Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[araz]

Saw some interesting information about the Saab 2000 and also saw a post on PDF by a senior thinking it would be a good idea if Pak bought the rights to the aircraft and produced them.

There are about 60 Saab 2000 in total in the world. Perhaps Pakistan could buy these and they would have a low cost aircraft for PIA to fly.

According to this interesting thread:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=361233

Saab 200 was ahead of its time, had better fuel economy than rivals but cost a lot due to Swedish labor costs and Saab overpricing. They are not only more fuel efficient but also cost less to operate due to lower maintenance costs.

The link also suggests that Saab 2000 came at the wrong time - with low fuel costs of the era making fuel efficiency less of a factor. If Pak can produce this aircraft, it just may be a massive entry point for Pakistan into the aircraft manufacturing game.

An interesting idea would be to use the high altitude capability of the Saab 2000 to have direct flights from Karachi, Lahore, Dubai, Doha, Jeddah, Kuwait City, Istanbul - directly to Skardu and thus create an alternative to Switzerland for tourists of the region.


Another interesting thread about the Saab 2000:
https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/10425-saab-2000-info.html

The only concern will be the engine. As soon as you enter a market you become a threat and what may have been freely available to you becomes a tool to control you. So we need to ensure we have suitable engine before we can go down that route.
A

 

[Armchair]

The only concern will be the engine. As soon as you enter a market you become a threat and what may have been freely available to you becomes a tool to control you. So we need to ensure we have a suitable engine before we can go down that route.
A

Hi Araz, engines are not a problem. The competition is Bombardier and Embraer mainly. Even if you tag in Airbus and Boeing into the mix, all players use engines from RR and GE without issue. This is how the regional jet market is structured - engines aren't an issue they have to strategically contend with.

If you can build the Saab 2000 or a close derivative - your main entry barrier is marketing and oil prices.

 

[vizier]

Another alternative is tethered airborne radar system similar to the one below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JLENS

Several advantages are:

* can stay above for 30 days
* can cover similar amount of airspace with other awacs. If used for early warning with its VHF radar part to direct interceptors but not fire control the costs can be even reduced. Stealthy targets can't be tracked that long range anyway so vhf radar early warning option would be mostly enough.
* enemy air to air options are somewhat limited than against fixed wing awacs which also have a large infrared signature other than radar cross section. Not only the similar long range coverage of about 500km range which is more than most air to air missiles the balloon is also a cheap object and flies about 3000 m tethered to the ground. Decoy smaller ballons with similar radar cross sections having more radar reflective parts like aliminum can be positioned next to the original radar balloon.
* more difficult for enemy sead to locate-triangulate the exact position of the balloon passively since the emitter is higher than the ground. Somewhat like the giraffe radars but much higher ofcourse.

 

[Bossman]

Another alternative is tethered airborne radar system similar to the one below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JLENS

Several advantages are:

* can stay above for 30 days
* can cover similar amount of airspace with other awacs. If used for early warning with its VHF radar part to direct interceptors but not fire control the costs can be even reduced. Stealthy targets can't be tracked that long range anyway so vhf radar early warning option would be mostly enough.
* enemy air to air options are somewhat limited than against fixed wing awacs which also have a large infrared signature other than radar cross section. Not only the similar long range coverage of about 500km range which is more than most air to air missiles the balloon is also a cheap object and flies about 3000 m tethered to the ground. Decoy smaller ballons with similar radar cross sections having more radar reflective parts like aliminum can be positioned next to the original radar balloon.
* more difficult for enemy sead to locate-triangulate the exact position of the balloon passively since the emitter is higher than the ground. Somewhat like the giraffe radars but much higher ofcourse.

Pakistan tried to get them from the US but failed. India got them from Israel and one of them is deployed near Bhuj close to Pakistan border.

 

[GriffinsRule]

Pakistan tried to get them from the US but failed. India got them from Israel and one of them is deployed near Bhuj close to Pakistan border.

Pretty sure Pakistan turned those down after testing them out. They were offered to Pakistan as an alternative to AWACS and are shitty systems.

 

[Tamiyah]

Pretty sure Pakistan turned those down after testing them out. They were offered to Pakistan as an alternative to AWACS and are shitty systems.

Pakistan do use aerostat but I don't know the type of it.

