on the same aircraft, then the aircraft itself is an AEW. AEW&C is in between somwhere, though I am yet to be convinced by some of the definitions for this classification.

Having said that, I am yet to see the PAF buying Airborne Command Posts or ACPs. In this case their control nodes for air operations are still going to be on the ground even if the AEW is in the air. For a country with no strategic depth this is a serious weak point in the system. All this stuff about datalinking etc is meaningless if you have no higher control on the direction of the air operations. Take out the ground control nodes, and you cripple the PAF's ability to wage air war. The Phalcon overcomes this defect for the IAF and since we have strategic depth, the DRDO AEW aircraft also fit in within the above CONOPs.

Thanks for the clarification.....
Regarding the AEW&C, either the controller can be on the aircraft or the ground...What does something in between for the "AEW&C" mean??

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby PaulJI » 07 Sep 2008 19:53

vivek_ahuja wrote:There is a difference between AEW, AEW&C and AWACS. Let's not mix them up. The Phalcon is an AWACS. The DRDO birds will be AEW&C, while the erieye is an AEW aircraft.

-Vivek

Not quite. AEW&C is a generic term for an aircraft with an early warning radar, which is capable of independent function as an airborne command post. AWACS was the term used by the USAF for the E-3, to distinguish it from earlier AEW-only aircraft. AEW&C = Airborne Early Warning & Control. AWACS = Airborne Warning And Control System. The meaning is identical. Usage is not fixed, but AEW&C is often used for anything that has a control function, not just AEW, but is not the Westinghouse/Northrop Grumman system of the E-3 & B-767 AWACS.

Erieye is the radar, not the aircraft. The Swedish Air Force has Erieye AEW aircraft, capable of functioning as a limited AEW&C. They normally operate as pure AEW, flying radars relaying data to ground stations, but have a couple of operator stations aboard (not usually manned), so that they can still be useful if ground stations are disabled. Brazil put its Erieye radars on a larger aircraft, with 5 permanent on-board operators (& space for reserve crew members), to operate as an AEW&C. This is the version sold to Greece & Mexico (in the same EMB-145 airframe) & Pakistan (in Saab 2000).

The E-2 is generally referred to as an AEW aircraft, but it can do AEW&C, though limited by its small crew - max.three operators. The B-737 Wedgetail is an AEW&C aircraft, with onboard operators, as is the G550 with Elta systems.

Note that Elta calls the Phalcon an AEW&C system.

This is not to say that all AEW&C/AWACS aircraft are identical in capabilities (an E-3 has a longer-range radar, & can control more operations than, a Saab 2000 Erieye), but they do all perform the same role.

renukb
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 18 Aug 2008 12:18

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby renukb » 07 Sep 2008 20:45

Pak to get 100 fighter jets from China, US

http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/CB99535AA9EE9095652574BD00468AB2?OpenDocument

Islamabad, Sept 7 (PTI) Pakistan will acquire over 100 fighter jets from China and the US as well as airborne warning and air-to-air refuelling aircraft to maintain numerical parity with the Indian Air Force which enjoys a "qualitative advantage", the country's air force chief has said.
Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed said the Pakistan Air Force was "very close" to signing a contract with China for serial production of 42 JF-17 fighter jets.

It would also acquire two squadrons or 36 of the FC-20 multi-role fighters from China and 18 new F-16s from the US, he said.

Ahmed said the PAF had already received eight JF-17 jets, which are being used for testing and evaluation. The first squadron of JF-17s is expected to be raised later this year or early next year.

PAF has inked a contract with a Ukrainian firm for four air-to-air refuelling aircraft, and the first of them is expected to arrive in a month, Ahmed said in an interview with Dawn News channel.

Pakistan also expects to receive the Saab 2000 Erieye airborne early warning and control system aircraft from Sweden in a year, he said.

Pakistan has signed a deal for five Saab 2000 Erieye aircraft, the first of which was rolled out in Sweden in April. The aircraft is currently undergoing tests in Sweden.

