PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread

[Blitzo]

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 think P-3 is the most well known turboprop ASW MPA that is flying today, so people automatically classify Y-8Q along with it, which is fair enough, but the Il-38 should also then be considered a natural peer.

However, both of those aircraft are not quite as accurate as I'd like for the sake of comparison, and I'd always maintained that Y-8Q's closest international peer is the SC-130J proposal, by virtue of the similar size, role configuration and most importantly, similar MTOW of the original baseline aircraft that both platforms are based off. The MTOW and overall dimensions of the Y-9 which the Y-8Q is based off is off is meaningfully bigger than P-3C that we should see a meaningful difference in their endurance and range, even if both operate at a similar flight profile.



As for subsystems, the way I see it is the Type 346 radar vs SPY-1 radar issue, where the latter is a far more mature system and has seen a number of upgrades and advancements of relevant subsystems to operate it with by, but where the former does use newer technology even if it may take it a while to reach maturity.

So in a similar case to Y-8Q, I think its sensors should probably be using the newest technology the domestic industry can provide, but it will take a little while before all those sensors reach a state of confident maturity and where the operators and support infrastructure and commanders know how to use them to their best advantage... and only then would a comparison between a future "mature" Y-8Q with the currently "mature" (upgraded) P-3C (or whatever other ASW MPA one wants to think of) be fair, with "fair" being relevant for the sake of academic interest, of course.

 

[Jeff Head]

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 agree.

No doubt it is a capable aircraft...and certainly is far, far better than what the PRC has had to work with to this point.

But it will take years before it truly coud become as capable as somethng like the P-3C.

Things like this just take tie to mature.

 

[Jeff Head]

... and only then would a comparison between a future "mature" Y-8Q with the currently "mature" (upgraded) P-3C (or whatever other ASW MPA one wants to think of) be fair, with "fair" being relevant for the sake of academic interest, of course.

I had to chuckle when I read this...and of course that last phrase, ""fair" being relevant for the sake of academic interest, of course", really says it all.

Neither country, and no country for that matter, when it comes to its defense equipment or industry, has any incentive or desire to be "fair."

That's the point...you want to be as advanced as possible, and if possible, o advanced that it is distinctly not fair, and hoping that your adversaries realize this and are therefore incented from the start to leave you alone.

 

[Blitzo]

I had to chuckle when I read this...and of course that last phrase, ""fair" being relevant for the sake of academic interest, of course", really says it all.

Neither country, and no country for that matter, when it comes to its defense equipment or industry, has any incentive or desire to be "fair."

That's the point...you want to be as advanced as possible, and if possible, o advanced that it is distinctly not fair, and hoping that your adversaries realize this and are therefore incented from the start to leave you alone.

Exactly, and that's why I mentioned "academic interest," which is pretty different to real life.

So I was under the impression that the comparison (despite being pretty vague) between Y-8Q and other aircraft was being suggested in a state where the Y-8Q had already reached a state of maturity with the kinks in their current subsystems worked out and with operators who are experienced with their systems and with commanders who know their doctrine.
In other words, it could be comparing Y-8Q with its peers on an even playing field of equivalent maturity, which to me seemed like the only sensible way of doing comparing sheer capability without confounding factors like maturity of subsystems or the human factor.

 

[Jeff Head]

In other words, it could be comparing Y-8Q with its peers on an even playing field of equivalent maturity, which to me seemed like the only sensible way of doing comparing sheer capability without confounding factors like maturity of subsystems or the human factor.

The only playing field right now you can evaluate them on is the one they are on.

The Y-8Q is what it is right now. The P-3C and P-8 are what they are right now.

If there were some kind of incident (God forbid) they would have to go with what they have.

There is no doubt, now that the Chinese have a platform that they will begin to alter the status of the playing field and over time compare more favorably.

How fast, how far, how effective will only be told....you guessed, by Father Time.

I guess my main pint is that the Chiense finally have such a dedicated platform, that it looks like a good platform, and that they are employing the best that they have on it. The best they have now is based on the experience and the projections they can make right now,.

