Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[Argus Panoptes]

they are as any other airforce hangers sir jee there is huge difrrence between hangers and bunkers .

we can see here other air forces hangers .they are not for defence but as shelter only .maximum you can expect water proof shelters .

look at the hanger of world most expensive jet . a 9mm bullet can even penetrate in it ...............

True, but they also have a perimeter fence that is properly patrolled and defended, and the whole airbase is not surrounded by villages and garbage dumps right outside.

 

[Safriz]

The ship was a write off but what about the radar and electronics in the ship? Were they also destroyed?

Exactly.
The slug from a shaped charge couldnt have destroyed the ship as it wasnt a direct hit.
Written off because all ships were bought second hand and may not be a feasible repair.
The Erirye system was bought new and was the main expensive component...If that is 'salvsgable' or not...no news yet.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The ship was a write off but what about the radar and electronics in the ship? Were they also destroyed?

If the damage was caused by exploding shrapnel; then there is some hope-even of some salvage.
If the damage was caused by fire and flame; not much hope.
If I remember correctly (from the thread on the attack as it happened) there were contempareneous reports of a fire and of a billowing plume of smoke, then that points to the more discouraging second possibility-of a complete write-off.
"Fried" Electronics are of no use.

N.B. one of our members here (@WindJammer) attributed the fire to burning grass. But we now know that impossibility has been conclusively accounted for!

 

[muse]

So the line about shrapnel is more than likely bogus --- I find it very curious that a single RPG was so accurate that it was fired from the outside and yet managed to do the damage it did -- I really do think that PAF have done the nation and it's credibility great harm by not being forthright about the event.

 

[Viper0011.]

accident report update.

august 16, 2012.

the PAF/3 Squadron Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&C aircraft that was damaged by shrapnel from an exploding rocket-propelled grenade which struck the wall of the hanger in which it was parked during a militant attack on PAF Base Kamra-Minhas in the early hours of the morning has been declared a write-off. Previous reports had suggested it was repairable, however. on February 6, 2013, Pakistan Defence Secretary told a meeting of Pakistan's National Assembly Standing Committee on Defence that the aircraft had been destroyed in the attack.
AFM

I had written on it before. The plane was damaged and assessed the damage on. However, the cost of repair would exceed the cost of procuring another used airframe as the airframe was discontinued. The whole jet wasn't destroyed but it was a write off as the cost of repairs was too much compared to acquiring a used airframe and the avionics. In other words, it took out the ''affordability" option due to the used airframes. Saab had discontinued this airframe so it would cost even MORE to do any repairs.

Plus, PAF wants cheaper and affordable options. A post delivery warranty or 'replacement' plan was never purchased as no one thought these planes will be destroyed in a terrorist attack. That happened so now PAF went back and purchased this warranty and replacement plan. Otherwise, the cost to repair another one in the similar situation would make it too much in the future and that would be another write off. This is precisely how the Western businesses work. You ALWAYS buy insurance and extended product warranty with the product. Forget about jets and AWACS, go down to a much smaller item, a laptop. When you buy it from Dell and drop it or break it, you have to buy a new one or the repair cost is beyond the original price of the laptop. However if you paid like $ 200 extra to purchase accidental warranty, the replacement laptop or the repairs to the broken one will be free under the accident support contract. Why the heck PAF forgot to purchase those for such expensive defense articles? It is BEYOND me!

 

[Bratva]

I had written on it before. The plane was damaged and assessed the damage on. However, the cost of repair would exceed the cost of procuring another used airframe as the airframe was discontinued. The whole jet wasn't destroyed but it was a write off as the cost of repairs was too much compared to acquiring a used airframe and the avionics. In other words, it took out the ''affordability" option due to the used airframes. Saab had discontinued this airframe so it would cost even MORE to do any repairs.

Plus, PAF wants cheaper and affordable options. A post delivery warranty or 'replacement' plan was never purchased as no one thought these planes will be destroyed in a terrorist attack. That happened so now PAF went back and purchased this warranty and replacement plan. Otherwise, the cost to repair another one in the similar situation would make it too much in the future and that would be another write off. This is precisely how the Western businesses work. You ALWAYS buy insurance and extended product warranty with the product. Forget about jets and AWACS, go down to a much smaller item, a laptop. When you buy it from Dell and drop it or break it, you have to buy a new one or the repair cost is beyond the original price of the laptop. However if you paid like $ 200 extra to purchase accidental warranty, the replacement laptop or the repairs to the broken one will be free under the accident support contract. Why the heck PAF forgot to purchase those for such expensive defense articles? It is BEYOND me!

It's all a lie it was declared damaged beyond repair, I challenge you to find one statment of PAF or ISPR in which they AWAC is damaged beyond repair and it is written off. If we read the original Sec DEF statment, he said it was completly destroyed on spot and in December 2012, Sec DEF said they were seeking a replacement of this destroyed AWAC

 

[Capt.Popeye]

So the line about shrapnel is more than likely bogus --- I find it very curious that a single RPG was so accurate that it was fired from the outside and yet managed to do the damage it did -- I really do think that PAF have done the nation and it's credibility great harm by not being forthright about the event.

Sadly, that is true. The PAF; if it had been more upfront. would have gained both support and sympathy. It could have been used as a reason to galvanise public opinion against the perpetrators of these targeted attacks. A physical set-back could have been turned into a PR benefit, in the war against terror.
Instead the PAF may have gained the reputation of being both incompetent and devious.

