Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[Jango]

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.

Exactly...the army changed the standard sentry weapon to type 56 a few years back, and the place where we were living, the whole cantt changed to type 56 in days. But after a recent visit to Karachi, it seems MP 5 is still used on a larger scale for gate security etc, atleast in Karachi.

And to the other members, can we please drop this "repair not feasible" and "damage assessment took too long" mantra? Lets not kid ourselves and fool ourselves just to have a little good feeling. Dil behlanay wali bat na karain.

 

[razgriz19]

($169 million) ?? big amount means damaged will be repaired in this contract sir?

no its just to provide support and service for the other 3 or so remaining aircrafts.

Saab signs support contract for airborne surveillance system

 

[Viper0011.]

@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!

Ok dude, you had to put the Walmart's and Office Depots in there. I kind of saw it coming by some Indian member here. It had to be lucky you. I know ABSOLUTELY for a fact that there is ALWAYS a product support warranty post delivery, offered and negotiated. That counts for Spare parts, Defense contractor services in the event of product failure, accidents, etc. Why do you think the US has put restrictions on Pakistan on as to where the F-16 B-52 needed to be parked at, how the infrastructure needs to be, how they can be used? What trump card do you think they hold? The Maintenance and Spare warranties post delivery. Pakistan can't support a complete F-16 B-52 overhaul and it requires US DoD's assistance. So....that is the bargaining chip. Plus it offers cheaper options to the clients buying equipment. So if you don't know how something specific works, you shouldn't bring Walmart, Office Depot in without understanding the context. If you don't have a background in government related procurements, then you should stay silent than making yourself looking pretty silly IMO.

 

[Jango]

Ok dude, you had to put the Walmart's and Office Depots in there. I kind of saw it coming by some Indian member here. It had to be lucky you. I know ABSOLUTELY for a fact that there is ALWAYS a product support warranty post delivery, offered and negotiated. That counts for Spare parts, Defense contractor services in the event of product failure, accidents, etc. Why do you think the US has put restrictions on Pakistan on as to where the F-16 B-52 needed to be parked at, how the infrastructure needs to be, how they can be used? What trump card do you think they hold? The Maintenance and Spare warranties post delivery. Pakistan can't support a complete F-16 B-52 overhaul and it requires US DoD's assistance. So....that is the bargaining chip. Plus it offers cheaper options to the clients buying equipment. So if you don't know how something specific works, you shouldn't bring Walmart, Office Depot in without understanding the context. If you don't have a background in government related procurements, then you should stay silent than making yourself looking pretty silly IMO.

It is actually you who is looking silly here. You even mentioned explicitly that there is a spare part, defense contractor service in event of failure or accident....

Spare part contracts and maintenance contracts are always there in place for the PAF...from the OEM and as well as third party companies.

But no contract, absolutely no contract covers the blowing up of plane through any 'warranty or guarantee'.

And how exactly is the F-16 a suitable example here? Their parking spot, support infrastructure, maint routines etc are to maximize the effectiveness of the platform and reduce wear and tear. The F-16 example has absolutely no link with a Saab 2000 being blown up.

 

[Safriz]

Guys stop fighting...
Aircraft written off doesnt mean erieye destroyed...
Aircrafts were the cheapest and most abundantly available components of the system..
Many have said since long that SAAB has agreed 'in principal' to install the erieye fro damaged plane to another plane...
Even The damaged plane isnt a total .loss...will do good as an instant and available source of spares.

 

[Fieldmarshal]

for the last time !!!

The a/c was a total loss ......nothing other than the landing gears and the vertical stabilizer were recovered.

I told u this than i am telling it to u now.
First u guys would not believe few of us who were reporting the loss of an awacs and instead were ridiculing and now when the truth is out most members are again being delusional and finding excuses rather than except the ground reality.

 

[Jango]

Guys stop fighting...
Aircraft written off doesnt mean erieye destroyed...
Aircrafts were the cheapest and most abundantly available components of the system..
Many have said since long that SAAB has agreed 'in principal' to install the erieye fro damaged plane to another plane...
Even The damaged plane isnt a total .loss...will do good as an instant and available source of spares.

Let's not make posts just for saving face...not that it makes any difference to me.

First you guys ridiculed us for saying that Saab was destroyed, and now when it has come out, people are trying to make up silly excuses.

Can we please accept the facts as they are and move on?

 

[Imran Khan]

for the last time !!!

The a/c was a total loss ......nothing other than the landing gears and the vertical stabilizer were recovered.

I told u this than i am telling it to u now.
First u guys would not believe few of us who were reporting the loss of an awacs and instead were ridiculing and now when the truth is out most members are again being delusional and finding excuses rather than except the ground reality.

OK we got you but saab is not destroyed that what we believe tata .

 

[Viper0011.]

It is actually you who is looking silly here. You even mentioned explicitly that there is a spare part, defense contractor service in event of failure or accident....
But no contract, absolutely no contract covers the blowing up of plane through any 'warranty or guarantee'.