PAF has also received 12 refurbished F-16s from the US and will get two more similar aircraft after they are upgraded by Lockheed Martin, he said. PTI


China to supply 4 AWACS to Pakistan
http://pakobserver.net/200809/06/news/topstories08.asp

Islamabad—Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed on Friday said China would provide four AWACS aircraft to Pakistan for the purpose of aerial surveillance, adding an agreement in this regard has been signed by the two countries.

Talking to a private TV channel, he said talks were also underway to purchase FC-20 aircraft from China and added 30 to 40 planes would be provided to Pakistan under the agreement signed by China and Pakistan.

Air chief Marshal further said four such aircraft were also being also acquired from Sweden for aerial surveillance.

vishal
BRFite
Posts: 336
Joined: 27 Feb 2002 12:31
Location: BOM/SIN

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby vishal » 07 Sep 2008 20:56

Feel good moment of the day :)

Excerpt: "Finally, there is the problem of the Pakistan Army’s competence. For all the myths that officers like Musharraf have spread about the institution, the simple fact is that it isn’t very good. The Pakistan Army has lost every war it has ever fought. And it isn’t trained to battle an insurgency.
::
::
And then the retired Pakistani official offered another explanation — one that he said could never be discussed in public. The reason the Pakistani security services support the Taliban, he said, is for money: after the 9/11 attacks, the Pakistani military concluded that keeping the Taliban alive was the surest way to win billions of dollars in aid that Pakistan needed to survive."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magaz ... gewanted=5

n_lodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 17:51

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby n_lodhi » 07 Sep 2008 22:31

PaulJI wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote:There is a difference between AEW, AEW&C and AWACS. Let's not mix them up. The Phalcon is an AWACS. The DRDO birds will be AEW&C, while the erieye is an AEW aircraft.

-Vivek

Not quite. AEW&C is a generic term for an aircraft with an early warning radar, which is capable of independent function as an airborne command post. AWACS was the term used by the USAF for the E-3, to distinguish it from earlier AEW-only aircraft. AEW&C = Airborne Early Warning & Control. AWACS = Airborne Warning And Control System. The meaning is identical. Usage is not fixed, but AEW&C is often used for anything that has a control function, not just AEW, but is not the Westinghouse/Northrop Grumman system of the E-3 & B-767 AWACS.

Erieye is the radar, not the aircraft. The Swedish Air Force has Erieye AEW aircraft, capable of functioning as a limited AEW&C. They normally operate as pure AEW, flying radars relaying data to ground stations, but have a couple of operator stations aboard (not usually manned), so that they can still be useful if ground stations are disabled. Brazil put its Erieye radars on a larger aircraft, with 5 permanent on-board operators (& space for reserve crew members), to operate as an AEW&C. This is the version sold to Greece & Mexico (in the same EMB-145 airframe) & Pakistan (in Saab 2000).

The E-2 is generally referred to as an AEW aircraft, but it can do AEW&C, though limited by its small crew - max.three operators. The B-737 Wedgetail is an AEW&C aircraft, with onboard operators, as is the G550 with Elta systems.

Note that Elta calls the Phalcon an AEW&C system.

This is not to say that all AEW&C/AWACS aircraft are identical in capabilities (an E-3 has a longer-range radar, & can control more operations than, a Saab 2000 Erieye), but they do all perform the same role.


Thanks PaulJI, you saved me the effort of explaining the same thing.

To sum it up, AWACS and AEW&C are two terms used to refer to the same capability. Within the envelope of the whole AWACS/AEW&C system, other factors would be the type of aircraft used (endurance, efficiency, control posts) and the qualiaty/capability of radar.

As far as ERIEYE is concerned, from SAAB group website:

[b][b]ERIEYE is part of a complete AEW&C system, including radar with integrated Secondary Surveillance Radar / Identification Friend or Foe (SSR/IFF), electronic support measures, communications and data links, comprehensive command-and-control facilities and self-protection system.

