Three ERJ 145 are to be procured at a cost of US $ 300 Million
which much more than saab 2000 which the Pakistan has adopted from Sweden
we are purchasing 5 Saab 2000 at the total cost of $ 985 million
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/DRDO_AWACS.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Saab2000AEW-SE-045-246.jpg
But only 4 of them are in AWACS config and if we compare the base platform only, the EMB 145 is clearly the better choice with:
- higher speed
- higher service ceiling
- mid air refuelling (which counters the advantages of the Saab 2000 in endurance and range again)
- customised airframe for our specifications
- integration of indigenous avionics
All these advantages makes them clearly worth the higher costs!
guys how much effective is Saab 2000 against Phalcon???
Hi tallboy, you have to differ here between platform and radar system!
The first part, platform / aircraft including the radar array, which means Saab 2000 with twin radar array (300° coverage) vs Beriev A50 with triangle array (360° coverage).
The A50 wins here hands down:
- full radar coverage
- way more space for additional equipment and crew (including rest space with beds, for a 2nd crew)
- twice the operators
- mid air refuelling
- higher speed
- higher service ceiling
- higher range
...
The 2nd point to differ are the radar systems and here we have the Swedish Erieye, the Israeli Phalcon and the Indian DRDO systems.
Most of their features like numbers of targets they can detect, or track are classifield, but the Swedish system can be assumed as high class and close to the Phalcon, while the DRDO system is completely new.
PAF is also inducting a Chinese system on a Y8 platform, possibly with 360° radar coverage, but it will be interesting to see if these systems are compatible with data links and stuff, especially with their F16s.
IAF is adding several (Israeli and French) systems on their AWACS as well as fighters to assure this, because if the AWACS and the fighters can't be linked, they have the same probles like our MKIs during Red Flag. The AWACS can guide the pilot only by radio, not by data links and the fighter might detect a target on it's own radar, but can't say if it's a friend, or foe.
For example:
Thales chosen to modernise IFF for Indias MiG-29
Thales has been awarded a contract by Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG (RSK-MiG) to deliver IFF1 Combined Interrogator Transponder (CIT) and Cryptographic National Secure Mode (NSM), for the retrofit of the MiG-29 multi-role fighter aircraft of the Indian Air Force. The first CIT will be delivered to RSK-MiG in 2010 and the first building block of a comprehensive secure identification capability in India mid-2011. ...
Thales chosen to modernise IFF for India
There should be no doubt about the clear increase of PAFs capabilities in terms of BVR retection and combat, with the induction of AWACS, as well as F16 upgrade and JF 17, but all these things are new capabilities and mixed by western and Chinese, which will make it more difficult to train and develop tactics.
IAF instead is trying to develop an own standard here, with modernised systems and tactics, not to mention a decade of experience in BVR combat. Exercises with western countries including AWACS (like Garuda 2010 wit E3 and E2, or Indra Dhanush 2010 with E3 and A50 Phalcon) will increase IAF capabilities in this field even more.
So yes, PAF is ahead in induction of AWACS, but not neccesarily more capable in this field. The delay of DRDO AWACS is not surprising, as it is a totally new field, but more important is a fast 2nd order of additional A50 Phalcons, because they are the topline in this role and Russia/Israel should be able do build them faster now.