And how exactly is the F-16 a suitable example here? Their parking spot, support infrastructure, maint routines etc are to maximize the effectiveness of the platform and reduce wear and tear. The F-16 example has absolutely no link with a Saab 2000 being blown up.

The aircraft wasn't blown up. I know this for a FACT!. No RPG 'blows up' the aircraft. The MAX it can do, is to hit the fuel tanks or parts of some sensitive areas with Oil and start a FIRE. The RPG isn't a bunker busting bomb. Just to clarify so you are incorrect that the plane was blown up. It was severely damaged due to fire. For which, if the right contract was in place, the manufacturer would remove the significant components (Radars, Workstations and Avionics) for a MUCH cheaper price and would've put them on another platform. But, since there was no contract like the accidental one in place.....the cost now would exceed the actual cost of CHEAPER Saab 2000 airframes. THAT's the reality. Unless you know facts, you don't need to come back and counter as if you know the reality. I think I do and that's why I am saying what I am saying! I can even tell you who was the first team to assess the damage outside of the airport staff!! I'll leave it at that. I don't blow thin air out of my as*. I ONLY speak when I know the facts.

Three questions and then I rest my case and won't write on this topic again:
1) You've said things very confidently above (quoted). Have you actually read the contract between Saab and the PAF? And read PROVISIONS around 'Natural and Unnatural' accidents other than war???
2) Do you know that the F-16 B-52 are kept at a certain airbase because of the maximum potential of the fleet? Actually, it was a US demand to keep them there so that they be monitored by the American personnel and sensors!

The F-16 example was a fit as the PAF DOES have a contract with the USAF around the unnatural - natural disasters, repairs and support services contractors. In case of a need, you'll be getting the US contractors to help fix or actually fix things. Last but not least, in case of violating the contract (parking, usage, etc, etc) you will be SANCTIONED. Which means, essentially your F-16 B-52 fleet will not have spars, etc like the good old 90's. That's the reality. There is no such thing as 'maximum effectiveness of the fleet). We don't trust you guys with advanced equipment as you give it to the Chinese and we have a right to put controls to ensure either stuff doesn't get to the Chinese or the Terrorists. Both are against US's interests. The locations was chosed for that reason and strict monitoring (even on the flight hours) is conducted by the US personnel). THAT"s the importance of contracts. You are obligated to honor them and in need, they'll honor their part. That's the point I was trying to make!

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Let's not make posts just for saving face...not that it makes any difference to me.

First you guys ridiculed us for saying that Saab was destroyed, and now when it has come out, people are trying to make up silly excuses.

Can we please accept the facts as they are and move on?

The degree of damage is not the important thing, whether it is minimal or horrendous. The important thing is that there was an attack, which resulted in one precious airplane being unavailable for its intended mission as a force multiplier. What we need to do now is to prevent any more attacks, and to plug the gap in our capabilities as quickly as possible. After all, mistakes do happen, but the lessons learned will ensure that more similar mistakes are prevented.

 

[Jango]

The aircraft wasn't blown up. I know this for a FACT!. No RPG 'blows up' the aircraft. The MAX it can do, is to hit the fuel tanks or parts of some sensitive areas with Oil and start a FIRE. The RPG isn't a bunker busting bomb. Just to clarify so you are incorrect that the plane was blown up. It was severely damaged due to fire. For which, if the right contract was in place, the manufacturer would remove the significant components (Radars, Workstations and Avionics) for a MUCH cheaper price and would've put them on another platform. But, since there was no contract like the accidental one in place.....the cost now would exceed the actual cost of CHEAPER Saab 2000 airframes. THAT's the reality. Unless you know facts, you don't need to come back and counter as if you know the reality. I think I do and that's why I am saying what I am saying! I can even tell you who was the first team to assess the damage outside of the airport staff!! I'll leave it at that. I don't blow thin air out of my as*. I ONLY speak when I know the facts.

Three questions and then I rest my case and won't write on this topic again:
1) You've said things very confidently above (quoted). Have you actually read the contract between Saab and the PAF? And read PROVISIONS around 'Natural and Unnatural' accidents other than war???
2) Do you know that the F-16 B-52 are kept at a certain airbase because of the maximum potential of the fleet? Actually, it was a US demand to keep them there so that they be monitored by the American personnel and sensors!

The F-16 example was a fit as the PAF DOES have a contract with the USAF around the unnatural - natural disasters, repairs and support services contractors. In case of a need, you'll be getting the US contractors to help fix or actually fix things. Last but not least, in case of violating the contract (parking, usage, etc, etc) you will be SANCTIONED. Which means, essentially your F-16 B-52 fleet will not have spars, etc like the good old 90's. That's the reality. There is no such thing as 'maximum effectiveness of the fleet). We don't trust you guys with advanced equipment as you give it to the Chinese and we have a right to put controls to ensure either stuff doesn't get to the Chinese or the Terrorists. Both are against US's interests. The locations was chosed for that reason and strict monitoring (even on the flight hours) is conducted by the US personnel). THAT"s the importance of contracts. You are obligated to honor them and in need, they'll honor their part. That's the point I was trying to make!