The state-of-the-art command-and-control system gives the on-board mission-system crew full capability for AEW&C roles as well as maximum flexibility for other peacetime and war missions.
[/b][/b]

And also from the same source:

The Saab 2000 ERIEYE AEW&C
utilises the latest generation ERIEYE radar,
now capable of detecting small air targets,
hovering helicopters, cruise missiles and
small sea targets such as inflatable rubber
boats, for a more complete surveillance
picture.

Features:
• ERIEYE latest generation radar and
systems
• Enhanced maritime modes
• ERIEYE Mission System
• Electronic Support Measures (ESM)
• Self Protection System (SPS)
• SATCOM and data link solutions
• Automatic Identification System
(AIS)

Applications:
• AEW&C
• National security missions
• Border control
• Airborne C2 platform
• Disaster management co-ordination
• Major event security
• Emergency Air Traffic Control
(ATC)

Radar System performance:
• Active Phased Array Pulse Doppler
multi-mode radar
• 450 km range and above 20 km
(65,000 ft) altitude coverage
• Effective surveillance area of 500,000
sq km

http://products.saabgroup.com/PDBWebNew/PDF/productpage_id1190_lan1.pdf

This should clarify the confusion around PAF SAAB ERIEYE only being a AEW system.

And just like ERIEYE, the ZDK03 will also be an AEW&C/AWACS system, which is a further development of the KJ-200 AEW&C system based on Y-8F600 aircraft.

On the other hand, the Hawkeye 2000 (opted for by PN) are essentially AEW aircraft with supplimentary command and control capabilities. Northrop Grumman call it a AEW&BM system. See the link.

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/systems/e2chawkeye.html

n_lodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 17:51

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby n_lodhi » 07 Sep 2008 22:59

sum wrote:
Also, each set of 4 Paki AWACS seems to interlink with only half their fleet.. :-? The Chinese AWACS with Chinese fighters and the SAAB AWACS with the rest of the western fleet...IMHO, that is not a optimum way of operations and means that the fleet is not effectively utilised!!!


Agreed, the most efficient way would be if both AEW&C systems can transmit data to all aircraft. However, that is not happening for now. Still both these AEW&C systems will be inter-linked with the ground based air defence network (C4I air defence network, which will also have link with naval aerial/surface platforms), so I don't see why this would be a problem when a JF-17 can get indirect data feed from ERIEYE thorugh the ground based control nodes.

n_lodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 17:51

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby n_lodhi » 07 Sep 2008 23:21

renukb wrote:Pak to get 100 fighter jets from China, US

http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/CB99535AA9EE9095652574BD00468AB2?OpenDocument

Islamabad, Sept 7 (PTI) Pakistan will acquire over 100 fighter jets from China and the US as well as airborne warning and air-to-air refuelling aircraft to maintain numerical parity with the Indian Air Force which enjoys a "qualitative advantage", the country's air force chief has said.
Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed said the Pakistan Air Force was "very close" to signing a contract with China for serial production of 42 JF-17 fighter jets.

It would also acquire two squadrons or 36 of the FC-20 multi-role fighters from China and 18 new F-16s from the US, he said.

Ahmed said the PAF had already received eight JF-17 jets, which are being used for testing and evaluation. The first squadron of JF-17s is expected to be raised later this year or early next year.

PAF has inked a contract with a Ukrainian firm for four air-to-air refuelling aircraft, and the first of them is expected to arrive in a month, Ahmed said in an interview with Dawn News channel.

Pakistan also expects to receive the Saab 2000 Erieye airborne early warning and control system aircraft from Sweden in a year, he said.

Pakistan has signed a deal for five Saab 2000 Erieye aircraft, the first of which was rolled out in Sweden in April. The aircraft is currently undergoing tests in Sweden.

PAF has also received 12 refurbished F-16s from the US and will get two more similar aircraft after they are upgraded by Lockheed Martin, he said. PTI


China to supply 4 AWACS to Pakistan
http://pakobserver.net/200809/06/news/topstories08.asp

Islamabad—Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed on Friday said China would provide four AWACS aircraft to Pakistan for the purpose of aerial surveillance, adding an agreement in this regard has been signed by the two countries.

