Right now they have sure only 3 SH-5 !!!
PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread
- Thread starter Sczepan
- Start date
I'm actually far less sure about that.
The thing about MPAs (and any other sort of large fixed wing ISR or AEW&C aircraft) is that their capability is significantly dependent on the quality of their sensors and datalinks (and weapons in the case of MPAs). Second most important is the aircraft's range/endurance, as well as the weight of sensors and weapons it can carry -- and all of these factors in turn relate to the MTOW of the aircraft.
In terms of MPAs, important sensors include:
-surface search radar
-EO/IR ball
-sonobuoys
-MAD
-hydrocarbon sensor (for P-8)
-and all the associated datalinks and processing onboard to integrate and share all of this information
Weapons obviously include air dropped torpedos generally, but also AShMs, depth charges
How good are Y-8GX6's sensors in those regards? Well, it's hard to say, but the initial P-3C was produced 1969. I somehow doubt that Y-8GX6's sensors are inferior to those first developed nearly half a century ago. If you're talking about upgraded P-3Cs, then that's a different matter but there have been so many different upgrade packages for P-3Cs that have been done, it's really hard to pin down how "capable" each of those individual iterations really are.
It's also important to consider that the Y-8GX6 should be seen as the culmination of many preceding aircraft projects and technologies, including the original abortive SH-5,s to the initial Y-8X MPAs, as well as subsequent AEW&C and ELINT/SIGINT aircraft, all of which would have been very important to allow them to develop more modern and competitive subsystems like surface search radar, EO/IR ball, and datalinks, to apply on an MPA. I would not be surprised if things like MAD and sonobuoys had also seen multiple iterative generations before settling on a type with performance that the Navy is more satisfied with.
As for the Y-8GX6's payload, endurance/range etc... that is something else we do not know, but we do know that the aircraft it is based on (Y-9) is said to have an MTOW of 77 tons, which is significantly higher than the P-3C or the original Lockheed L-188 it is based on. Of course, one difference between the Y-9 and the P-3C as well as the P-8 and even P-1, is that the Y-9 is a (significantly modified) variant of a tactical transporter rather than an airliner or even a fresh design like the P-1...
So the closest analogue to the Y-8GX6 is probably the SC-130J Sea Hercules proposal by Lockheed, which is a rollon/rolloff variant for C-130Js to give them MPA/ASW capabilities... And Lockheed has promised a 1325 nmi (2454km) combat radius with 4 hours time on station, which I imagine is not dissimilar to what the Y-8GX6 could offer. Of course, the SC-130J's number is likely with external fuel tanks (as do all C-130 variants), but at the same time the Y-9 which Y-8GX6 is based on is a larger aircraft than C-130J as well as even the C-130J-30.
(It is also interesting to note that P-8A has a combat radius of over 2200km with an endurance of four hours as well... though of course P-8A operates at a different flight profile/altitude than turboprop MPAs.)
So I definitely would not be willing to assume that Y-8GX6 is significantly non-competitive at all just because it is the Navy's first true ASW MPA, considering all the precursors projects and industrial capability that they are currently at to inform the development of key subsystems, not to mention they are using a very capable capable platform (Y-9) to develop their ASW MPA from in the first place.
I suspect part of the reason people are willing to be more dismissive of Y-8GX6 is because the P-8 (and possibly P-1) are the new and shiny toys with turbofans that make older P-3 variants and turboprop ASW MPAs look "old," so the Y-8GX6 being turboprop automatically relegates it into the "old" category. That, combined with the idea that Y-8GX6 is the Navy's first true ASW MPA, probably creates the sense of it probably being a deficient or limited platform.
This isn't to say I think the Y-8GX6 is necessarily as capable as P-8A or that its subsystems are going to operate without hiccups initially -- and I'm quite aware Naval Aviation will take quite a few years to get enough aircraft in service and experienced flight crews and operators to be able to take full advantage of their aircraft's capabilities. But I do think the gap between Y-8GX6 and other ASW MPAs may be significantly smaller than what has been suggested, especially in terms of the advancement of onboard subsystems and the range/endurance of the aircraft.
Right now they have sure only 3 SH-5 !!!
