Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[Jango]

So has the plane been repaired or is this another unit? I am trying to understand the point of showing this photo.

Just another photo, like the numerous other we have of different equipment of the army and PAF. After all this is a defense forum!

 

[Viper0011.]

I was finished with the Saab destroyed/not destroyed thing, your assumption that Saab would have covered the damage really caught my eye. (no I don't have any knowledge of procurement and contracts)...and I quite frankly still don't get it how Saab would cover the losses on part of PAF...the US would cover the losses on the Blk 52's would they?

As I said...I am finished with destroyed or not thing, but we can go on with this contracts issue if you wish...I am not trying to enforce my opinion upon you or anything like that...if it felt offensive to you...I apologize, that was not my intention.

Another sincere question in 'knowledge gaining' mode...from whom did PAF buy those airframes? The airlines that operated them or from Saab? AFAIK, the airframes and ERIEYE system was bought separately, deal was struck with the airlines for airframe, while Saab/Ericsson was contacted for ERIEYE. Am I wrong or correct?

So here's an example of how this works generally. No one company makes a complete platform. Different things come from different organizations. Take the F-16's, it has GD-LM as the highest level organization, but its engines come from GE, its avionics come from multiple organizations (too many to list) and combat systems from Raytheon, BAE, GoodRich, etc, etc. So airframe to radar to combat systems to the engines and down to the bolts, you have many companies involved.
Now the F-16's or any other defense articles are sold as a package and by getting approvals from the government of the United States. The government sort of controls and backs up the transaction (through different channels, such as FMS, NATO, etc). So you have the US gov't involved, governing and controlling what package, deal or equipment is given and on what terms and conditions. Within the contract, usually, the organizations offer post delivery maintenance services or support contracts. Now you can add whatever provisions to that (as long as they are agreed upon by all parties). That also has a clause of providing maintenance or support in the case of damage (NON war related) like floods, accidents, terrorism, etc.
Under a scenario like this, say if the contract is valued at $ 800 million, the buyer will pay $ 50 extra millions to cover these rare scenarios (just making these numbers and details up for explanation). Now if these contracts are for 5 years and nothing happened, the seller gets to keep the extra $ 50 million. If something happened, they'll fix certain equipment for free or for a small price, plus they'll give you labor for a reduced rate so that you may operate their product again that was damaged. This is pure business, remember, if they fixed a product and the buyer was able to reuse it....who will you go to for upgrades, additional equipment, training, etc? the SAME manufacturer for the life of that equipment. So they make money and it is in their best interest to help you operate their systems so you remain a customer.
In this case, no one imagined that the these radar planes will be targeted. Let alone getting targeted inside a highly secured base (Still beyond me to tell you the truth). So if this was a $ 1 billion deal, may be 15-20% may have been asked for these support contracts. Since no one realized the perceived threat, they didn't buy into the 15-20% of $ 1 billion as they thought the money would go to waste as these are highly secured assets and only danger to them was through the war. Turns out inaccurate, doesn't it.
Now, if you want this repaired, everything will cost you full price. In fact Saab 2000 was a discontinued or older model. So for it's support, the price may be 1.5 times or even double as labor supporting the older environment is rare to find. Another example is, how many people run Windows 98 today? Probably very few. So for Microsoft to help support a customer with such an older platform, it'll find contractors that'll be rare and more expensive as it's a rare commodity. Same concept applies here. Combine the labor, equipment and repair cost....it'd be as if you were ordering a brand new AWACS on a brand new airframe and that makes the whole deal super expensive from a financials' standpoint. Thus the decision to write it off.
Another thing is, the Chinese AWACS are there. Now having experience with Western AWACS, the PAF will ask or work with the Chinese to add certain features from the Western AWACS. Making the Chinese option very similar to the Western ones. So...why spend so much more money on a Western product to repair and fix, when you could theoretically get another Chinese AWACS with similar capability for half the price and a new / less used airframe too?