Talking to a private TV channel, he said talks were also underway to purchase FC-20 aircraft from China and added 30 to 40 planes would be provided to Pakistan under the agreement signed by China and Pakistan.

Air chief Marshal further said four such aircraft were also being also acquired from Sweden for aerial surveillance.



In the same interview, PAF ACM confirmed that:

[*] French offer of air-borne radar, AAM, mission computers and other equipment for second batch of JF-17s (51-100). It is being evaluated, in light of required configuration for batch-2 JF-17s and a decision will be made soon.
[*] Pakistan Air Force was looking for some western engine for the later batches of JF-17. The life of the Russian engine was much short as compared to the western engines.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby ranganathan » 08 Sep 2008 00:21

Its old news that french have offered the RC-400/RDY3 radar which is really a dumbed down version of RDY2 to pakistan. The radar though not as potent as those on M2k-5 or Rafale is definitely better than anything china can offer. I think PAF will probably go for it or the griffo. AAM may be MICA I don't see Meteor being offered to PAF. If rafale is selected then Meteor will end up in IAF's hands.

Hmmm not sure about engine. It is news to me. Yes the Rd-93 is not the best engine or even as good as the RD-33 series 3 HAl is license producing but seems better than the any chinese option on table. Who have they contacted for the engine? I can't see snecma going for it as they have interest in selling their engine for tejas. Eurojet-200? Rolls royce? GE? PW? Can't see unkils suppliers agreeing to fit it on chinese planes but lets see.
Anyway it was high time PAF got rid off junk like A-5, older F-7's and crap like Mirage-3/5. IAf needs to do the same with non bison Mig-21's and unupgraded Mig-27's. Rafale or F-18 with AESA for MRCA?

n_lodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 17:51

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby n_lodhi » 08 Sep 2008 05:14

ranganathan wrote:Its old news that french have offered the RC-400/RDY3 radar which is really a dumbed down version of RDY2 to pakistan. The radar though not as potent as those on M2k-5 or Rafale is definitely better than anything china can offer. I think PAF will probably go for it or the griffo. AAM may be MICA I don't see Meteor being offered to PAF. If rafale is selected then Meteor will end up in IAF's hands.

Hmmm not sure about engine. It is news to me. Yes the Rd-93 is not the best engine or even as good as the RD-33 series 3 HAl is license producing but seems better than the any chinese option on table. Who have they contacted for the engine? I can't see snecma going for it as they have interest in selling their engine for tejas. Eurojet-200? Rolls royce? GE? PW? Can't see unkils suppliers agreeing to fit it on chinese planes but lets see.
Anyway it was high time PAF got rid off junk like A-5, older F-7's and crap like Mirage-3/5. IAf needs to do the same with non bison Mig-21's and unupgraded Mig-27's. Rafale or F-18 with AESA for MRCA?


I am not aware of the options for the engine, in any case that is not going to happen before numbers 101 onwards, which is still some years away.

RC400 was already on offer for the first batch, besides the griffo-S7 and KLJ-7. But KLJ-7 was chosen. RDY-3 is a newer derivative of RDY-2, just like RC400, but will not be as capable as RDY-2 and RBE radars (which are bigger radars) in terms of tracking range etc. But one of the benefits of RDY-3 would be the possibility of using western weapons with it (just like the griffo M on mirages).

Both RC400 and RDY-3 can track up to 24 targets, eight of which can be targeted simultaneously, with automatic prioritisation of four. There is no specific information on the range of RDY-3, but 'Flightglobal' once reported on RC-400 that:

RC400 has only 20% less range than the RDY radars developed for the Mirage 2000-5 and -9
The radar can track a 5m2 (55ft2) target in low-altitude/look-down mode at 100km (55nm) range, says the company, and air-to-ground ranging is possible down to a "few metres" accuracy.

