PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread

[Blitzo]

I'm pretty surprised no-one else has noticed this already, but it should be more like 'spot the similarities' with those two pictures.

Notice how they both have the same tail number of 'T0518'. I call PS on the second one. The radar dish on the KJ2000 is significantly bigger than the one on that Y8. If they went with a rotating two-faced array, they could probably get similar sized ESA panels in it to give similar range performance, but if they went with a 3-faced fixed array, then each array would be considerably smaller, with corresponding reduction in performance.

Actually the T0518 Y-8 platform could very well be a testbed for AWACS radars... Kind of like the Y-8 "079" is used to test out radomes and radars for other aircraft, and sometimes engines.

This specific KJ-2000 "lite" radar is meant for the carrier based Y-7 -- the PLAN could be going for continuous all round coverage rather than the extra range. The E-2D's aesa can rotate 6 times per minute.

I won't call PS on this, because we haven't got a picture from which this aesa radar could've been transposed onto, and huitong's said the Y-7 awacs will use a miniaturized version of the KJ-2000. All the numbers for me at least, seem to add up.

 

[plawolf]

Actually the T0518 Y-8 platform could very well be a testbed for AWACS radars... Kind of like the Y-8 "079" is used to test out radomes and radars for other aircraft, and sometimes engines.

This specific KJ-2000 "lite" radar is meant for the carrier based Y-7 -- the PLAN could be going for continuous all round coverage rather than the extra range. The E-2D's aesa can rotate 6 times per minute.

I won't call PS on this, because we haven't got a picture from which this aesa radar could've been transposed onto, and huitong's said the Y-7 awacs will use a miniaturized version of the KJ-2000. All the numbers for me at least, seem to add up.

Is it confirmed that they have an AWACS testbed? Same with the Y7 carrier AWACS.

On a more general note, it would be interesting to know if rotating array AWACS could provide off-board guidance for missiles. It obviously won't be able to for SARH missiles, but theoretically, it shouldn't be an issue with anything that has its own active seeker.

On the face of it, a 3-faced fixed array may be desirable for a carrier AWACS to cue ship based SAMs, or even fighter launched AAMs without the need for the launch platform to also go active, and could also help naval SAMs to engage targets below the radar horizon. However, the HHQ9 should be active homing, so the difference between 2 and 3-faced arrays would not be critical in this regard. The SAM that would benefit the most would be the HH16, but I don't believe it has the range to be effectively used that way.

Based on that, I am not so convinced it would be worth the trade-off in range and performance to opt for a smaller array size compared to a rotating design. 5 seconds refresh rate isn't that bad, and I'm sure it would be possible to reduce that further if needed.

Another general question would be whether fixed or rotating arrays would have any impact on the radar's anti-stealth or ECM/EW capabilities/potential.

 

[Blitzo]

Is it confirmed that they have an AWACS testbed? Same with the Y7 carrier AWACS.

It's as confirmed as "confirmed for the under development PLA projects" can be, and having a "dedicated" testbed seems a logical decision. They've already got such a platform to test out new fighter radars/radomes, and another for jet engines, it's not inconceivable to convert a Y-8 into being able to hold multiple types of radars.

 

[Red Moon]

I'm pretty surprised no-one else has noticed this already, but it should be more like 'spot the similarities' with those two pictures.

Notice how they both have the same tail number of 'T0518'. I call PS on the second one. The radar dish on the KJ2000 is significantly bigger than the one on that Y8. If they went with a rotating two-faced array, they could probably get similar sized ESA panels in it to give similar range performance, but if they went with a 3-faced fixed array, then each array would be considerably smaller, with corresponding reduction in performance.

Welcome back!

 

[plawolf]

Welcome back!

Thanks, good to be back.

 

[plawolf]

It's as confirmed as "confirmed for the under development PLA projects" can be, and having a "dedicated" testbed seems a logical decision. They've already got such a platform to test out new fighter radars/radomes, and another for jet engines, it's not inconceivable to convert a Y-8 into being able to hold multiple types of radars.

No need to get defensive, of course it would make sense to have such a testbed, I just wondered if there was anything in the way that one exists to better judge if that picture is real, of just a good PS.

 

[Quickie]

Is it confirmed that they have an AWACS testbed? Same with the Y7 carrier AWACS.

On a more general note, it would be interesting to know if rotating array AWACS could provide off-board guidance for missiles. It obviously won't be able to for SARH missiles, but theoretically, it shouldn't be an issue with anything that has its own active seeker.

On the face of it, a 3-faced fixed array may be desirable for a carrier AWACS to cue ship based SAMs, or even fighter launched AAMs without the need for the launch platform to also go active, and could also help naval SAMs to engage targets below the radar horizon. However, the HHQ9 should be active homing, so the difference between 2 and 3-faced arrays would not be critical in this regard. The SAM that would benefit the most would be the HH16, but I don't believe it has the range to be effectively used that way.

Based on that, I am not so convinced it would be worth the trade-off in range and performance to opt for a smaller array size compared to a rotating design. 5 seconds refresh rate isn't that bad, and I'm sure it would be possible to reduce that further if needed.

Another general question would be whether fixed or rotating arrays would have any impact on the radar's anti-stealth or ECM/EW capabilities/potential.

The smaller array size may not matter much if two of the array panels can work together to direct the scanning cone to the same target. Not sure how effective is this though.

 

[Blitzo]

No need to get defensive, of course it would make sense to have such a testbed, I just wondered if there was anything in the way that one exists to better judge if that picture is real, of just a good PS.

Err I wasn't defensive, the way I wrote it just made it blunt, my bads.

The way to judge whether that picture is real or PS is if someone can bring out a picture of the original un PSed picture -- if they can't then it'd be safe to assume it's real.

 

[kroko]

From huitong, it turns out this is the testbed for the Y-7/carrier based fixed wing awacs.
Now that I think about it, that radar would be proportionally way smaller than the larger equivalent on the KJ-2000.

Does anyone has photos/images of that y-7 awacs? if so, it could be proof that china is seriously developing aircraft carrier catapults

 

[Blitzo]

Does anyone has photos/images of that y-7 awacs? if so, it could be proof that china is seriously developing aircraft carrier catapults

Apart from this:

We don't have real photos... But it's very likely to exist, though keep in mind just because you have an aircraft like Y-7 or E-2 doesn't mean you need catapults to launch them from a flight deck. I think northrop grumman offered the E-2 to the indian navy with the premise that it can operate from a STOBAR carrier.

That being said it's almost a given that the PLAN are looking at catapults, whether they be steam or EM, for future carriers. I wouldn't be surprised if their first batch of carriers even had cats.