 

[Jango]

So here's an example of how this works generally. No one company makes a complete platform. Different things come from different organizations. Take the F-16's, it has GD-LM as the highest level organization, but its engines come from GE, its avionics come from multiple organizations (too many to list) and combat systems from Raytheon, BAE, GoodRich, etc, etc. So airframe to radar to combat systems to the engines and down to the bolts, you have many companies involved.
Now the F-16's or any other defense articles are sold as a package and by getting approvals from the government of the United States. The government sort of controls and backs up the transaction (through different channels, such as FMS, NATO, etc). So you have the US gov't involved, governing and controlling what package, deal or equipment is given and on what terms and conditions. Within the contract, usually, the organizations offer post delivery maintenance services or support contracts. Now you can add whatever provisions to that (as long as they are agreed upon by all parties). That also has a clause of providing maintenance or support in the case of damage (NON war related) like floods, accidents, terrorism, etc.
Under a scenario like this, say if the contract is valued at $ 800 million, the buyer will pay $ 50 extra millions to cover these rare scenarios (just making these numbers and details up for explanation). Now if these contracts are for 5 years and nothing happened, the seller gets to keep the extra $ 50 million. If something happened, they'll fix certain equipment for free or for a small price, plus they'll give you labor for a reduced rate so that you may operate their product again that was damaged. This is pure business, remember, if they fixed a product and the buyer was able to reuse it....who will you go to for upgrades, additional equipment, training, etc? the SAME manufacturer for the life of that equipment. So they make money and it is in their best interest to help you operate their systems so you remain a customer.
In this case, no one imagined that the these radar planes will be targeted. Let alone getting targeted inside a highly secured base (Still beyond me to tell you the truth). So if this was a $ 1 billion deal, may be 15-20% may have been asked for these support contracts. Since no one realized the perceived threat, they didn't buy into the 15-20% of $ 1 billion as they thought the money would go to waste as these are highly secured assets and only danger to them was through the war. Turns out inaccurate, doesn't it.
Now, if you want this repaired, everything will cost you full price. In fact Saab 2000 was a discontinued or older model. So for it's support, the price may be 1.5 times or even double as labor supporting the older environment is rare to find. Another example is, how many people run Windows 98 today? Probably very few. So for Microsoft to help support a customer with such an older platform, it'll find contractors that'll be rare and more expensive as it's a rare commodity. Same concept applies here. Combine the labor, equipment and repair cost....it'd be as if you were ordering a brand new AWACS on a brand new airframe and that makes the whole deal super expensive from a financials' standpoint. Thus the decision to write it off.
Another thing is, the Chinese AWACS are there. Now having experience with Western AWACS, the PAF will ask or work with the Chinese to add certain features from the Western AWACS. Making the Chinese option very similar to the Western ones. So...why spend so much more money on a Western product to repair and fix, when you could theoretically get another Chinese AWACS with similar capability for half the price and a new / less used airframe too?

Now I get where you are coming from...I misunderstood you initially.

But still this agreement would be part of the support/maintenance category, and not be a guarantee that the supplier will fix the plane for you...?

And you didn't answer, did PAF buy the planes from SAAB or from their former airlines operators?

As for the bold part, well there are alot more surprises in store!!!

 

[Viper0011.]

But still this agreement would be part of the support/maintenance category, and not be a guarantee that the supplier will fix the plane for you...?
And you didn't answer, did PAF buy the planes from SAAB or from their former airlines operators?

The support or maintenance agreement has provisions that outline that when or how certain equipment will be repaired or replaced in case of certain circumstances. This is a legal binding contract to yes, the supplier is bound to honor it. Unless the other party violates it. For example, if the manufacturer of Swedish awacs put in the contract that their systems can't fly to China and they did, then the PAF would be in violation of the contract. Once the contract is breached, Saab is no longer obligated to give PAF anything. In fact, it may put sanctions on it or want its equipment back or whatever penalties may be in the contract.
The manufacturer of these planes or others like Airbus or Boeing usually lease their jets (different process than in the case of Asian countries). When the lease is up, there is a renewal. If the manufacturer thinks they can sell another newer or more advanced version to their customers, than they do that and buy back the older planes or technology. Which they refurbish and then sell to others. Pakistan buying Saab airframes is an example of that. Also, the manufacturer sometimes also helps its customers by finding customers for their older equipment. Then, they sell them new and the other party buying the old equipment pays for their purchase. Which then gets subtracted from the newer equipment's total. Thus, making two customers happy and selling both of them equipment that they need per their financials. Pakistan fits here too, Saab, Australian Mirages, etc are good examples of such.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

..............
Another thing is, the Chinese AWACS are there. Now having experience with Western AWACS, the PAF will ask or work with the Chinese to add certain features from the Western AWACS. Making the Chinese option very similar to the Western ones. So...why spend so much more money on a Western product to repair and fix, when you could theoretically get another Chinese AWACS with similar capability for half the price and a new / less used airframe too?

In that case, why were the Western AWACS even bought initially, if the Chinese platforms are half the price for equal capabilities?

 

[razgriz19]

F-16s are not compatible with the Chinese systems.
And besides having two different systems increases redundancy.

 

[Viper0011.]