 

[Thorough Pro]

In the eighties during the Soviet-Afghan war, Pakistan asked for E3 Sentry (AWACS ) but the US instead offered E2C Hawkeye (carrier-based) version. Pakistan should have gone for it because in those times there were only a couple of countries operating such aircraft. The acquisition (heavily financed by the US due to Soviet-Afghan war) would have propelled PAF into a new dimension way ahead of any other airforce in the region and that knowledge and experience would have done wonders for Pakistan as well as the Chinese aviation industry.

Looking back, I think that was a big mistake by PAF to reject them.

Pretty sure Pakistan turned those down after testing them out. They were offered to Pakistan as an alternative to AWACS and are shitty systems.

 

[vizier]

Pretty sure Pakistan turned those down after testing them out. They were offered to Pakistan as an alternative to AWACS and are shitty systems.

Every system might have its merits and shortcomings. The blimp is 24/7 online for 30 days as an eye in the sky whereas awacs is mostly online in an alert situation. Awacs is more costly for continious survaillance. Awacs may be more accurate though with a higher performance radar. Blimps reaction time is close to 0 because of continious survaillance and unlike ground radar it can detect low flying targets as well. It can alert your awacs to take off and coordinate a better attack or alert or even guide ground ad systems for protection against an incoming cruise missile attack. Next time india will probably not risk its aircraft but use stand off bombs or cruise missiles from its airspace to escalate the situation. Maybe a joint venture with allies like Turkey and China might be off better use for this type of a system rather than the Usa system which was just an example.

 

[Caprxl]

Another alternative is tethered airborne radar system similar to the one below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JLENS

Several advantages are:

* can stay above for 30 days
* can cover similar amount of airspace with other awacs. If used for early warning with its VHF radar part to direct interceptors but not fire control the costs can be even reduced. Stealthy targets can't be tracked that long range anyway so vhf radar early warning option would be mostly enough.
* enemy air to air options are somewhat limited than against fixed wing awacs which also have a large infrared signature other than radar cross section. Not only the similar long range coverage of about 500km range which is more than most air to air missiles the balloon is also a cheap object and flies about 3000 m tethered to the ground. Decoy smaller ballons with similar radar cross sections having more radar reflective parts like aliminum can be positioned next to the original radar balloon.
* more difficult for enemy sead to locate-triangulate the exact position of the balloon passively since the emitter is higher than the ground. Somewhat like the giraffe radars but much higher ofcourse.

Pretty sure Pakistan turned those down after testing them out. They were offered to Pakistan as an alternative to AWACS and are shitty systems.

Every system might have its merits and shortcomings. The blimp is 24/7 online for 30 days as an eye in the sky whereas awacs is mostly online in an alert situation. Awacs is more costly for continious survaillance. Awacs may be more accurate though with a higher performance radar. Blimps reaction time is close to 0 because of continious survaillance and unlike ground radar it can detect low flying targets as well. It can alert your awacs to take off and coordinate a better attack or alert or even guide ground ad systems for protection against an incoming cruise missile attack. Next time india will probably not risk its aircraft but use stand off bombs or cruise missiles from its airspace to escalate the situation. Maybe a joint venture with allies like Turkey and China might be off better use for this type of a system rather than the Usa system which was just an example.

@Blacklight
Informative read.. , If you know what I mean

 

[Bossman]

Every system might have its merits and shortcomings. The blimp is 24/7 online for 30 days as an eye in the sky whereas awacs is mostly online in an alert situation. Awacs is more costly for continious survaillance. Awacs may be more accurate though with a higher performance radar. Blimps reaction time is close to 0 because of continious survaillance and unlike ground radar it can detect low flying targets as well. It can alert your awacs to take off and coordinate a better attack or alert or even guide ground ad systems for protection against an incoming cruise missile attack. Next time india will probably not risk its aircraft but use stand off bombs or cruise missiles from its airspace to escalate the situation. Maybe a joint venture with allies like Turkey and China might be off better use for this type of a system rather than the Usa system which was just an example.

Has its pluses and minuses but it is not an alternate for airborne systems. It could complement them as an additional node.

 

[Safriz]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1274052527659667456

 

[TheTallGuy]

I adding up the figures..
we are receiving new Saab 2000 with Erieye 3 or 5?

 

[fatman17]

Saab awacs

 

[nomi007]

Saab awacs View attachment 652210

do you have indian awacs inside images?

 

[fatman17]

No

do you have indian awacs inside images?