Now that is very interesting. PAF is gonna have Western and Chinese AWACs. I t think the PAF will probably buy up to three Chinese AWACs. Just wondering: what is the estimated price on these aircraft?
Pakistan to buy Chinese AWACs?
- Thread starter crazyinsane105
- Start date
Now that is very interesting. PAF is gonna have Western and Chinese AWACs. I t think the PAF will probably buy up to three Chinese AWACs. Just wondering: what is the estimated price on these aircraft?
as far as im aware the PAF is only reviewing the aircraft and will consider it should the Saab deal fall through. THe electronics outfit of the Saab system is decades ahead of its chinese counterpart. But still, this is a vital area of concern for the Pakistan airforce which needs to fill in the gap of airborne surveillance/control urgently so all options are to be investigated. I think the Swedish deal will be more than enough to fullfill the PAF requirements I think. anyhow, will try to find out more on this issue soon!
lol, what gave you the impression that electronics outfit of the Saab system is decades ahead of its Chinese counterpart. In one interview with a KJ-2000 developer, it was mentionned that KJ-2000 uses the latest available COTS product. In another interview, a KJ-2000 radar expert claimed that KJ-2000 is the most advanced AWACS in the world. Now, I don't agree with that, but this is not something he would say if the system is decades behind the most advanced AWACS in the world, right?PakTopGun said:
As for this Y-8 AEW, it's not using AESA radar, so I would agree that it's not as advanced as Erieye. But to say that because something is Chinese, then it is backward is just ridiculous.
tphuang said:
no pun intented.. i didnt mean to say that because the Y-8 is chinese it is not advanced. Thats misinterpretation bro! Quite frankly Im a big fan of Chinese arms and am quite excited at the newer developments coming out of that country. However, there is still much catching up to and recent developments from China (J-10, F-17, Naval Subs, Tank designs etc..) are improving phenomenally. Furthermore, much collaborations such as with Pakistan
) and other countries (European) have truly revitalized the arms designs coming out of China today. THough the Y-8 is sure to have a few modern pieces added which may give it an air of comtempory-ness.. I still think that it cannot compare to the operational capability of the said Saab aircraft which are thoroughly advanced platforms.
maglomanic
Junior Member
sumdud said:
1) Sanction proof, West tends to impose those at the drop of a hat (ofcourse unless you are Israel
).2)Better integration with Chinese systems (C4I,J-10,JF-17 etc).
3)Cost. China is always generous with Pakistan when it comes to costs (soft long term loans).
4)Better Chances of customization,upgrades and technology transfer.(some examples are JF-17, Al-Khaled tanks, Red Arrow ATGMs, F-22 P frigates and the list goes on).
maglomanic said:1) Sanction proof, West tends to impose those at the drop of a hat (ofcourse unless you are Israel
2)Better integration with Chinese systems (C4I,J-10,JF-17 etc).
3)Cost. China is always generous with Pakistan when it comes to costs (soft long term loans).
4)Better Chances of customization,upgrades and technology transfer.(some examples are JF-17, Al-Khaled tanks, Red Arrow ATGMs, F-22 P frigates and the list goes on).
agreed. in this day in age, countries repeatedly at the receiving end of sanctions/bad past experiences have to weigh there options thoroughly. I never really considered you point #2, will it be that difficult to integrate the Saab system to work with Pakistans Chinese systems? I just assumed that it would be quite straight forward
maglomanic
Junior Member
PakTopGun said:
It is very much doable and will be done. My point is , it will be more effective with Chinese systems. It's like you can make a Mac and PC talk together but still you need a layer of protocol software that sits on top of the differences in hardware. If both your AWACS and fighters are from one source then you can rest assured that their datalink and communications has been optimized. Incase of integrating two systems from different sources optimization needs to be done and how much optimization could be done would be an unknown. But i am pretty sure both systems pretty much adhere to international standards (link 16) and could be integrated without too much hassle.
I don't think it's that easy. If you think about Link 16 as a networking standard with a certain send and receive protocols. It seems information in a certain way using certain data formats. And then, you have the Chinese receiving end, designed to receive different data formats and anticipate different ways that the data will arrive.maglomanic said:
For example, network type 1's protocol involves, sending 1 message to the receiver, wait for receiver to send the confirmation back before sending the 2nd message.
Network type 2's protocol involves, sending 1 message to the receiver, wait for receiver to send that it received it and then sender will send another confirmation to tell receiver that it got its confirmation before sending the 2nd message.
That's just a simple example. If sender is using network type 1 and receiver is using network type 2. You can see how much difficulty it would be for this to systems to link together. If both sides are using network type 1 or both using type 2, then you can guarantee that they are working as the original design was intended. Their original jam-resistance, secure and LPI properties should all be maintained from this.
There is no indication that China uses Link 16.
maglomanic
Junior Member
tphuang said:
I was under the impression that Chinese systems have Link 16. I would consider it very much possible. Chinese have tried to stick to western standards as much as they can. China was buying Phalcon which is a western system. The chinese AWACS program is inspired by the whole Phalcon dabacle. I would think that what they created or atleast tried to adhere to what they saw in Phalcon. But then again like you said there havent been any reports regarding Chinese link 16.
Regarding your network example, i have programmed in winsock and done lots of network programming. As long as you have native api for two different hardwares (considering the standard bus MIL-STD 1553B even China uses i think that makes it even simpler for their hadware to talk to western systems). Worse come worse, you need an emulator that would take more resources but can over come seamless hardware connectivity problems.