PN to acquire twin engine jet aircraft - Tender

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Bilal it gonna replace p3c gradually or gonna work along P3c??

I think it'll gradually replace the P-3C.

 

[CriticalThought]

It is good that we are looking for an LRMPA, but how will we provide cover/escort for it against enemy's long range fighter jets and naval SAMs?

 

[PAR 5]

It is good that we are looking for an LRMPA, but how will we provide cover/escort for it against enemy's long range fighter jets and naval SAMs?

Seriously? These LRMPAs are for defensive ops and not offensive ops. They will be operated within territorial waters of Pakistan to hunt enemy subs etc. Pakistan has recently had an extension of its sea bed reach by 600kms into the Arabian Ocean. So if any enemy jets or SAM comes near it, it’ll be an act of war and besides Pakistan land and sea territory is already covered with radar coverage in case of enemy intrusion by air. Hope this clears your cloud?

 

[Basel]

The PN said it wants an LRMPA in the jet tender, but it hasn't released an integration tender yet (I'm guessing it'll come after they secure the aircraft). In all likelihood, integration work will probably go to RAS in Germany.

Why Airbus or Boeing platform not considered?? Does Shaheen Air or PIA have any bird for PN use??

Swordfish asw suits pak p 3.orion is now older

How capable swordfish is compare to Indian P-8Is??

 

[Pakistan Ka Beta]

We know it's for an LRMPA because the PN's tender literally says it's for an LRMPA:

View attachment 611809

https://www.ppra.org.pk/tdoc/1/360424 1 x TWIN ENGINE JET AIRCRAFT..doc

Respected Sir, It was opened on 28th Jan 2020 . How does it work ??? i mean when will we know Pakistan Selection ???

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

It is good that we are looking for an LRMPA, but how will we provide cover/escort for it against enemy's long range fighter jets and naval SAMs?

They have Radars to detect Ships and they obviously would stay away from them. Also Escorts are provided

 

[Pakistan Ka Beta]

exactly If am not wrong they were expecting order for 2 more ATR-72 conversion ....

so these New LRMPAs over the years are expected to replace all 6-7 P3Cs . May be during 2020s-2030s .

 

[CriticalThought]

Seriously? These LRMPAs are for defensive ops and not offensive ops. They will be operated within territorial waters of Pakistan to hunt enemy subs etc. Pakistan has recently had an extension of its sea bed reach by 600kms into the Arabian Ocean. So if any enemy jets or SAM comes near it, it’ll be an act of war and besides Pakistan land and sea territory is already covered with radar coverage in case of enemy intrusion by air. Hope this clears your cloud?

First of all, it's not confirmed what role it will be utilized in. We only have one poster's word without any links. Secondly, currently its not LRMPAs, rather, it's a single aircraft. Now assuming it will indeed be employed as an LRMPA, keeping an aircraft of ferry range 4000+ NM within territorial waters reeks of a defensive mentality. I hope the naval command doesn't share such a mentality with yourself.

 

[AMG_12]

First of all, it's not confirmed what role it will be utilized in. We only have one poster's word without any links. Secondly, currently its not LRMPAs, rather, it's a single aircraft. Now assuming it will indeed be employed as an LRMPA, keeping an aircraft of ferry range 4000+ NM within territorial waters reeks of a defensive mentality. I hope the naval command doesn't share such a mentality with yourself.

Read the PN tender posted in one of the threads. It's not "one poster's word" but official tender which states its procurement for all the aforementioned roles.

 

[PAR 5]

First of all, it's not confirmed what role it will be utilized in. We only have one poster's word without any links. Secondly, currently its not LRMPAs, rather, it's a single aircraft. Now assuming it will indeed be employed as an LRMPA, keeping an aircraft of ferry range 4000+ NM within territorial waters reeks of a defensive mentality. I hope the naval command doesn't share such a mentality with yourself.

The said aircraft is for LRMPA role. Don't let your obvious open ignorance overtake your desperate efforts to come on as an 'expert'. You are not. Enough Said!

 

[CriticalThought]

Read the PN tender posted in one of the threads. It's not "one poster's word" but official tender which states its procurement for all the aforementioned roles.

The said aircraft is for LRMPA role. Don't let your obvious open ignorance overtake your desperate efforts to come on as an 'expert'. You are not. Enough Said!

This is the OP on this thread and it mentions nothing:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pn-to-acquire-twin-engine-jet-aircraft-tender.651783/

The other evidence is an article in Janes' which is written by an Indian author. I am still looking for the original tender that explicitly talks about the intention to convert to LRMPA. Thanks in advance if you can point it out.

