Sea Sultan Long-Range MPA | Updates & Discussion

[arslank01]

Sure, some obvious contenders:

ATR72 MPA (already familiar with PAF/PN).
CASA/Airbus CN-235/295 (again, already some familiarity with the airframe).
SAAB Swordfish MPA (already existing relationship with SAAB).

The PAF/PN could readily use these existing airframes/MPAs as a basis for any incremental changes to suite their own needs. Most of the work with these has already been done.

ATR72MPA- same issue
cn235- same issue
swordfish- doesnt even exist+same issue.

the PNs requirements are different=recertification.

With aviation, the smallest change=needs certification, im not sure why its an issue, its normal. Swordfish is literally what the PN is building, just on the L1000E platform.

 

[arslank01]

Now SAAB swordfish, also ridiculous. Because again my question was is it realistically available to Pakistan? And I think it had US influence. But more to the point, does it even exist? Is it an "existing MPA" ? Who operates this? Was all the integration work really done for this package?....as this was your main point. As far as I know it was only a concept and was never made. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

Swordfish is what the PN is doing just with a different airframe. All the sensors are MOTS, PN is using a significant portion of them. Infact, when u look at the MPA market- whether it be ASW choppers or planes, they all use the same sensors. The MH-60R uses a thales dipping sonar, the P72M, SWORDFISH, CN235 use the same family of SSR etc, were all doing the same thing.

Swordfish was killed because nobody bought it

 

[Corax]

All of the aforementioned platforms are turboprops in the MPA league, and Lineage 1000, which is jet-powered, was chosen with the PN requirement for the SEA-SULTAN project being LRMPA in mind.

Furthermore, the platform is customized to meet PN requirements, therefore Pakistan will benefit from this agreement.

These days, even Leonardo projects this system for other clients.

Nope, SAAB Swordfish MPA is based on Bombardier business jet airframe.

 

[Corax]

First 2 options you mentioned are simply ridiculous. Because PN already has ATR-72 Sea Eagle, so it obviously needs something beyond that. How hard is that to understand? C-295 isn't much different either. Besides I asked for realistically available options and C-295 is an airbus offering and IMO that can be a problem also. Anyways neither are alternates for sea sultan LRMPA.

Now SAAB swordfish, also ridiculous. Because again my question was is it realistically available to Pakistan? And I think it had US influence. But more to the point, does it even exist? Is it an "existing MPA" ? Who operates this? Was all the integration work really done for this package?....as this was your main point. As far as I know it was only a concept and was never made. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

So you actually gave zero options.

What does an Airbus airframe have anything to do with it? PN operates the ATR, which is a collaboration between Airbus and Leonardo. If SAAB offered the Erieye to Pakistan, why would Swordfish be a problem?! lol

 

[Corax]

ATR72MPA- same issue
cn235- same issue
swordfish- doesnt even exist+same issue.

the PNs requirements are different=recertification.

With aviation, the smallest change=needs certification, im not sure why its an issue, its normal. Swordfish is literally what the PN is building, just on the L1000E platform.

Exactly my point. SAAB had already done the work on the Bombardier platform for the Swordfish and GlobalEye. If the news about retiring the ZDK-03 is correct, the PAF could have opted for the GlobalEye and the PN could have opted for the Swordfish, providing synergies in maintenance and support, lowering costs.

 

[arslank01]

Exactly my point. SAAB had already done the work on the Bombardier platform for the Swordfish and GlobalEye. If the news about retiring the ZDK-03 is correct, the PAF could have opted for the GlobalEye and the PN could have opted for the Swordfish, providing synergies in maintenance and support, lowering costs.

No, because both forces have different operational needs and requirements.

 

[Quwa]

Sure, some obvious contenders:

ATR72 MPA (already familiar with PAF/PN).
CASA/Airbus CN-235/295 (again, already some familiarity with the airframe).
SAAB Swordfish MPA (already existing relationship with SAAB).

The PAF/PN could readily use these existing airframes/MPAs as a basis for any incremental changes to suite their own needs. Most of the work with these has already been done.

For what it's worth, Saab never actually produced a physical Swordfish LRMPA. Everything it had up until cancellation was on paper, it never got past that point. In contrast, the PN and its partners are actually converting 3 Lineage 1000Es into LRMPAs, so, in a way, it has gone ahead of the Swordfish and, in time, will be the comparatively more mature platform (vs. Swordfish).

 

[razgriz19]

You guys need to understand why PN chose an Embraer over a global.

It comes down a few very simple factors:

Cost - used Embraer lineage is significantly cheaper than a global.

Spacious - Lineage is spacious. Good for carrying more equipment and weapons

Maintenance/cycles - Lineage is based on a regional jet which was designed to have high cycles before it needs Maintenance. Regional aircraft can fly 8-10 flights a day easily. Global express is designed for longrange flights, which usually means less cycles before it needs Maintenance.

 

[Qureshi]

Nope, SAAB Swordfish MPA is based on Bombardier business jet airframe.

