PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread

[Blackstone]

This is another BS that has no connection at all to the reality .Yet this people never stop mouthing this nonsense.

So..., what exactly are you trying to sell us? PLAAF AWAC operations (with decades less experience) are as good as US and Japan AWAC operations right now? Seriously??

 

[usaf0314]

This is another BS that has no connection at all to the reality .Yet this people never stop mouthing this nonsense.

I recall not too long ago the same BS was often mention in this forum in regard when the PLAN will flew the fighter off the Liaoning. Some people here convinced it will take at least 2 years, 5 years some even says 10 years . Well it only take 3 month after commissioning of Liaoning

what are you talking about dude. stop being so defensive, having a fully operational and combat ready doctrine and having a few exercise or testing with new equipment are complete different things. The Chinese of all people knows this and they are doing their darn best to adopt and innovate and at lightning speed.

Also, no one said PLAN will take 2,5,10 years to fly fighters off Liaoning, we talked about having a fully operational air wing. do you disagree that PLAN will need at least that amount of time mature its carrier operations?

 

[Hendrik_2000]

what are you talking about dude. stop being so defensive, having a fully operational and combat ready doctrine and having a few exercise or testing with new equipment are complete different things. The Chinese of all people knows this and they are doing their darn best to adopt and innovate and at lightning speed.

Also, no one said PLAN will take 2,5,10 years to fly fighters off Liaoning, we talked about having a fully operational air wing. do you disagree that PLAN will need at least that amount of time mature its carrier operations?

You are of all people need to check your fact first You said they only operate for few years. It is actually 8 years sinne officially operational . Even stupid people learn something in 8 years .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A PLAAF KJ-2000 AWACS was photographed while making a low flying pass. Its prototype was first spotted undergoing testing in Nanjing in 2003, carrying a CFTE emblem (S/N 762). The KJ-2000 prototype was based on Russian A-50I airframe but fitted with an indigenous AEW and a C4ISR system, including ARINC429 databus, IFF and datalink. The AEW system, developed by Nanjing Research Institute of Electronic Technology/14th Institute, is presumably similar to the Israeli Phalcon system. It was reported that the system can track 60-100 aerial targets simultaneously with a max ran

The first two KJ-2000s were handed over to PLAAF in 2005. Currently 4 KJ-2000s are stationed in Jiangsu Province, facing Japan and Taiwan (S/N 30071-30074). However further conversion from Il-76MD appears to have been halted due to the limited quantity available. Additional KJ-2000 class AWACS may depend on the import of secondhand Il-76MD/TDs as well as the availability of indigenous Y-20 transport aircraft.

In other word they have been operating this AWAC for more than 10 years. Another thing if they can design and built this thing they can operate for sure. I guess you never work in engineering office all your life that is why allthis nonsense. In the design we consider how the thing is operated. They do provide training and manual for that. Those are design requirement. and I don't know what you mean with doctrine . There is no such thing as doctrine for AWAC It is the same operation like civilian air controller alerting pilot of potential danger .So what kind of doctrine do you need. Their only doctrine is stay alive .

As soon as PLAN can land at night and carry live munition they will be ready for operation It won't take them that long

 

[usaf0314]

You are of all people need to check your fact first You said they only operate for few years. It is actually 8 years sicne officially operational . Even stupid people learn something in 8 years .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A PLAAF KJ-2000 AWACS was photographed while making a low flying pass. Its prototype was first spotted undergoing testing in Nanjing in 2003, carrying a CFTE emblem (S/N 762). The KJ-2000 prototype was based on Russian A-50I airframe but fitted with an indigenous AEW and a C4ISR system, including ARINC429 databus, IFF and datalink. The AEW system, developed by Nanjing Research Institute of Electronic Technology/14th Institute, is presumably similar to the Israeli Phalcon system. It was reported that the system can track 60-100 aerial targets simultaneously with a max ran

The first two KJ-2000s were handed over to PLAAF in 2005. Currently 4 KJ-2000s are stationed in Jiangsu Province, facing Japan and Taiwan (S/N 30071-30074). However further conversion from Il-76MD appears to have been halted due to the limited quantity available. Additional KJ-2000 class AWACS may depend on the import of secondhand Il-76MD/TDs as well as the availability of indigenous Y-20 transport aircraft.