This is from the Thales website on RDY-3 (pretty much the same for RC400):

OPERATIONAL BENEFITS
AIR-TO-AIR FUNCTION
• Very long range, all aspect, look-up / look-down detection
• Automatic waveform management and antenna scanning
• Multi-target automatic lock-on and TWS
• Simultaneous multi-target fire control
• Single Target Track
• Advanced ECCM
• IFF interrogator capability
AIR-TO-GROUND FUNCTION
RDY-3 provides all the modes required for day and night, all
weather operations:
• High Resolution Mapping spotlight SAR
• Terrain Avoidance (Contour Mapping for Blind Penetration)
• Moving Target Indication and Tracking
• Air-to-Ground Ranging
• Freeze / Silence
AIR-TO-SEA FUNCTION
RDY-3 provides all the modes required for BVR attack of
surface ships:
• Long-range detection
• Multi-target TWS
• Target RCS assessment
• STT
• ISAR (option)
OTHERS
• Easy Air-to-Surface modes transitions


KLJ-7 is also not as capable as RDY-2. In an earlier interview with AFM, PAF ACM had mentioned that it is much better than APG-66 on the older F-16s but not as good as APG-68(v9) on the newer models. NRIET revealed details of this airborne fighter radar at CIDEX 2008 in Beijing, reported by "Jane's Defense Weekly" in April, basically saying that:

The KLJ-7 has multiple beyond-visual-range (BVR) and close-in air-to-air modes, ground surveillance and a robust anti-jamming capability. The radar can manage up to 40 targets, monitor up to 10 of them in track-while-scan (TWS) mode and simultaneously fire on two BVR targets. The detection range for targets with a radar-cross section of up to 3 m 2 is 120 km or 50 km in look-down mode. Surface sea targets can be detected at up to 135 km.
The radar employs a mechanical phased-array antenna and bears some similarity to derivatives of the Phazotron N010 Zhuk family of radars.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby ranganathan » 08 Sep 2008 06:21

I am not surprised the KLJ-7 looks like phazatron radar chinese must have tried to reverse engineer it. But is PAF happy with the radar? The spec 3 m^2 at 120 Km seems lower than Tejas's MMR which was meant to detect 2 m^2 targets at 130 km (144 km for 3 m^2) and then revised to 150 km.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby rkhanna » 13 Sep 2008 18:55

@Lodhi. The RDY-3 and the RC-400 are the same radar. Also the RC-400 is a scaled down RDY-2. Some years ago the Indian Navy and AF did a joint evaluation of the RC-400 and the ELTA-2032 and they found the RC-400 lacking in capability for their requirements and hence the harriers/LCA/Jaguars will now feature the Elta radar.



secondly Pakistan AF will have 8 AWACs yes but do keep in mind that nearly half of these will get diverted to their NAVY as the PAF still does AirDuties for the PN. Where as India will get 3(+3?) Phalcons, initial batch of 3 DRDO AWACs (expanded to 5) and the Navy is all set to Issue its own LandBased AWAC tender soon.

Overall if you include the AeroStats/UAVs/Ka-31s matted into the Ground Surv units of the GreenPines+LRTR India's Early warning needs should be adequetly covered visavis both Pakistan and CHina. We however still lack proper martime Surv Assets.

n_lodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 17:51

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby n_lodhi » 14 Sep 2008 07:41

ranganathan wrote:I am not surprised the KLJ-7 looks like phazatron radar chinese must have tried to reverse engineer it. But is PAF happy with the radar? The spec 3 m^2 at 120 Km seems lower than Tejas's MMR which was meant to detect 2 m^2 targets at 130 km (144 km for 3 m^2) and then revised to 150 km.


I am sure PAF is satisfied with KLJ-7 equipping the first batch of JF-17. It is quite satisfactory in a-a role (for example, it seems to out range the ZHUK ME and earlier variant APGv68 radars), and does alow for a quick integration of a-a/a-g weapons certified for J-10 (KLJ-10, which is a similar radar).

