PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread

[volleyballer]

I can't imagine why china would need to RE the hawkeyes electronics. It's not like they haven't developed AEWC of their own before and ROCAF's E-2s aren't exactly state of the art.

However espionage could be to infiltrate and hack/jam etc Taiwans E-2s and their data links in event of conflict, which would make much more sense.

The ROCAF operate E-2Ks, which have Link-16 and an upgraded central computer. Obviously the Chinese would be interested in this since their own equivalent of Link-16 is still in development, but moreover they should also be interested in the sensor data the E-2K gathers.

 

[Blitzo]

Is the PLAs link 16 equivalent still under development?

Sure there might be tidbits of ROCAF E-2s that will benefit PLA AEWC development (mostly because PLA are still relatively new to AEWC), the main motivation would be for military intelligence in event of war, rather than a desire to RE the hawkeye. Again, remember china has already developed four AEWC systems independently (KJ-200,2000,500 and ZDK-03)

 

[volleyballer]

Is the PLAs link 16 equivalent still under development?

Sure there might be tidbits of ROCAF E-2s that will benefit PLA AEWC development (mostly because PLA are still relatively new to AEWC), the main motivation would be for military intelligence in event of war, rather than a desire to RE the hawkeye. Again, remember china has already developed four AEWC systems independently (KJ-200,2000,500 and ZDK-03)

Last time I checked they (Link-16 equivalent) still were, but perhaps someone could add more info to this, as it is a very important part of the command chain.

Effective sensor fusion is an important part of a successful AWACs. The Chinese are still very much behind in this area. Whereas the US has a ton of experience operating these during actual campaigns, so I think their methods would be highly sought after information.

China had an early AWAC in the 60s, where they mounted a radar on a plane to detect the American U-2s flying over China. The radar plane, without an effective comm. system, was only able to communicate the coordinates to the awaiting interceptors by dropping flares (.. seriously!)

 

[Blitzo]

Last time I checked they (Link-16 equivalent) still were, but perhaps someone could add more info to this, as it is a very important part of the command chain.

Effective sensor fusion is an important part of a successful AWACs. The Chinese are still very much behind in this area. Whereas the US has a ton of experience operating these during actual campaigns, so I think their methods would be highly sought after information.

China had an early AWAC in the 60s, where they mounted a radar on a plane to detect the American U-2s flying over China. The radar plane, without an effective comm. system, was only able to communicate the coordinates to the awaiting interceptors by dropping flares (.. seriously!)

We are in 2013 now, not the days where china was still resorting to mount a radar on a Tu-4.

The US has had experience in this area yes, but they haven't exactly gone up against near peer opponents. Such conflicts can be simulated more effectively with large scale exercises like red flag. That is to say one "operational" experience doesn't equate to better data and radar on an AEWC if you're not against an opponent whose capabilities challenge your platform. Operational experience (for AEWC at least) will more directly challenge your ability to deploy aircraft and maintain orbits. Radar, data linking can be tested and upgraded in peacetime.

Further, radar and avionics is one of the few bright spots in chinese military aerospace. PAF have bought four ZDK03s to support their JF-17s. They also have the western Erinyes so they obviously have standards and know how an AEWC should .perform. Would they have accepted ZDK03 if it couldn't provide them near peer capabilities?
China's KJ-2000 is basically a chinese RE of the phalcon, one of the most advanced AEWC systems of the time (and still is). They've produced KJ-200 and are now developing KJ-500. I seriously doubt the gap, if there is one, is that large where china needs to get old E-2T/K data to improve their own capability.

But it'll help for EW/ECM definitely, to disable ROCAF AEWC net, which may prove troublesome in an invasion, assuming they survive the initial bombardment

 

[Engineer]

Last time I checked they (Link-16 equivalent) still were, but perhaps someone could add more info to this, as it is a very important part of the command chain.

Effective sensor fusion is an important part of a successful AWACs. The Chinese are still very much behind in this area. Whereas the US has a ton of experience operating these during actual campaigns, so I think their methods would be highly sought after information.