In other word they have been operating this AWAC for more than 10 years. Another thing if they can design and built this thing they can operate for sure. I guess you never work in engineering office all your life that is why you are spouting this nonsense. In the design we consider how the thing is operated. They do provide training and manual for that. Those are design requirement. and I don't know what you mean with doctrine . There is no such thing as doctrine for AWAC It is the same operation like civilian air controller alerting pilot of potential danger .So what kind of doctrine do you need.

As soon as PLAN can land at night and carry live munition they will be ready for operation It won't take them that long

I consider anything less than 10 a few, You are correct about designing and providing manual/training, and yes I have worked in an engineering office... Let me ask you this, a F-18 pilot fresh out of training and flight school, and another F-18 pilot who flew for 20 years and have multiple combat sorties, which one is a better pilot? Bottom line is, just because you have the same toy, doesn't mean you know how to use it to its full potential, and just because you designed something to be a certain way, doesn't mean there won't be any problems and potential flaws down the road.

 

[asif iqbal]

I consider anything less than 10 a few, You are correct about designing and providing manual/training, and yes I have worked in an engineering office... Let me ask you this, a F-18 pilot fresh out of training and flight school, and another F-18 pilot who flew for 20 years and have multiple combat sorties, which one is a better pilot? Bottom line is, just because you have the same toy, doesn't mean you know how to use it to its full potential, and just because you designed something to be a certain way, doesn't mean there won't be any problems and potential flaws down the road.

USAF0314 sometimes I'm left wondering which planet you are from, Pakistan as a country is best judge of equipment having been a historical user of western equipment for many many decades

Pakistan ordered 8 Erieyes from Sweden, after re-evaluation of the Y-8 platform with modification in 2006 resulted in the ZDK-03 AWACS, so pleased was the higher echelon of the airforce that they cut the Erieye order from 8 to 6 then final to only 4 units, I think that tells us something since Erieye is one of the best balance beam out there

Pakistan was only the second country in the world after Israel to use F16 in combat, would have been the first if the US congress realised the aircraft few years earlier, when it scored a kill in 1983 of Soviet aircraft on the Afghan-Pak border, the most recent order was for 77 x F16 C/D+ the same configuration as Poland, Turkey and Greece, after the JF17 entry this was cut to 55 then to 36 and then to just only 18 units with opition of 18 more which has now been cancelled too

I think these two example are enough for now

 

[Lion]

what are you talking about dude. stop being so defensive, having a fully operational and combat ready doctrine and having a few exercise or testing with new equipment are complete different things. The Chinese of all people knows this and they are doing their darn best to adopt and innovate and at lightning speed.

Also, no one said PLAN will take 2,5,10 years to fly fighters off Liaoning, we talked about having a fully operational air wing. do you disagree that PLAN will need at least that amount of time mature its carrier operations?

I think hendrik is not defensive but rather respond to the BS posted. Rather its all you all trying hard to convince us the inferiority of china AWACS. I will also not rank PLAAF so new in terms of AWACS. I will rank more than 5years with decent enough training yearly to make some forces competent in certain new doctrine.

 

[rhino123]

USAF0314 sometimes I'm left wondering which planet you are from, Pakistan as a country is best judge of equipment having been a historical user of western equipment for many many decades

Pakistan ordered 8 Erieyes from Sweden, after re-evaluation of the Y-8 platform with modification in 2006 resulted in the ZDK-03 AWACS, so pleased was the higher echelon of the airforce that they cut the Erieye order from 8 to 6 then final to only 4 units, I think that tells us something since Erieye is one of the best balance beam out there

Pakistan was only the second country in the world after Israel to use F16 in combat, would have been the first if the US congress realised the aircraft few years earlier, when it scored a kill in 1983 of Soviet aircraft on the Afghan-Pak border, the most recent order was for 77 x F16 C/D+ the same configuration as Poland, Turkey and Greece, after the JF17 entry this was cut to 55 then to 36 and then to just only 18 units with opition of 18 more which has now been cancelled too

I think these two example are enough for now

I am sorry asif iqbal. I don't think USAF0314 meant to say anything inferior about Chinese equipment. He mentioned that just because the Chinese had the hardware, doesn't means they could operate them to the same effectiveness as the USAF and Japan (not too sure about Japan, but definitely USAF). Note that the USAF had been in this game for more than 20 years (I think) and China only began to play the same game for around 8 years. Of course the Chinese would be tough to beat and their technology are getting better by the days, but like what was mentioned, a fresh f18 pilot would not be as good as a pilot with 20years of experience flying the same f18 aircraft.