I don't think SH-5s ever operated with any ASW subsystems (like sonobuoys or even operational MAD)... its roles seemed to be more general MPA.
In terms of general MPA, they have actually operated four Y-8Xs for quite a few years, and I've always felt like those four aircraft were testbeds of doctrine and certain subsystems to help inform the development of the true ASW MPA, namely Y-8GX6.
Well, of course not. But the P-3s have not remained static to the 1969 standard, as you are probably well aware.
And there you have it. I would of course be talking about the nations operating the latest standards, which would of course be the US and her close allies like the JMSDF, the RAN, etc.
Well, the P-3C and the P-8 are significantly different than their commercial cousins. They are new builds and have been built specifically to those requirements.
Anyhow, do not get me wrong. I am not saying that the Chinese aircraft are bad planes. Far from it. They represent a HUGE step forward for them in their ability to patrol their coasts and seas. Right now I am sure they are pretty much developing their policies and exercises for the first Island chain...but with their range, ultimately they will integrate them into fleet activities and support of the carrier groups and Task Forces that operate on the high seas far from home.
It's just that at this stage, the Chinese are pretty immature in their MPA operations and policies in general, and specifically very immature with ASW MPA operations. They have not really had them to this point. It will be years before their policies take firm hold and the training, logistics, and more advanced equipment evolve to meet them.
The US and other users of the P-3C have been doing that for 50 years already.
Last edited:
Yes, but even then I would be hesitant to say the Y-8GX6's subsystems are not up to (upgraded) P-3C's, especially given how there are substantial variations in subsystems among the upgraded P-3C variants of the USN and other navies with modernized P-3Cs. Though I'm absolutely sure that the upgraded P-3Cs are fielding more mature subsystems run by more experienced operators than the Y-8GX6s currently are.
And if we were to talk about overall capability comparison between Y-8GX6 and upgraded P-3Cs, I would not be surprised if the Y-8GX6 has a meaningfully greater combat radius/endurance as virtue of its significantly larger size.
Yes, of course I do understand you weren't necessarily saying they were incapable, and just for the record I am also very aware that Chinese Naval Aviation will take many years to get to where they want to be in terms of maturity of doctrine and capability as well as the availability of aircraft and experienced operators.
However I was making a statement that I think some of the premises for judging Y-8GX6's relative potential capability to other ASW MPAs are a bit... faulty IMO.
Yes, absolutely -- so the only fair way to compare time on station is time on station at a similar given operating radius, which is how I described it in my preceding posts.
Dépends speed ( cruise ) but with more big speed they search on a more big area as P-1/8, less fast remains more long time on station but cover a less important area...
For refueling it is clear even US Air services in War time don' t get enough tankers for refuel MPAs !tankers for fighters and bombers.
I don't think anyone's saying that these planes would be refueled, since AFAIK these types of aircraft don't even have refueling probes. But they do have a standard cruising speed and operating altitude, so these are unlikely to be significant variables in determining the length of time on station.
In terms of platforms, Y-8 ASW is certainly a lot more comparable to P-3C, since both are turboprop aircraft. I personally think that turboprop aircraft are better platforms for ASW operations than turbofan powered aircraft.
I remember before Y-8 ASW project came to fruition, there were a lot of speculations online about how capable these platform would be compared to P-3C and P-8. At the time, the big shrimps online were saying that they are not going to be as capable as the latest P-3Cs. It made a lot of sense to me since America has had a lot of experience in this field and is consistently improving on the technology. It's going to take China a while for China to try this out and find different ways to improve it and know where to improve it to best utilize the platform. It doesn't mean China cannot have newer radar technology and electronics on board, but getting everything to operate as well as something that has been operational for 50 years and continuously improved is not an easy task.
I remember before Y-8 ASW project came to fruition, there were a lot of speculations online about how capable these platform would be compared to P-3C and P-8. At the time, the big shrimps online were saying that they are not going to be as capable as the latest P-3Cs. It made a lot of sense to me since America has had a lot of experience in this field and is consistently improving on the technology. It's going to take China a while for China to try this out and find different ways to improve it and know where to improve it to best utilize the platform. It doesn't mean China cannot have newer radar technology and electronics on board, but getting everything to operate as well as something that has been operational for 50 years and continuously improved is not an easy task.