In that case, why were the Western AWACS even bought initially, if the Chinese platforms are half the price for equal capabilities?

Back then, the Chinese AWACS weren't in the picture. There was just a MOU signed. If you look closely to how the Pakistani military operates, you'll notice that there is a trend. They always buy top end Western products in needed numbers only and then modify their mid - low end products with certain locally - Chinese developed features similar to the Western tech.

It kind of makes sense as acquiring just expensive stuff isn't feasible due to Pakistan lacking funds. The F-7's use a modern HUD like the F-16, Martin Baker ejection seats, Italian Radars, and other avionics. Similarly, the initial Chinese AWACS may not be as great as the Western ones. But with having Western ones on hand and under operational use, you can always go back and upgrade the Chinese ones to provide similar features or some specific features that it may lack. China can copy pretty much everything I think, even if it is against the law to make illegal copies!

 

[fatman17]

Saab 2000 AEW customer signs five-year support deal:


Craig Hoyle London
21 Mar 2013


Saab has received a contract worth SKr1.1 billion ($170 million) for a five-year programme of in-service support for the Saab 2000 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) system aircraft operated by an undisclosed nation.

Signed on 21 March, the deal will cover the aircraft and their Saab Microwave Systems Erieye active electronically scanned array radars through to 2017, and "concerns a comprehensive set of spares and support services", the Swedish company says.

Flightglobal's MiliCAS database records Pakistan as being the only nation with an active fleet of Saab 2000 surveillance aircraft. Its air force flies four AEW&C-roled examples, and has an additional example in use as a transport. Islamabad's aircraft originally entered use as regional airliners between 1995 and 1997, according to MiliCAS, but were converted for the airborne early warning mission and delivered from late 2009.

With a mission endurance of almost 10h and five on-board operator stations, the aircraft can perform surveillance tasks from an altitude of more than 30,000ft (9,150m).

MiliCAS also lists the Royal Saudi Air Force as having ordered one Saab 2000 each in the AEW&C and military transport configurations, but says these are not in use.

flightglobal.



3 main-line defence related sites have confirmed that the contract is for PAF aircraft.

 

[Jango]

MiliCAS also lists the Royal Saudi Air Force as having ordered one Saab 2000 each in the AEW&C and military transport configurations, but says these are not in use.

I would place much more importance to this than the actual support contract. This clears up alot of misconception/doubts.

I don't think that the new support and maint contract is really big news or anything, PAF probably got a wakeup call after the Kamra attack and as orangzaib said previously, they maybe cleared a few loopholes in the contract.

 

[Viper0011.]

I would place much more importance to this than the actual support contract. This clears up alot of misconception/doubts.
I don't think that the new support and maint contract is really big news or anything, PAF probably got a wakeup call after the Kamra attack and as orangzaib said previously, they maybe cleared a few loopholes in the contract.

Yup, precisely what it is. After the incident, they realized, holly crap!! These planes can be targeted outside of the war zone. So let's go buy band-aids so if any injury occurs, we can put tape on it and get the plane healthy to fly again. More than likely, they revisited the contract, added provisions and paid the extra amount. It doesn't make sense to lose a 200 million dollar plane and lose an asset (one out of four) permanently vs. paying or gambling with an additional $ 20 million. Which is not that much when compared to a situation like the cost of repairing the destroyed AWACS from scratch!

 

[Viper0011.]

orangzaib[/MENTION]; 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!

Do you have a background in procurements?? I don't think that's the case. However, you are right in that this ain't a laptop or a car. I agree with that. This is instead, very advanced hi tech machinery.............). Point made!

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Do you have a background in procurements?? I don't think that's the case. However, you are right in that this ain't a laptop or a car. I agree with that. This is instead, very advanced hi tech machinery.............). Point made!

Well, I do have a background in procurements. Marine procurements to be particular. Both in Uniform and Civvy street. About two decades worth in Supervising Construction and then in carrying out Buyer's Trials/Assessments/Inspections.

 

[Viper0011.]

Well, I do have a background in procurements. Marine procurements to be particular. Both in Uniform and Civvy street. About two decades worth in Supervising Construction and then in carrying out Buyer's Trials/Assessments/Inspections.

I appreciate the background. Was that in defense procurements with related to hi-tech OEM?

 

[fatman17]

F-16s are not compatible with the Chinese systems.
And besides having two different systems increases redundancy.

i think PAF is working on a home-grown land based solution to 'link' both systems so that they can talk to each other

 

[Last Hope]

i think PAF is working on a home-grown land based solution to 'link' both systems so that they can talk to each other

True sir....