You are behind for about a decade. China has its Link-16 equivalent for a long time and have exported a derivative of the system to Pakistan. If you paid attention to CCTV news, you would also have realized that the ground have real-time data of everything that is happening in the sky. Finally, if a data-link is still non-existence like you have said, there would be no point in deploying so many AWACs.

China had an early AWAC in the 60s, where they mounted a radar on a plane to detect the American U-2s flying over China. The radar plane, without an effective comm. system, was only able to communicate the coordinates to the awaiting interceptors by dropping flares (.. seriously!)

I think you are making stuff up now. China's experimental AWAC in the 60s was abandoned because the engineers were not able to solve problems related to sea-clutter.

 

[Engineer]

China's KJ-2000 is basically a chinese RE of the phalcon, one of the most advanced AEWC systems of the time (and still is).

Reverse engineering does not exist here, since Phalcon was a joint project between China and Israel to begin with.

 

[volleyballer]

You are behind for about a decade. China has its Link-16 equivalent for a long time and have exported a derivative of the system to Pakistan. If you paid attention to CCTV news, you would also have realized that the ground have real-time data of everything that is happening in the sky. Finally, if a data-link is still non-existence like you have said, there would be no point in deploying so many AWACs.

I simply stated that I don't think they have a Link-16 equivalent yet, not that they didn't have any communication systems.

I think you are making stuff up now. China's experimental AWAC in the 60s was abandoned because the engineers were not able to solve problems related to sea-clutter.

The early radar plane they developed for detecting the constant U-2 overflight is best described as an AWAC today. They developed it because they weren't able to stop the constant U-2 overflights by the joint CIA/CAF at the time. It was an inelegant solution that didn't work. They were only able to down the U-2s via the Soviet SA-2 batteries. I am sorry I cannot find a text source for this. It was on one of the History channel documentaries. Perhaps it was one about the U-2. I will try to find it.

 

[Engineer]

I simply stated that I don't think they have a Link-16 equivalent yet, not that they didn't have any communication systems.

Which part of "Link-16 equivalent" in my post does it refer to "any communication system"?

 

[rhino123]

This happened about 2 weeks ago.



I couldn't find a credible English source, which is ironice since it was the US who alerted ROCAF about this. Anyway here is the source in Chinese:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Basically a ROCAF Major was the ringer leader but there could've been as many as 20 people involved in this. The information they attempted to sell was of the upcoming E-2K type which ROCAF have yet to receive but are training for. But they may have successfully sold info on the older C/B/T types. The Link-16 system seemd to be what they Chinese were interested in the most.

Edit: ROCAF already has the E-2K in inventory but was receiving training in the US to qualify new operators.

Like what others had pointed out, China already had their own Link-16. Secondly... if there are actual and real evidence found in Taiwan selling the E-2 and its tech to China, it will be all over US sites too. But as of now, all you manage to give is a Chinese source which might again not be very accurate (think about it).

Thirdly, even if such sales actually happen, would it be that the Chinese are more interested in knowing the technology of the US, not to reverse engineered it, but to actually jam it in case of war.

Plus... people had been throwing this reverse engineering thingy around pretty often. Let me tell you something, reverse engineering is not easy, you would need to have an equal base of technology to do it and many a time, to design something new is easier than to reverse engineered that stuff. And reverse engineering is different from copying blindly.

 

[rhino123]

I think you are making stuff up now. China's experimental AWAC in the 60s was abandoned because the engineers were not able to solve problems related to sea-clutter.

The early radar plane they developed for detecting the constant U-2 overflight is best described as an AWAC today. They developed it because they weren't able to stop the constant U-2 overflights by the joint CIA/CAF at the time. It was an inelegant solution that didn't work. They were only able to down the U-2s via the Soviet SA-2 batteries. I am sorry I cannot find a text source for this. It was on one of the History channel documentaries. Perhaps it was one about the U-2. I will try to find it.

China's first attempt on AWAC was the KJ-1 from the 1960s, at around 1969. It was just a radar fitted to a Tu-4, as all of you already know, however, the project never venture past prototype stage and the cultural revolution that followed had a great impact on this project, so much so that it actually stopped.

By the time the project was to resume, it was already wayyyyy too outdated and the Chinese would do well to go ahead and develop phase array radar on the KJ-2000.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!