About Warranties!!
There is some line of thought being propagated here that the damage (or the effects thereof) could have been prevented or precluded by taking a warranty/insurance against damage.
This was a warplane to be used in wars/conflicts. The only warranty that the manufacture can and will give is against operating failures or damage to equipment components. All the rest is force majeure so far as Saab or Ericsson are concerned, therefore not liable to cover. Neither will they extend that cover now. For love or for money.

@orangzaib; you are being either too naive or ignorant, if you believe that such damage can be covered by commercial warranty or insurance or replacement plan. This is no computer or TV or HiFi for home use. Nor was it bought from Walmart or Office Depot. This was not even accidental damage!

 

[Argus Panoptes]

The ship was a write off but what about the radar and electronics in the ship? Were they also destroyed?

A few parts might be salvageable, but it might be not feasible to remove, recondition and reuse those parts compared to more easily obtainable spares.

So the line about shrapnel is more than likely bogus --- I find it very curious that a single RPG was so accurate that it was fired from the outside and yet managed to do the damage it did -- I really do think that PAF have done the nation and it's credibility great harm by not being forthright about the event.

It depends on the type of damage.

Shrapnel can be very destructive, causing irreparable damage to bulkheads, spars, complex wiring bundles and hydraulic lines. Some of that damage cannot be properly assessed short of tearing apart the whole airframe, piece by piece, which may not be feasible since many components are not designed to be pulled apart after initial manufacture. Such a detailed breakdown requires specialized facilities and expertise which is likely not available in Pakistan, and contracting out such work would simply be outrageously expensive.

So yes, one RPG can destroy a plane from its shrapnel.

 

[Imran Khan]

None of those Air Forces and Countries have Taliban targeting their Air Assets, @Imran Khan.
So they can make do with those "tin-sheds".

wrong again just look the list of attacks on airbases . its happen hundreds times recently do you guys forget harrier jests and USarmy chief planes destroyed in afg?

True, but they also have a perimeter fence that is properly patrolled and defended, and the whole airbase is not surrounded by villages and garbage dumps right outside.

what you think PAF do nothing to protect them ? abut garbage dumps and villages PAF only car write again and again to civil authorities they can't demolish or stop them to live there.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

....


what you think PAF do nothing to protect them ? abut garbage dumps and villages PAF only car write again and again to civil authorities they can't demolish or stop them to live there.

I agree with you that PAF is doing what it can to protect its assets, but its own limitations and the constraints imposed by civilian issues like overpopulation and poor governance means that those assets remain vulnerable. My point is that the risk to costly assets is still there.

 

[Imran Khan]

I agree with you that PAF is doing what it can to protect its assets, but its own limitations and the constraints imposed by civilian issues like overpopulation and poor governance means that those assets remain vulnerable. My point is that the risk to costly assets is still there.

and yes sure they have planes for move air bases away from cities but funds issues are still there so we have to wait . no one in PAF PN like to see their planes damage but what they can do in front of a bloody enemy who want to die . they are doing what they should do .

 

[fatman17]

Saab announces Saab 2000 Erieye maintenance contract:

Author:
James Hardy, London Section:

Last posted:
2013-03-22


Saab has signed a five-year, SEK1,100 (USD170 million) contract to support its Saab 2000 Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) aircraft in service with an unidentified international customer, the company announced on 21 March.

Saab rolled out the first Saab 2000 AW&EC Erieye aircraft for Pakistan in March 2008. It was delivered in December 2009. (Saab)

The contract includes "a comprehensive set of spares and support services for a previously delivered system ... equipped with the advanced Erieye radar system and ground equipment", Saab said in a statement.

While the Erieye radar system has been fitted to several platforms, including the Saab 340 and Embraer 145, for eight customers, Pakistan is the only international military customer for the Saab 2000.

Pakistan received the first of four aircraft in December 2009. The second arrived in April 2010, the third in late 2010, and the final aircraft in April 2011. They are operated by No. 13 Squadron at Minhas air base, although one aircraft is believed to have been damaged during a terrorist attack on the base in August 2012.

The Erieye features an electronic warfare suite that includes electronic support, threat warning and countermeasures dispensing subsystems, an identification friend or foe subsystem, command and control capabilities, and a ground-based mission trainer. Although it can communicate with the PAF's Lockheed Martin F-16s via a data link, this is not compatible with the force's Dassault Mirage fleet.

jdw

 

[Imran Khan]

seems like they are making a unit for protect SAAB?????

 

[Jango]

seems like they are making a unit for protect SAAB?????

Maybe just an airman having a go...base security is job of DSG, there is a reason we have it. I wouldnt look too much into this pic.

BTW, is a MP5 going to be effective that far against a fully loaded militant? I really dont think so, unless you get him on the face!

 

[SQ8]

Maybe just an airman having a go...base security is job of DSG, there is a reason we have it. I wouldnt look too much into this pic.

BTW, is a MP5 going to be effective that far against a fully loaded militant? I really dont think so, unless you get him on the face!

Moreover, the MP5 is a CQB weapon.. the bullet falls flat within 600-800m.. That will have no effect on a vest equipped militant.
The UMP45 would make more sense, or an AK.
But the Mp5 corruption saga is another story.