Clearly, with tie, their projections and equipment will improve as they gain more experience.

 

[Blitzo]

The only playing field right now you can evaluate them on is the one they are on.

The Y-8Q is what it is right now. The P-3C and P-8 are what they are right now.

If there were some kind of incident (God forbid) they would have to go with what they have.

There is no doubt, now that the Chinese have a platform that they will begin to alter the status of the playing field and over time compare more favorably.

How fast, how far, how effective will only be told....you guessed, by Father Time.

I guess my main pint is that the Chiense finally have such a dedicated platform, that it looks like a good platform, and that they are employing the best that they have on it. The best they have now is based on the experience and the projections they can make right now,.

Clearly, with tie, their projections and equipment will improve as they gain more experience.

No, I respectfully disagree.

I think that if the goal is to compare only the capability of platforms then it should be done with maturity of subsystems and experience of the human factor to be accounted for on an even footing, otherwise what is being compared isn't only the platform/hardware itself.

This is especially true for newer projects or under development projects -- for example it would be unfair to have compared an F-16C with a JF-17 in 2004 if the goal was to compare their capability, because JF-17 was still in its very early stages of development at the time, without any sort of subsystems, weapons, doctrine or training maturity. A fair comparison would have done so with both platforms at an equal footing of maturity in those regards.


OTOH, ff the intention is to compare the capability of the platforms in their respective service at a particular moment in time, then that is quite a separate topci because I see it as a comparison of the respective capabilities of differing services overall, rather than of only the platform/hardware.

 

[Jeff Head]

No, I respectfully disagree.

I think that if the goal is to compare only the capability of platforms then it should be done with maturity of subsystems and experience of the human factor to be accounted for on an even footing, otherwise what is being compared isn't only the platform/hardware itself.

OTOH, ff the intention is to compare the capability of the platforms in their respective service at a particular moment in time, then that is quite a separate topci because I see it as a comparison of the respective capabilities of differing services overall, rather than of only the platform/hardware.

Well, that last paragraph is what I have been doing.

That is a comparison for the sake of current capabilities...what you currently actually have.

That will give you a true picture of where you are now, and what yuo need to do to move forward.

That does not mean you cannot or should not compare what you hope to have down stream...which is the kinf od cmparison you are talking about.

That type of comparison is not something that will be able to tell you what you can do right now.

Anyhow...IMHO, it's a nuanced issue or difference. Both types of comparisons are necessary.

Clearly they Chinese have put the Y-8Q ut there and they intend t improve it and their overall capabilities over time, and other nation's intelligence agencies will be trying to figure out where they are going and compare against that too.

IOW, once again, you have to do both.

 

[schenkus]

I get 2 possible in service with a new Recc Rgt of 9th Div/SSF which have also KJ-500 to Lingshui according Scramble which do very good job in general never see silly things but it is not easy with China !

How many Y-8Q do you all think China needs ? Japan had more than 100 P-3C that are going to be replaced by about 70 P-1.

I guess that if China wants to have a comparable coverage of their coast and the South China Sea they would need a similar number of MPA or would they use different assets (056s?) to cover part of this area ?

Somehow I get the impression that the production of the various Y-8 and Y-9 variants can't keep up with the needs of the PLA. If I'm not mistaken it might take 15 years or so for China to get enough MPAs.

How soon do you think China will be able patrol its waters in a way somehow comparable to Japan ?

 

[AndrewS]

It depends on if the performance of the Y-8Q is acceptable.

Initially, I guess 50 aircraft over 5 years would be reasonable. Then possibly another 50 over the next 5 years.

 

[FORBIN]

How many Y-8Q do you all think China needs ? Japan had more than 100 P-3C that are going to be replaced by about 70 P-1.

No Japan have now 70 P-3C about 5 replaced recently by 5 P-1

For China right now i see only a MPA Rgt by Fleet with 5/10 aircrafts, I do not think it's a big priority for them.