Whatever you want to believe sir...whatever you want to believe.

Atleast you agreed with the 'fire' part. That's a start!

BTW, where's the third question?!

And finally, yet again, the F-16 case has no bearing or relevance to the Saabs. The F-16 is there is Jacobabad because of tight US restrictions on 24/7 overwatch. The post which I quoted in the first post has no mention of overwatch on the planes or anything, you were discussing the case through the tech and maint side...regarding the contract.

And just as you..I am also tired of repeating the same old mantra again and again. If some people wanna keep living in a false dream...go ahead...hey folks...all Saabs are well and good...happy now? I ain't talking through my as* either, otherwise I wouldn't have been saying what I have since the morning of the attack!

Consider this my last post on this topic.

Good day.

The degree of damage is not the important thing, whether it is minimal or horrendous. The important thing is that there was an attack, which resulted in one precious airplane being unavailable for its intended mission as a force multiplier. What we need to do now is to prevent any more attacks, and to plug the gap in our capabilities as quickly as possible. After all, mistakes do happen, but the lessons learned will ensure that more similar mistakes are prevented.

Exactly...let's move on.

GHQ happened, fair enough it was the first time, security was lax. Mehran happened, we are totally screwed, stupid on our part. Kamra happened, we are in deep shyte. An attack on Peshawar happened, great job by the security agencies, the terrorists were killed on the point of entry, no damage done.

Lessons should be learnt and implemented.

 

[Bratva]

OK we got you but saab is not destroyed that what we believe tata .

Guys stop fighting...
Aircraft written off doesnt mean erieye destroyed...
Aircrafts were the cheapest and most abundantly available components of the system..
Many have said since long that SAAB has agreed 'in principal' to install the erieye fro damaged plane to another plane...
Even The damaged plane isnt a total .loss...will do good as an instant and available source of spares.

So provide your facts on which bases you believe that Erieye and associated aircraft was not destroyed completely?

 

[SQ8]

Somewhere in the middle, the "rooh" of the SAAB is wandering between its body and the afterlife.
Its clear it is no longer going to be of any use, yet it cannot be allowed to die.

 

[Viper0011.]

Whatever you want to believe sir...whatever you want to believe.

Atleast you agreed with the 'fire' part. That's a start!

BTW, where's the third question?!

And finally, yet again, the F-16 case has no bearing or relevance to the Saabs. The F-16 is there is Jacobabad because of tight US restrictions on 24/7 overwatch. The post which I quoted in the first post has no mention of overwatch on the planes or anything, you were discussing the case through the tech and maint side...regarding the contract.

1) I never disagreed with the fire part. I am just explaining to you what actually happened. With all due respect, from your post, you may know about operational military. But you have absolutely no clue or experience about defense contracts. I can guarantee it just by reading your posts. No offense.

2) The F-16 example was a fit as to SHOW the IMPORTANCE of these contracts. That the US exercises so much influence on when these planes can be even used (Defensive Nature ONLY) and all parties have to mutually agree and honor commitments. Ensuring the flights and tech is safe per the US requirements, the NEXT provision of the contract is then executed. I.E. to provide ongoing spares, maintenance, knowledge base, contractors, etc. Now, if there are provisions in there about accidental damage outside of a war....the US will honor that. NOW, apply the same logic to Saab. If the contract had INCLUDED terms for accidental damage, maintenance, support and potentially a replacement at a discounted price.....you'd have seen the same destroyed Saab being replaced by another airframe. The RPG didn't hit the Cylinder on the top and nor did it hit the extensive nature of sensors all around the plane. So there was expensive stuff that could've been salvaged. Here's a scenario or an example that's as real as it gets:
1) Organization A buys planes from manufacturer 'D'. They discuss and approve provisions around accidental - Non-War related damage, service and replacement. In a case where Terrorists target these assets, the 'D' manufacturer will provide additional airframes at 30% discount (if you don't need these, the money goes to waste and they keep it). Plus, the 'D' manufacturer will provide labor / contractors to salvage the plane at $ 60 an hour rate per person. If these provisions weren't added to the contract, the replacement airframe would be at 100% cost and the labor cost will be $ 125 per person per hour. If you take this example, without accidental provisions, the cost of salvaging becomes exponential (specially when Organization A is already buying cheap - used planes due to budget reasons), so the cost of salvaging goes so HIGH that you might as well buy a new airframe and a new Radar. Spending 30 million to Salvage and get another used system or getting a brand new system for $ 40 million....what would you do? I'd do the brand new system for $ 40 mill as the salvaged system upon reconfiguration will STILL have issues as its rebuilt. Hope this helps. I am done with this topic. Discussion should happen either in a knowledge gaining mode or with someone at the same level. If others are too busy with their egos, its no fun. So I am out.

 

[Imran Khan]

So provide your facts on which bases you believe that Erieye and associated aircraft was not destroyed completely?

why should we ? we believe what we believe because we got four and we have four. if you have any proof it was destroyed show us image of wreckage