On MMR, I was not aware of the required specs that you quoted, but if it does get those specs with a non-AESA radar(considering that LCA, JF-17 etc are small sized fighters so you would expect smaller radars), it will be a significant achievement, because the quoted specs seem even better than APG68v9 and RDY-2 (which is probably what IAF Mirage-2000 will get).

n_lodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 17:51

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby n_lodhi » 14 Sep 2008 08:29

rkhanna wrote:@Lodhi. The RDY-3 and the RC-400 are the same radar. Also the RC-400 is a scaled down RDY-2. Some years ago the Indian Navy and AF did a joint evaluation of the RC-400 and the ELTA-2032 and they found the RC-400 lacking in capability for their requirements and hence the harriers/LCA/Jaguars will now feature the Elta radar.



secondly Pakistan AF will have 8 AWACs yes but do keep in mind that nearly half of these will get diverted to their NAVY as the PAF still does AirDuties for the PN. Where as India will get 3(+3?) Phalcons, initial batch of 3 DRDO AWACs (expanded to 5) and the Navy is all set to Issue its own LandBased AWAC tender soon.


That was the initial plan when 6 ERIEYE systems were ordered. But that was revised to 4 and PN intended to go for US Hawkeye2000. Besides, the 8 PAF AWACS and the PN assets will all be integrated into the air defence network, hence the entire issue of PN/PAF assets becomes irrelevant as far as air defence awareness is concerned.

On RC400, like you said, 'they found the RC-400 lacking in capability for their requirements'. That does not necessarily translate into the fact that 2032 is a better overall radar than RC400. And I would be surprised if it is. Did they release any detailed results of their testing?

Remember that RC400/RDY3 provides the full envelope of modes/capabilities of RDY-2, which uses similar data-processing unit (MDPU) as that on Rafales, and is a very potent radar (with very good ECCM capabilities, and I also read somewhere that it can detect low flying cruise missiles as well at long ranges). RC400/RDY3 is deliberately scaled down version in order to fit smaller fighters and hence provides 15%-20% lesser detection ranges (is lighter weight and easy maintenance with 4 LRUs some of which can be housed behind the cockpit area). If I use the speculative detection ranges of RDY-2 in various modes, and adjust for RC400/RDY3, I come up with more of less similar ranges as for EL/M 2032. However, there are features where I would expect the french radar to be better than this Israeli radar.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby rkhanna » 14 Sep 2008 14:34

On RC400, like you said, 'they found the RC-400 lacking in capability for their requirements'. That does not necessarily translate into the fact that 2032 is a better overall radar than RC400. And I would be surprised if it is. Did they release any detailed results of their testing?


My Information comes from a Naval Aviator who tested the radars for the Harrier upgrade. In AA modes the Elta 2032 is the same as the RC-400 but in Airtoground modes the Elta is far Superior (specially for Martime strike).

n_lodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 17:51

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby n_lodhi » 15 Sep 2008 02:14

My Information comes from a Naval Aviator who tested the radars for the Harrier upgrade. In AA modes the Elta 2032 is the same as the RC-400 but in Airtoground modes the Elta is far Superior (specially for Martime strike).
[/quote]

RKhanna, I very much doubt that Elta 2032 is as capable as RDY3/RC400 in a-a mode. For one, it lacks the multi-targetting capability of the French Radar. Some one from IAF or IN may be able to confirm that, but I have read reports stating that it only provides 8/1 TWS/engagement capability. Add to that the superior data processing and anti-jamming capabilities of RDY3/RC400 (thanks to RDY-2 and Rafale).

In a-g and a-s modes RDY3/RC400 provides similar modes as RDY-2. I do not see any capability that EL/M 2032 provides, but is lacking in RDY3/RC400. Unless you have any other information besides what IAI says.

