Maybe the enemy fighter can't get any closer due to the AWAC's fighter escorts?
I just gave one possible scenario. There can be others. Being more maneuverable is always a benefit regardless.
PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread
- Thread starter Sczepan
- Start date
I just gave one possible scenario. There can be others. Being more maneuverable is always a benefit regardless.
Sure, you can add in other factors where you have allied manned fighter and/or UCAV cover closer to the frontlines.
But what if I'm piloting a J-20 or J-35A (which are harder to be reliably detected and tracked by your assets) that is paired with loyal wingman UCAVs that are just as equally stealthy and are able to stay much further ahead of the formation, where they could get closer to your aircraft before launching their AAMs?
Even worse - What if I'm piloting the J-36 or J-XDS that comes with ULO, whereby the chances of your assets being able to reliably detect and track my aircrafts will only degrade even further?
Worse still - What if my J-36 or J-XDS is paired with loyal wingman UCAVs like in the 1st scenario? Or even loyal wingman UCAVs with close to or equal levels of ULO as my J-36/J-XDS?
And what if I throw my allied EW and ECM support into the equation? Etc etc.
Of course, you're talking about one scenario. But as we all oughta know - Only in very specific situations and when the stars align, where AEW&C aircrafts (and other special mission aircrafts) can successfully dodge enemy AAMs.
In most cases, it's pretty much a death sentence. That's why they stay far behind the frontlines and field countermeasures of their own (chaffs, towed/flying decoys, perhaps even micro-AAMs or laser pods in the future) to increase their own survivability, alongside greater degrees of network integration on the battlefield. The additional maneuverabilty boost from operating military transporter platforms for special mission aircrafts doesn't really constitute much of a factor in the grand scheme of things, to be honest.
Last edited:
In other words, the extremely marginal (to the point of worthlessness) advantage of a couple extra Gs of overload for an AWACS is vastly outweighed by the extra costs of overbuilding the aircraft beyond what is necessary and the fuel costs. Especially when the PLAAF will be procuring them in great numbers.
Something like that, yes.
lcloo
Major
If COMAC had to stop producing C919 due to Leap1-C ban, I think PLAAF could help to order WS-20 engined C919 for troop/personnel transport, VIP transport and air borned command posts. This will keep COMAC production to continue with minimum interuption in production run. Currently PLAAF has 6 Boeing 737 for VIP transport and air borne command posts.
They will need to test WS-20 engined C919 though, and this will take some time.
As for AEW-C aircraft, flight test on Y20 is nearly completed, if not already completed. So to save time for deployment of next generation AEW-C aircraft, Y20 air frame is still preferred, I guessed.
Those don't particularly require the oversized nature of the voluminous cargo hold; airliner airframes are very much able to do so as well, and more importantly they tend to have greater longitudinal internal space, which is more relevant for AEW&C and other special mission roles and installing internal equipment.
Conformal sensors or EW arrays doesn't particularly depend on fuselage cross section between equivalent weight class military transports and airliner airframes.
Just accept that airliner airframes are more preferable than military transport airframes for the AEW&C role.
Isn't it based on the CFM-56? It probably isn't any worse. And guess what most aircraft in China run on still?
If one is satisfied for C919 to have engine performance normal for 20-30 years ago, then sure.
But C919 is meant to be a competitor to the likes of A320neo, Boeing 737max, and CJ1000A is meant to be an approximate equivalent to LEAP1.
Essentially one has to ask whether the time, money, and aerospace engineering resources needed to integrate and test WS-20 to C919 is worth it, for an engine that would be markedly inferior to what C919 was intended for, versus simply just waiting for CJ1000A which seems to be proceeding apace.
Even if the idea is to develop a domestic-militarized version of C919 with WS-20s, the time and resources needed may not necessarily help with allowing the C919 fuselage production line and other-subsystems to remain active.