Yes, of course training would play a part... but the USAF also have great training, plus they have combat experience with their hardware. The Chinese are catching up, but the USAF are not idle too. We cannot actually just compare hardware... but also software too (and by software, I don't mean IT stuff... but the pilots and commanders.)

I would say that China still have some route to cover and I believe the Chinese knows that too...

 

[usaf0314]

I am sorry asif iqbal. I don't think USAF0314 meant to say anything inferior about Chinese equipment. He mentioned that just because the Chinese had the hardware, doesn't means they could operate them to the same effectiveness as the USAF and Japan (not too sure about Japan, but definitely USAF). Note that the USAF had been in this game for more than 20 years (I think) and China only began to play the same game for around 8 years. Of course the Chinese would be tough to beat and their technology are getting better by the days, but like what was mentioned, a fresh f18 pilot would not be as good as a pilot with 20years of experience flying the same f18 aircraft.

Yes, of course training would play a part... but the USAF also have great training, plus they have combat experience with their hardware. The Chinese are catching up, but the USAF are not idle too. We cannot actually just compare hardware... but also software too (and by software, I don't mean IT stuff... but the pilots and commanders.)

I would say that China still have some route to cover and I believe the Chinese knows that too...

holy crap, someone actually understand what i was saying. thanks for clearing that up...

As rhino said, I never said anything about Chinese equipments are inferior, rather my mention of experience in operating them.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

I am sorry asif iqbal. I don't think USAF0314 meant to say anything inferior about Chinese equipment. He mentioned that just because the Chinese had the hardware, doesn't means they could operate them to the same effectiveness as the USAF and Japan (not too sure about Japan, but definitely USAF). Note that the USAF had been in this game for more than 20 years (I think) and China only began to play the same game for around 8 years. Of course the Chinese would be tough to beat and their technology are getting better by the days, but like what was mentioned, a fresh f18 pilot would not be as good as a pilot with 20years of experience flying the same f18 aircraft.

Yes, of course training would play a part... but the USAF also have great training, plus they have combat experience with their hardware. The Chinese are catching up, but the USAF are not idle too. We cannot actually just compare hardware... but also software too (and by software, I don't mean IT stuff... but the pilots and commanders.)

I would say that China still have some route to cover and I believe the Chinese knows that too...

This is what I called false true ism . To begin with most of the threat detection is automated It has nothing to do with the operator. Just like your subway operator, the system is designed for automatic operation but you do need to put a man on the loop. Just in case

The effectiveness of AWAC depend mostly on the sensor and software that automate the detection and prioritize the threat.

It is completely different from pilot that ha to manually operate lever or maneuver the plane or Submarine sonar operator that has to interpret the signal . In Awac you either see a blip on your radar screen or not.

Another thing just because someone is more senior or older doesn't necessarily mean he is better Otherwise you won't see 30 years old manager managing 50 years old employee.

it all depend on training and individual initiative.

Another proof way back in 80's Reagan fired the striking air traffic controller and start fresh with new recruit Yet I haven't seen any accident

 

[usaf0314]

This is what I called false true ism . To begin with most of the threat detection is automated It has nothing to do with the operator. Just like your subway operator, the system is designed for automatic operation but you do need to put a man on the loop. Just in case

The effectiveness of AWAC depend mostly on the sensor and software that automate the detection and prioritize the threat.

It is completely different from pilot or Submarine sonar operator that has to interpret the signal . In Awac you either see a blip on your radar screen or not.

Another thing just because someone is more senior or older doesn't necessarily mean he is better Otherwise you won't see 30 years old manager managing 50 years old employee.

it all depend on training and individual initiative.

Another proof way back in 80's Reagan fired the striking air traffic controller and start fresh with new recruit Yet I haven't seen any accident

AWACS, Airborne Early Warning and Control System. what you mentioned is Early Warning, you left out the control part. just like commanders on the ground directing troops, it has to command its air wing in the air, that's the part I was talking about when it comes to experience. Airframe itself will surly improve as time moves on.