Factors affecting IN's decision would surely be other than purely radar capability, for example, other preferred sensors and avionics fit, weapons required, costs etc. And it could also be a possibility that when IN tested RC400, it did not have all the modes that are available now (just my assumption). Remember that RC-400 was initially a derivative of the original RDY radar. The new a-g modes and processing technologies (which are included in RDY-3/RC-400 now, as shown on Thales website) were added to RDY around late ninetees (and called RDY-2). Another indicator of RDY's superiority for me would be that initially IAF was happy with the RDY equipped M2k5 as its MRCA (I say this because RC-400/RDY-3 is essentially RDY in terms of tracking ranges). And that was at the same time when EL/M 2032 was already available to IAF (i,e. why would one buy new fighters with inferior radars when one is equipping old ones with a superior radar - jags and sea harriers).

However, I agree that 2032 it still a very potent sensor for a-g/a-s roles for the likes of Jags and Sea Harriers.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby rkhanna » 16 Sep 2008 13:59

@Lodhi. I do not wish to pursue this argument anylonger as i would then have to give information that i am not allowed too. However your claims of the RC-400 being close to the RDY-2 is pure nonesense. the RC-400 is a far cry from the RDY-2 and is a low cost radar meant for Mirage III/V upgrades. Sort of like the Grifo for F-15MLUs.

My reasons for why the IN chose the Elta still stand however i would like to add that the ELTA radar is more expensive than the RC-400.

However you are free to continue believing what you want as i cannot give more credibility to my arguments without breeching the trust of somebody in the ArmedForces. :)

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby rkhanna » 17 Sep 2008 00:35

BTW. just spent some time on WAFF,Thales and other websites and it could be that the RDY-3 and RC-400 are two different radars. Thales has both listed seperately on their products page.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby ranganathan » 17 Sep 2008 04:20

I checked the specs from the brochure of RDY-3 and RC-400. They look the same. Even the aircrafts mentioned seem to be the same : LCA, F-16, Mig-29, Mirage-III/V and Mirage F-1. Ironically I don't see that radar ever being fitted into any of these aircraft except JF-17 and maybe Mirage F-1 (Libya and Morocco).

n_lodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 17:51

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby n_lodhi » 17 Sep 2008 04:27

rkhanna wrote:@Lodhi. I do not wish to pursue this argument anylonger as i would then have to give information that i am not allowed too. However your claims of the RC-400 being close to the RDY-2 is pure nonesense. the RC-400 is a far cry from the RDY-2 and is a low cost radar meant for Mirage III/V upgrades. Sort of like the Grifo for F-15MLUs.

My reasons for why the IN chose the Elta still stand however i would like to add that the ELTA radar is more expensive than the RC-400.

However you are free to continue believing what you want as i cannot give more credibility to my arguments without breeching the trust of somebody in the ArmedForces. :)


Well, not much can be said about your above claims. But I do find it hilarious that you base your views on a private discussion with no dependability whatsoever and think mine are ‘pure nonsense’ :lol:. Atleast I was basing most of my comments on verifiable sources like the manufacturer websites or aviation magazines.

And why would RC400/RDY-3 not be close to RDY-2 (albeit, on the lower side), when it is derived from it and provides a similar range of capabilities. BTW, I also read on French forums that France is upgrading its D variants with RDY-3 and some other goodies.

Anyways, whatever keeps you going. I peace out!!!
Last edited by n_lodhi on 17 Sep 2008 04:40, edited 1 time in total.

n_lodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 17:51

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby n_lodhi » 17 Sep 2008 04:38

ranganathan wrote:I checked the specs from the brochure of RDY-3 and RC-400. They look the same. Even the aircrafts mentioned seem to be the same : LCA, F-16, Mig-29, Mirage-III/V and Mirage F-1. Ironically I don't see that radar ever being fitted into any of these aircraft except JF-17 and maybe Mirage F-1 (Libya and Morocco).


Quite true. Actually, there are other brochures on the Thales website, where they are referring to these two together, and in one case as RDY400 (may be a mistake only).

n_lodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Aug 2008 17:51

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby n_lodhi » 21 Sep 2008 23:17

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 20Exercise

The Defense Department is inviting the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) to participate in the Red Flag aerial combat training exercise next year at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.