 

[denel]

Agreed. The more work we do in-house, the more of the design and integration process we own. If the subsystem vendors are willing, we can remarket the LRMPA to third party buyers. Sure, the net benefit of each plane to us may stick to $50-60 m (everything is COTS), but a hefty pipeline of 20 planes could mean $1bn. And if we develop enough expertise on the core platform, we can go a step further and develop bespoke AEW&C and EW/EA using a mix of COTS and in-house tech.

If I recall Saab wanted to give away the entire 340 series production line a few years back. This would have been a good opportunity for not only civilian but parallel streams.

 

[CriticalThought]

Respected Sir, It was opened on 28th Jan 2020 . How does it work ??? i mean when will we know Pakistan Selection ???

Just saw this post and the post by Bilal Khan.

@PAR 5 @AMG_12 thank you for clarifying, I had skimmed over the thread and missed the obvious.

Now, @PAR 5, I never called myself an expert, but I still want to know why an aircraft with ferry range of 4000+NM should be limited within our EEZ. Why this defensive mentality?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

If I recall Saab wanted to give away the entire 340 series production line a few years back. This would have been a good opportunity for not only civilian but parallel streams.

Indeed. The PN wants a twin-engine jet for the LRMPA, but the design and integration experience Pakistan will get is extremely valuable. If PAC's turboprop aircraft program comes alive (still a huge 'if' to be fair), then combining the two parts would create a lot of synergy -- and a solid $100-125 m of work per plane. Combine that with the JF-17, MALE UAV, and the PAF's training, you now have a turnkey air warfare solution.

PS: the MoDP report says the PAF got its 6th Erieye for around $90 m. Most of that cost is via Saab for the radar and related equipment. So long as Saab keeps manufacturing the low-end Erieye, Pakistan can also offer an entry-level AEW&C (if it has its own turboprop).

Just saw this post and the post by Bilal Khan.

@PAR 5 @AMG_12 thank you for clarifying, I had skimmed over the thread and missed the obvious.

Now, @PAR 5, I never called myself an expert, but I still want to know why an aircraft with ferry range of 4000+NM should be limited within our EEZ. Why this defensive mentality?

The long ferry range could be for endurance more so than reach. The LRMPAs are to stay in the air for long periods of time and maintain sustained coverages. Moreover, the sub-surface threat is highest closer to the shore (higher ocean floor) and along SLOCs (traffic) as that's where most of the masking takes place, so the LRMPAs will fly along those areas the most. The more of these LRMPAs are in the air (and for longer periods of time), the risker it is for the IN to send submarines through our seas.

The only way you'd offensively employ LRMPAs is if you're trying to impose an MEZ in India's waters, but that's after you've neutralized most of the surface and aerial threats.

 

[nomi007]

Saab is positioning the Swordfish as a AShW and ASW-capable asset, at least in its Global 6000 form. The Bombardier Global 6000 was introduced in 2003 as a long-range and long-endurance executive transport. The Global 6000 has a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 45,132 kg. The Boeing P-8 PoMPAseidon, which Saab views as its principal competitor, has a MTOW of 85,820 kg. Saab claims that the Swordfish is capable of loitering for more than eight hours and to a range of up to 1,852 km. Boeing states that the Poseidon can operate up to 4445 km and loiter an area for over eight hours, though the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) states that in ASW missions, the P-8A has a range of over 2,200 km and loitering time of over four hours. The P-8A also has a payload capacity of 10,000 kg via 11 external and internal hard points, while the Swordfish has four NATO-standard hard points. According to Saab, the Swordfish can carry up to six lightweight ASW torpedoes or a mix of ASW torpedoes and anti-ship missiles (AShM). There are evident performance and capability differences between the Poseidon and Swordfish, but Saab is not aiming to present the Swordfish as the superior system. Rather, Saab is taking aim at cost-conscious markets and is positioning the Swordfish as the more suitable system. For navies seeking MPAs to support their anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) and littoral security objectives, the Swordfish should more than suffice. However, in contrast to the Poseidon, the Swordfish is – as per Saab – two-thirds the acquisition price and half the through-life cost of the P-8A (Shephard Media).

According to Saab, the Swordfish comes with a range of customisable options:

• AESA 360° multi-mode radar
• Multi-statics acoustic system
• HD quality EO/IR (electro-optical/infrared systems) sensor with integrated laser payload
• SATCOM and tactical data links
• Four weapon hard points
• MAD (magnetic anomaly detector) boom