Crew comfort is a totally different thing. My issue is with the assumption that the bigger size of the aircraft automatically means more equipment thus a better platform.
Crew comfort wasn't my point either, more that the IAF Phalcon can do way longer missions (maybe even 24h) with more personal and air refueling. A smaller platform like EMB 145 can be refueled too, but offers not the space for all the equipment and that much personal, so the mission time is limited by the human factor.
Also if you want a rotodome, you have to go for such a big platform that can carry the weight, or find other solutions (see below).
What matters is the placement of emitters. SAAB officially and openly state that they provide full 360 degree coverage for threat assessment on SAAB 2000 Surveillance System.
360 degree "coverage" is a confusing term. Erieye does 360 degree detection of targets (the same as MESA) as it has visibility to 30 degrees in aft/fore spheres with certain sensors (ESM and not via the radar arrays themselves). What is supposedly a challenge for Erieye is sustained tracking in the same 30 degree spheres in front/aft. The solution to that is to fly patterns that ensure that the side arrays provide coverage if needed or have a couple of systems fly patterns which provide overlapping coverage for supposed blind spots.
EXACTLY and these are the main points to me too!
I believe you that Saab officially said that, but the key point is
how?
After checking all the sources I posted and the presentations of Erieye, MESA, and Phalcon system(on Gulfstream), it is clear to me now that the key differences are not the systems, but the platforms. The aircrafts and more important the type of radar that is used!
Saab 2000 Erieye uses only 2 radar arrays to both sides, with a repeatedly quoted coverage of 150°.
The MESA has these side arrays too and like the presentation said gives 130° of coverage. BUT it also has a top radar that covers 50° to front and 50° to the back.
The Phalcon system on the Gulfstream uses 2 side arrays, and 2 arrays to the front and back.
The IAF Phalcon system uses a rotodome to achieve full 360° coverage.
The simple fact that the US and the Israeli system have to use additional radar arrays(or rotodome in IAF Phalcon, or E 3) to achieve 360° coverage should make clear, that the Erieye can't provide the same. Even if they were able to get some detection via sensors like you said (note that not even the official presentation video of Saab shows any scans, or detections to front, or back!), it can't be equal to the detection ranges and capabilities it has to the sides.
Jane's said nearly the same, that Erieye offers SOME detection to those areas, but without tracking capabilities. So the statement of Saab that it has 360° could be ok, but it is doubtful how good the detection to those "blind spots" are without radar arrays.
You might be right that PAF can counter that with flying patterns and more aircrafts, but that is big effort to counter that disadvantage of the radar right?