An Air Force spokesman told Aerospace DAILY there is “a possibility that the Pakistani Air Force will participate in a Red Flag in 2009.” Group Capt. Ahmer Shehzad, the air attaché at the Pakistani embassy, confirmed that the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) had been invited to Red Flag, but he said officials in Islamabad will decide whether to accept the invitation.
Last edited by Rahul M on 21 Sep 2008 23:22, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: edited link format. no need to to use the "url" code, it screws up the "automatically parse URLs" option.

namit k
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 10 Jul 2008 21:58
Location: Diamant-Land

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby namit k » 22 Sep 2008 18:39

rkhanna said :Overall if you include the AeroStats/UAVs/Ka-31s matted into the Ground Surv units of the GreenPines+LRTR India's Early warning needs should be adequetly covered visavis both Pakistan and CHina. We however still lack proper martime Surv Assets.

thats the same question what i meant in my previous posts.
even we have ground based radar linked to awacs, but we still lag in terms of number of awacs, so how is drdo going to compensate this, its already said that phalcons from israel will not be available before 2011, and Indian awacs not before 2012.
even then when we have total no of awacs as 3+3(Israeli)+3(Indian)
in 2015, we would still lag in no of awacs,required to cover both chix and paki inputs.
Is it right that GOI goes for 3 extra form israel or a larger nos of indigenous awacs in serial production from local units.?

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Dmurphy » 22 Sep 2008 19:26

namit k wrote: its already said that phalcons from israel will not be available before 2011, and Indian awacs not before 2012.


To my knowledge, the first Phalcon will be ready by first half on 2009, not 2012. The remaining Phalcons should be ready within a year. A repeat order for 3 more Phalcons is also expected soon.

The indigenous Airavat will play the supporting role, which can be produced in numbers in sometime. Perhaps we could use some of our home grown NAL Saras to base the future Airavats ?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Singha » 22 Sep 2008 23:00

hmmm...before awacs could be have a network of ground based 3D radars in the CAR/reporter/Gpine
mould to monitor our NE and himalayan frontiers properly?

its quite a challenging problem to monitor low flying air activity behind the himalayas. static radars on
mountain tops are vulerable to missile attack. tethered aerostat radars are useful to have around.

ideally we need some OTH radar to peek deep inside PRC and track 1000s of contacts.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5288
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby Kartik » 22 Sep 2008 23:02

namit k wrote:
rkhanna said :Overall if you include the AeroStats/UAVs/Ka-31s matted into the Ground Surv units of the GreenPines+LRTR India's Early warning needs should be adequetly covered visavis both Pakistan and CHina. We however still lack proper martime Surv Assets.

thats the same question what i meant in my previous posts.
even we have ground based radar linked to awacs, but we still lag in terms of number of awacs, so how is drdo going to compensate this, its already said that phalcons from israel will not be available before 2011, and Indian awacs not before 2012.
even then when we have total no of awacs as 3+3(Israeli)+3(Indian)
in 2015, we would still lag in no of awacs,required to cover both chix and paki inputs.
Is it right that GOI goes for 3 extra form israel or a larger nos of indigenous awacs in serial production from local units.?


There will be follow-on orders for more of the EMB-145 based AEWACS. Its now becoming standard Indian philosophy to first place a small order and then under the guise of a "follow-on" order, purchase more of the same type. Expect anywhere between 3-4 more of the desi AEWACS. even then, the numbers are inadequate to cover both eastern and western fronts..IMO, the IAF needs at least 10 of the smaller AEWACS and 8 Phalcons so that even with 3-4 being under maintenance, there are at least a couple in the air on both fronts at all times.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3849
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby hnair » 23 Sep 2008 04:43

Are there any news about Reaper (MQ-9) deployments in Afghanistan?

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10049
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc

Postby sum » 23 Sep 2008 08:36

The indigenous Airavat will play the supporting role

Has the DRDO AEW been christened "Airavat"?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests