The Attack on Pakistan's Erieye

[Bratva]

All the military persons who on record stated after kamra attack all our awacs are safe should be kicked out and ISPR should be kicked hard for disclosing such news in such a casual manner that it is a routine matter for them.

 

[Safriz]

US, UK against Pakistan nukes | The Nation

 

[Safriz]

About possible operation in North Waziristan, the defence secretary
said that the operation in the agency could not be successful until
sealing off the Pak-Afghan border. He however emphasised that the
army has all the capacity to launch an operation in the NWA. He also
said that negotiations were going on for the replacement of spy
aircraft that were damaged at Mehran and Kamra bases.

 

[Mani2020]

US, UK against Pakistan nukes | The Nation

safriz can you kindly provide me the link which says one saab-2000 bought by Pakistan is inactive...i was searching for it but didnt find

 

[Safriz]

Nothing new in this news report.
It was already speculated that SAAB-2000 are dirt cheap now,and PAF may buy another airframe and fit the erieye from 10025 into the newer airframe,instead of repairing 10025.

 

[Safriz]

Pakistan Gvmt Fleet | Airfleets aviation

@Mani2020

 

[araz]

Mani
you are reading too much in thiz report. We all know about the fiasco at Mehran and the loss of P3Cs. We also know of the damage to the nose cone of the Saab. What has also come under discussion is the breach in the forward bulkhead. This might genuinely not have been known at the time of the original report. Now when the Saab people came and gave their report possibly about the nonviability of repair. what the defence Secretary is saying is that the aircraft needs to be replaced. This is the most logical answer to the puzzle and not against what we have read so far. I dont think there is anything to get excited about. This is simply a case of replacement being cheaper than repair.
Araz

 

[Mani2020]

Mani
you are reading too much in thiz report. We all know about the fiasco at Mehran and the loss of P3Cs. We also know of the damage to the nose cone of the Saab. What has also come under discussion is the breach in the forward bulkhead. This might genuinely not have been known at the time of the original report. Now when the Saab people came and gave their report possibly about the nonviability of repair. what the defence Secretary is saying is that the aircraft needs to be replaced. This is the most logical answer to the puzzle and not against what we have read so far. I dont think there is anything to get excited about. This is simply a case of replacement being cheaper than repair.
Araz

firstly araz why should i be excited about it? secondly i mentioned what the report said ; not a word here or there.... the report clearly said that the AWACs will be replaced and it gets to a point where it may be confusing to what you are saying coz awacs refer to the whole aircraft including the erieye system, now if you cant believe in the exact phrase mentioned by the report than its only the defence secretary who can answer what he really meant the whole thing or just the platform.... and btw i am reading what it is saying ...if anyone has any conflict with this report the better person to contact will be the defence secretary or the publisher .....

Who ever published this in the newspaper had some reference for it and the reference was the defence secretary ; otherwise what benefit will the publisher or news paper will get by adding one line on their own . above all what benefit will they get by specifying the PAF AWACs that too many months after the attack , if they would have to just speculate they would have done it long ago immediately after the attack

If many here can present articles from other newspaper as the sole referral to their belief than why not this article can be counted as a referral to the opposite belief

 

[Safriz]

^^^ News media knows monkeys about technicalities,they print whatever they understand..

 

[Mani2020]

^^^ News media knows monkeys about technicalities,they print whatever they understand..

its the same media that stated that only one aircraft is slightly damaged , so if we use the same logic than that view also should not be established as the media knows monkeys about the technicalities

btw what is so technical in quoting the defence secretary? this logic can also be used other way round if the media does not know anything they would have simply mentioned it as a spy plane along with the navy's P-3C as they did in 2nd column or have used any other name why they specifically used the term PAF AWACs in 3rd column when they know monkeys about it?

 

[Safriz]

its the same media that stated that only one aircraft is slightly damaged , so if we use the same logic than that view also should not be established as the media knows monkeys about the technicalities

btw what is so technical in quoting the defence secretary? this logic can also be used other way round if the media does not know anything they would have simply mentioned it as a spy plane along with the navy's P-3C as they did in 2nd column or have used any other name why they specifically used the term PAF AWACs in 3rd column when they know monkeys about it?

Yes same news media who repoted 'the "nozzle" of awacs is damaged".
Instead of "nose".

 

[Mani2020]

Yes same news media who repoted 'the "nozzle" of awacs is damaged".
Instead of "nose".

mate this topic will linger around for ages if we will keep discussing it ....so i think better if we leave it here ...time may reveal everything ...and we may get our answer somewhere down the road ...like we are getting answers of many of our blunders as a part of history ...

peace

 

[khanasifm]

Cost of conversion of SAAB 2K to AW&C involves bring airframe and engine to zero hours + other stuff and involves lots of man hours = $$$. Shame Pak can buy ~4 AWAC (+ 1 transport )for ~$250M a piece but cannot afford a decent hangers nor protection.

Cheers

 

[TAC]

For those who have been preying for max damage to the Saab fleet from the start - including those who had stated as a matter of fact that 2 Saabs were 'toast' and third badly damaged at the outset and based on 'inside info'-- this Jang report is 'proof' that at least one Saab was damaged beyond repair. To me it is a typicaly badly written article which mixes up destroyed aircraft at Minhas with a damaged aircraft at Kamra. The defence secretary has not helped by making vague overall comments and the lack of knowledge of the Jang writer does the rest.

I've been asked to keep my mouth shut untill I have pic of all the Saabs lined up - without any damage and all serial numbers clear to see. So is it unreasonable for me to ask for an official source to confirm any Saab has been written off - or maybe even a pic showing the damage?? Surely proof from both sides of the debate should be of an equaly undisputable standard? I don't think this Jang artical is any where near that mark.

 

[Bratva]

For those who have been preying for max damage to the Saab fleet from the start - including those who had stated as a matter of fact that 2 Saabs were 'toast' and third badly damaged at the outset and based on 'inside info'-- this Jang report is 'proof' that at least one Saab was damaged beyond repair. To me it is a typicaly badly written article which mixes up destroyed aircraft at Minhas with a damaged aircraft at Kamra. The defence secretary has not helped by making vague overall comments and the lack of knowledge of the Jang writer does the rest.

I've been asked to keep my mouth shut untill I have pic of all the Saabs lined up - without any damage and all serial numbers clear to see. So is it unreasonable for me to ask for an official source to confirm any Saab has been written off - or maybe even a pic showing the damage?? Surely proof from both sides of the debate should be of an equaly undisputable standard? I don't think this Jang artical is any where near that mark.

The Nation, The News and The DAWN english papers all quoted SEC DEF that they will replace DAMAGED SAAB AWAC

So, instead of bashing just JANG, you should have put more effort in reading other news papers who carried the similar remarks of SEC DEF.

And last ut not the least, not a single rebuttal came from PAF spokesperson or from ISPR denying SEC DEF remarks in JANG nor even SEC DEF denied his remarks which appeared in JANG... which means whatever SEC DEF said in URDU or inn ENGLISH. It was a matter of FACT.

Or else how come a mis reported SEC DEF statement can go around so long without any rebuttal?

So save us the rhetoric of yours please and stop living in fools world and you are a regular reader of Posts and you know very well that it was established later that ONE AWAC was destroyed and one damaged.TAIMI KHAN AND OSCAR wrote very sensible posts on such delicate matter. So stop your non sense of earlier rumours of the news. Every one agreed later on that it was 1+1.