Dear there is difference in MPA & LRMPA hence selection of platforms are based on that concept.

 

[Zephyrus]

From Google images but this is based on another concept not necessarily sea sultan.

 

[Dreamer]

What does an Airbus airframe have anything to do with it? PN operates the ATR, which is a collaboration between Airbus and Leonardo. If SAAB offered the Erieye to Pakistan, why would Swordfish be a problem?! lol

Dealing with airbus mostly means dealing with france. Maybe you haven't noticed but that is not the best option for Pakistan lately in military items. The Sea Eagle(atr-72) for PN didn't involve france.

Anyway you forgot the part where all the options you provided do not apply to Sea sultan's LRMPA category.

And Swordfish doesn't even exist. If it ever did it would also involve general dynamics so not the same as offering erieye. Do some research before speaking.

Exactly my point. SAAB had already done the work on the Bombardier platform for the Swordfish and GlobalEye. If the news about retiring the ZDK-03 is correct, the PAF could have opted for the GlobalEye and the PN could have opted for the Swordfish, providing synergies in maintenance and support, lowering costs.

Do you know what "integration work" saab had "already done" for swordfish concept or are you just assuming stuff on your own. It was only a concept. No work was done. If anyone chose it then all the "work" would have to be done after that. Nobody went for that concept. (I wonder why?)
PN is doing much the same thing with the Sea Sultans. Paramount and Leonardo are doing the work instead of Saab and general dynamics(if swordfish was chosen).

 

[Corax]

Dealing with airbus mostly means dealing with france. Maybe you haven't noticed but that is not the best option for Pakistan lately in military items. The Sea Eagle(atr-72) for PN didn't involve france.

Anyway you forgot the part where all the options you provided do not apply to Sea sultan's LRMPA category.

And Swordfish doesn't even exist. If it ever did it would also involve general dynamics so not the same as offering erieye. Do some research before speaking.


Do you know what "integration work" saab had "already done" for swordfish concept or are you just assuming stuff on your own. It was only a concept. No work was done. If anyone chose it then all the "work" would have to be done after that. Nobody went for that concept. (I wonder why?)
PN is doing much the same thing with the Sea Sultans. Paramount and Leonardo are doing the work instead of Saab and general dynamics(if swordfish was chosen).

Nope, dealing with Airbus is not the same thing as dealing with a country. You're incorrectly comparing with the Dassault Rafale deal.

It's clear it's you who has no clue what you're talking about.

https://www.naval-technology.com/ne...tem-onto-two-patrol-aircraft-4816232/?cf-view

Saab has announced the installation of its Swordfish mission system on two maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), Bombardier‘s Q400 turboprop and Global 6000.

The integration of the platform with Saab’s system will enable a range of maritime C4ISR and combat roles and operations.

The mission system is equipped with an array of features, including AESA 360° multi-mode radar, multistatics acoustic system, EO/IR sensor with integrated laser payload, and data fusion with highly integrated C4 Mission System, as well as tactical and common datalink options.

"Swordfish MPA integrated on the Global 6000 will enable maritime surveillance from the air at significant distances from base."
Saab’s Swordfish MPA mission system is suited to perform long-duration patrol or search-and-rescue missions, as well as handle complex anti-submarine and anti-surface unit warfare tasks integrated within a single objective.

Swordfish also offers overland intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) functions and can be customised according to customer specifications.

The mission suite provides the operators with multiple domain awareness spanning from littoral waters to the ocean leveraging on its advanced mission system and an integrated sensor suite.

 

[Dreamer]

Nope, dealing with Airbus is not the same thing as dealing with a country. You're incorrectly comparing with the Dassault Rafale deal.

It's clear it's you who has no clue what you're talking about.

https://www.naval-technology.com/ne...tem-onto-two-patrol-aircraft-4816232/?cf-view

Seems like you're a kid who can't even understand what he's reading. This article is talking about something planned, not something already done.

Though I will agree that that article is badly written in that in the headline and in the first half of it, it gives the impression that it is talking about something already done....but that is actually wrong. If you had continued to read you'll have found that in the second half of the article where saab's own officials are quoted that they are talking about something that ''will be" done and not already done.

Here's another article,

Saab puts marketing effort for Swordfish maritime plane on hiatus

Why is Saab stepping away from its sub-hunting aircraft concept?

www.defensenews.com

You'll find here too saab's own official is saying it was only a concept. This is from 2018. Your naval tachnology article is from 2016 and is wrong.

Also, read Quwa's post above. Not a single swordfish was built, not even a prototype. Whole thing was a paper concept.

So clearly no "integration work" was done. It was TO BE DONE if anyone was interested. Nobody was so nothing was done.

It's clear you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Comparing paper concepts to real projects.

Even Saab itself gave up on swordfish concept more than 5 years ago. Time you did too.

 

[Quwa]

Seems like you're a kid who can't even understand what he's reading. This article is talking about something planned, not something already done.

