PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread
- Thread starter Sczepan
- Start date
Really Janes? A turbofan engine? How are they so sure the system in the nose is a weather radar and not another radar to cover the balance beam type radar blind spot which is more likely?
An argument for their claim could be something like this: it would produce inconsistent results, as the nose radar would be both different and weaker than the main radar. If the plane changes direction, previous fwd hemisphere radar tracks would be invalidated if they differed significantly from data received by the main radar. Furthermore, the range and fidelity of the nose radar would in all aspects be inferior. Fusing the two would create a false impression of coverage and anyone receiving the data via network would need to know that a certain slice of it is less reliable depending on the flight direction of the AEW aircraft.
Last edited:
Makes sense but my reasoning that front radar is a normal radar is because the Israeli EL/W-2085 attains 360° coverage roughly the same way with radars in the nose and tail while having side facing radars though the radars do operate on different bands. Additionally the nose radar might not necessarily be weaker(in terms of range and resolution) despite the smaller area in the nose as it's only needs to scan a smaller cone than the main radar and minute differences can be filtered out by computer processing.
Adding on, the nose radome is larger than other versions that have just a weather radar. It's too large to just be a simple weather radar!
I would like to wait for some picture of the nose radome being opened. Then one can make conclusion on what kind of radar inside it. Or at least maybe some good measurement. The nose radome tho may not necessarily need to contain "AEW radar" as the main array but can also be some X-band or other high resolution radar for GMTI purpose.
The Janes's provisional image, beside that mistake or typo of turbofan engine which supposed to be turboprop seems to just a simple analysis just to show what's new and what might be the feature is. I'm actually more curious on why there is KJ-200 in the first place when there is already KJ-500.
The Janes's provisional image, beside that mistake or typo of turbofan engine which supposed to be turboprop seems to just a simple analysis just to show what's new and what might be the feature is. I'm actually more curious on why there is KJ-200 in the first place when there is already KJ-500.
lcloo
Captain
I suggest you go to Huitong's Chinese Military Aviation site for more information.