My bad, post deleted.
PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread
- Thread starter Sczepan
- Start date
My bad, post deleted.
You really should better check what you post! The image is clearly from 2020 so almost 3.5 years ago, when the KJ-500 was built ... as such they cannot be KJ-700 - which even more look very much different - and do not add up to the list posted yesterday.
Wow, that's quite a major shortfall they have... and the E-7s won't be available until after 2027. E-2s won't play much of a role if CSGs are kept back. The PLA has quite a large advantage in AEW now..
Some new information from @斯文的土匪--- on Weibo, i.e. the guy who first posted about the radomes of the KJ-700 (and allegedly KJ-3000) at a certain test facility.
One - On the KJ-500, KJ-600, KJ-700 and the alleged KJ-3000:
Two - On what the KJ-700 actually offers to the PLA's AEW&C capabilities:
Link to post:
(Both the comparison photo and the posts are still available today, so it's likely that the higher-ups aren't that concerned about secrecy on said topic.)
Initial post:
Quote post:
(For note: I've actually waited since mid-June (when these posts were made by him) to see if there's any major rebuke/criticism on his statements, and/or retractions of his posts before posting them here.)
Though, as he claimed that the KJ-700 is a 4th-gen AEW&C aircraft - I'd like to be cautious somewhat and categorize it as a 3.5th-gen AEW&C aircraft first. (Maybe the alleged KJ-3000 will be the 4th-gen AEW&C aircraft instead?)
It should also be noted that since this guy don't exactly post on Weibo as often (and that he's not as well-known and reputable in the PLA-watching community as the likes of Cute Orca and Yankee-&-Co.), I'd advice at least some degree of caution.
One - On the KJ-500, KJ-600, KJ-700 and the alleged KJ-3000:
In point form, roughly translated:
Two - On what the KJ-700 actually offers to the PLA's AEW&C capabilities:
Link to post:
(Both the comparison photo and the posts are still available today, so it's likely that the higher-ups aren't that concerned about secrecy on said topic.)
Initial post:
In point form, roughly translated:
Quote post:
In point form, roughly translated:
(For note: I've actually waited since mid-June (when these posts were made by him) to see if there's any major rebuke/criticism on his statements, and/or retractions of his posts before posting them here.)
Though, as he claimed that the KJ-700 is a 4th-gen AEW&C aircraft - I'd like to be cautious somewhat and categorize it as a 3.5th-gen AEW&C aircraft first. (Maybe the alleged KJ-3000 will be the 4th-gen AEW&C aircraft instead?)
It should also be noted that since this guy don't exactly post on Weibo as often (and that he's not as well-known and reputable in the PLA-watching community as the likes of Cute Orca and Yankee-&-Co.), I'd advice at least some degree of caution.
Last edited:
So is the KJ-700 a replacement rather than complement to the KJ-500 (strictly additional rather than different functionality)? I.e. production of the latter should have ended now?
Yes.
Otherwise, why would they even develop that new model of rotodome for the KJ-700? That rotodome and its associated systems aren't exactly easy and cheap to develop and manufacture.
This is alongside all the other brand-new and upgraded systems onboard the KJ-700 over the KJ-500, including that huge EO head at the nose.
No indications/observations have suggested that to be the case as of present, especially considering that (if said information by @斯文的土匪--- is accurate) the KJ-700 had just entered service this year.
In fact, Shaanxi AC may be gradually winding down KJ-500 production (while fulfilling the remaining outstanding orders from the PLAAF and PLANAF) while simultaneously ramping up KJ-700 production as we speak.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Having a few extra seats and a galley for comfort breaks is not the same as having a full 1/3 crew onboard for shift work.
Sitting in a more padded chair doesn’t offer that much relief. If you wanted to do shift work, you will need bunk beds onboard to allow crews to properly recover after a long and exhausting shift.
And just how rested were you after napping on flights? Feel fresh as a daisy and ready to do a full 8 hour shift of heavy mental load and constant focus where any tiny slip up or lapse might cost lives?
You say near-peer conflict but still seem to expect it to be like all the previous NATO wars were staying in the rear gives absolute safety. In a near-peer fight, opfor will have the means, will and capability to penetrate into your rear to hunt and kill your HVTs like AWACS.
That is a core reason why you don’t actually want to put more crews onboard than is strictly necessary. Because each sortie will carry a very real risk of combat loss. And AWACS don’t have ejection seats.
As the Russians are finding out, replacing trained and seasoned crews can be harder than building new AWACS planes.
For superpowers like the US and China that can operate triple digit AWACS planes and have significant manufacturing capabilities for replacements and even fleet expansion, it may well be that in wartime they elect to loft multiple AWACS with partial crew loads to cover the same airspace rather than send one fully loaded AWACS to do the same job to add redundancy and make penetration attempts much harder for opfor stealths.
And if you have triple digit AWACS planes, you will have a tough enough job crewing them and having second or even third shift replacements never mind carrying a spare shift worth of crews onboard.
I think this league difference is why is not realistic to compare Chinese or American AWACS doctrine with smaller airforces that might only have a handful of AWACS planes. In which case it makes far more sense to maximise the amount of time each AWACS on stay on station.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
I was pointing out that some awacs do have the facilities you stated that most don’t. In fact the majority do.
Oh sure. However the point is that they do have breaks and even in combat operations it’s going to be rare for all stations to be manned particularly as many moder
I would beg to differ on that assumption of my assessment. First off n past conflict the U.S. and NATO established dominance using previous generations of platforms in a very different context. In Iraq the Iraqi airforces were virtually destroyed in the span of a day. In Afghanistan it was nonexistent. In Serbia it there was resistance but it broke down fairly fast. These conflicts were decisively one sided in the air war.
In a future near peer. First the scale of conflict has increased substantially. Second both sides are going to have IAD zones and fourth Gen fighters in support of their AWACS. If that’s not enough EW and even countermeasures are in play. This is going to significantly eat into the range of AWACS killers as those missiles are already trying to operate at their maximum range making them susceptible to spoofing and jamming. So hunting HVTs isn’t going to be easy. The platforms hunting HVT are farther being hunted themselves. The only assets that might have degrees of impunity are penetration aircraft with reduced signatures. Yet with EW and counter radar they are going to be degraded either operating radar off or in a reduced emissions mode.
Which is why you don’t put them at the point of the spear. They are a standoff asset.
A high value one as you put it.
There is a clear difference in doctrine. Absolutely. Especially between Chinese and American AWACS. Even between American AWACS and AEW.
AEW like the E2 Hawkeye may now have refueling but they at most have a crew of 5 there primarily for warning about incoming missiles and threats to the Mother ship. In a ground based role they are a regional defense asset again hunting for intruders.
AWACS like the E3 and E7 are a higher tier they are Expeditionary Theater control deployed globally so on station time is more important. Hence the refueling hence the rest area. Globaleye sits below this trying to offer similar capabilities at a lower size investment with a bonus of some surface ISR.
My point was to show how AWACS can and do have rest areas. No not bunks though there are military aircraft that do have those. Those are generally widebody based VVIP or flying nuclear command posts.
The Chinese AWACS are in middle tier. They are regional. As such they don’t need as much in rest or refueling. It’s likely part of why they favor the Y8/Y9 family. They could eventually evolve to expeditionary operations but they are not there yet. It’s At this stage still tied to a denial stratagem.