Though I will agree that that article is badly written in that in the headline and in the first half of it, it gives the impression that it is talking about something already done....but that is actually wrong. If you had continued to read you'll have found that in the second half of the article where saab's own officials are quoted that they are talking about something that ''will be" done and not already done.

Here's another article,

Saab puts marketing effort for Swordfish maritime plane on hiatus

Why is Saab stepping away from its sub-hunting aircraft concept?

www.defensenews.com

You'll find here too saab's own official is saying it was only a concept. This is from 2018. Your naval tachnology article is from 2016 and is wrong.

Also, read Quwa's post above. Not a single swordfish was built, not even a prototype. Whole thing was a paper concept.

So clearly no "integration work" was done. It was TO BE DONE if anyone was interested. Nobody was so nothing was done.

It's clear you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Comparing paper concepts to real projects.

Even Saab itself gave up on swordfish concept more than 5 years ago. Time you did too.

Just throwing it out there, but one thing the PAF could look at doing is also adopting the Sea Sultan. The core sensor suite (e.g., Seaspray AESA radar with SAR/GMTI, EO/IR, ESM, etc) can make for a good ISTAR aircraft (ala JSTARS) to manage joint air/land ops. In fact, the PAF wouldn't even need the ASW and ASuW stuff, so an ISTAR aircraft would be lower in cost.

 

[Corax]

Seems like you're a kid who can't even understand what he's reading. This article is talking about something planned, not something already done.

Though I will agree that that article is badly written in that in the headline and in the first half of it, it gives the impression that it is talking about something already done....but that is actually wrong. If you had continued to read you'll have found that in the second half of the article where saab's own officials are quoted that they are talking about something that ''will be" done and not already done.

Here's another article,

Saab puts marketing effort for Swordfish maritime plane on hiatus

Why is Saab stepping away from its sub-hunting aircraft concept?

www.defensenews.com

You'll find here too saab's own official is saying it was only a concept. This is from 2018. Your naval tachnology article is from 2016 and is wrong.

Also, read Quwa's post above. Not a single swordfish was built, not even a prototype. Whole thing was a paper concept.

So clearly no "integration work" was done. It was TO BE DONE if anyone was interested. Nobody was so nothing was done.

It's clear you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Comparing paper concepts to real projects.

Even Saab itself gave up on swordfish concept more than 5 years ago. Time you did too.

This will be my last post on the matter because either you're arguing just for the sake of arguing and wanting the last word, or you're too dense to get it (my bet is on the latter).

At no point did I mention anything about a prototype. Developing an MPA based on a civilian platform is significantly more complicated than slapping a few sensors and AShM on an airliner. It requires detailed research and design, studies, and wind tunnel testing if it requires changes to airframe or if external ordnance like AShM or torpedoes are to be carried, not to mention checking the electronic emissions to make sure they do not interfere with other subsystems. This is what you simply don't get, and just think slapping a few sensors on an airliner is all you need to do. A prototype is simply one step in the development cycle.

Here, if you don't believe me, take it from the horses mouth, so to speak. SAAB's own press releases and referring to the development milestones and investments it has made in integrating the subsystems.

https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press...pa-delivers-true-multi-rolemaritime-air-power

Defence and security company Saab continues to enhance the Swordfish Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA). Detailed design studies have expanded operational capabilities, adding new mission equipment and a significantly expanded operational payload. The Swordfish MPA is the smart solution for the full range of real-world maritime missions that modern customers demand.

Recent product development milestones at Saab and Bombardier have validated a significant increase in the available payload carried on Swordfish’s four, NATO-compatible hard points. Swordfish can now be armed with up to six lightweight-torpedoes for the ASW role. Swordfish can also carry the Saab RBS 15EF anti-ship missile or a mix of missiles and torpedoes to assure total sea control in every aspect. The Swordfish can equally carry a load of four search-and-rescue pods underlining its true multi-

We have invested heavily to produce an MPA at the peak of operational capability today and future-proofed for decades to come when new technologies, such as unmanned systems, come online.

The reason why SAAB didn't develop a prototype is simply because of the multiple options customers could choose from in terms of subsystems and weapons, and therefore it didn't see the point in developing a demonstrator for marketing purposes, not because it hadn't done the development work, far from it. More to the point, SAAB did actually own a Bombardier G6000 for simulation and testing purposes.

There's a multitude of reasons why it wasn't ordered, but ultimately it was eclipsed by the P-8, which was already in service and therefore had the full backing of the US and allied nations, who were the primary potential customers of the Swordfish.

Key Aero did an excellent write-up of the aircraft.

https://www.key.aero/article/genesis-swordfish

Saab’s own Bombardier Global 6000-BD- 700-1A10 aircraft, registered in Sweden as SE-RMT, was used for proving and flying simulated ASW/MPA mission profiles in support of the Swordfish development effort, but no prototype or demonstrator is being produced. Saab reasoned that any prototype would likely be unrepresentative of a customer aircraft and would thus be of limited use.