PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread

[asif iqbal]

ZDK-03 was developed according to PAF requirements and KJ-200 for Chinese requirements. That's that.

As for KJ-200 crash, the same fix to the category 3 platform for KJ-200 also was applied to ZDK-03's platform. They are using the same platform. So, I don't see how that's a valid point.

Luckily the PLAAF and most of the worlds airforces do not take that view and rightly so

When a aircraft goes down especially when it's a high end aircraft like a AWACS it is standard procedure to ground all aircrafts, even after birds strikes aircrafts of similar variants are grounded, when in 2006 RAF Nimrod went down the entire fleet was grounded, even the entire USAF F22 Raptor force was grounded just because of oxygen issue and if I remember correctly the entire fleet was grounded because of a canopy issue

KJ-200 was undergoing testing of avionics and electronics it had 40 people on board this was obviously a high profile mission, it was carrying a radar and it was lost, how it was lost why it was lost is not important at this stage but what is important is Chinas way of handling the aftermath, they stripped down the entire establishment worked from bottom up and did not export any of its variants, no doubt further modifications and aerodynamic testing was carried out to avoid a similar crash, how do you know the platform did not crash due to balance beam, and the last time I checked the platforms arent exactly identical

When a crash happens you don't just say its platform issue lets carry on, why do you think there was a delay, if it was a platform issue surely they could have just pushed on, no, that's not the way its works in the Air Force, there are rules and regulations there is accountability and responsibility, there are consequences and there is no shame in admitting and accepting it

 

[tphuang]

Luckily the PLAAF and most of the worlds airforces do not take that view and rightly so

When a aircraft goes down especially when it's a high end aircraft like a AWACS it is standard procedure to ground all aircrafts, even after birds strikes aircrafts of similar variants are grounded, when in 2006 RAF Nimrod went down the entire fleet was grounded, even the entire USAF F22 Raptor force was grounded just because of oxygen issue and if I remember correctly the entire fleet was grounded because of a canopy issue

KJ-200 was undergoing testing of avionics and electronics it had 40 people on board this was obviously a high profile mission, it was carrying a radar and it was lost, how it was lost why it was lost is not important at this stage but what is important is Chinas way of handling the aftermath, they stripped down the entire establishment worked from bottom up and did not export any of its variants, no doubt further modifications and aerodynamic testing was carried out to avoid a similar crash, how do you know the platform did not crash due to balance beam, and the last time I checked the platforms arent exactly identical

When a crash happens you don't just say its platform issue lets carry on, why do you think there was a delay, if it was a platform issue surely they could have just pushed on, no, that's not the way its works in the Air Force, there are rules and regulations there is accountability and responsibility, there are consequences and there is no shame in admitting and accepting it

I really don't understand where you got the idea that China continued with the platform. The program was paused for over 1 year to fix the category 3 platform issues. And all of the other systems using category 3 platform has benefited from that.

I mean there are pictures of ZDK-03 and KJ-200. I would be enlightened if you can point on where they different. Granted, I haven't really looked very carefully at them, but they look the same to me. You can also take a look at the pictures of KJ-200 before and after the crash to see where the changes are. It took them a couple of years to fix the issues with the platform. All of the production KJ-200 are now using the new platform.

 

[asif iqbal]

I really don't understand where you got the idea that China continued with the platform. The program was paused for over 1 year to fix the category 3 platform issues. And all of the other systems using category 3 platform has benefited from that.

I mean there are pictures of ZDK-03 and KJ-200. I would be enlightened if you can point on where they different. Granted, I haven't really looked very carefully at them, but they look the same to me. You can also take a look at the pictures of KJ-200 before and after the crash to see where the changes are. It took them a couple of years to fix the issues with the platform. All of the production KJ-200 are now using the new platform.

Again you are missing the point, Sino-Pak AWACS deal goes back almost over a decade, and I have been following it all along, however after the crash in 2006 of the KJ-200 the balance beam was out of the question for export, maybe you think that the platform crashed and the balance bean was recovered intact? I highly doubt that, it was a prototype undergoing high level testing and many high ranking operators went down with the aircraft all killed, they took all the experience and skills with them, this balance bean was only one of a few prototype PLAAF had, it was lost and destroyed and this caused a delay and setback in the KJ-200 AWACS and balance beam AWACS in general, it was back to square one again to re-build

Your point about the platform would only be valid if KJ-200 crashed recently, as in today, it would not cause delay in the production of new AWACS as they have balance beam in operation in pretty good numbers, back in 2006 they only had maybe 1 or 2 test balance beam, you losses one of them and that’s 50% lost equipment not to mention the people who died, it was back to the drawing board for balance beam and it was much quicker and easier to make rotodome for export specific to customer needs

there is a big difference between a test aircraft going down and an operational aircraft going down, the latter will not delay but the first one will

 

[Deino]

To admit I have that strange feeling that here a few things are getting mixed.

First of all I never meant that the PAF was only to allowed to take an inferior product or the loosing one as such the worse operation one. As far as I know both were simply concurring ones in their original intention and the KJ-200 was ckosen due to fit better to the PLAAF's requirements. That at this point has nothing to to with the PAF or their requirements.

IMO since it was a high priority project for the PLAAf it was as such not on offer and as such not available for any potential costomer. That might be different now - I don't know - but when the PAF requested one, it was not and as such the ZDK-03 was a viable option, which maybe even suited the PAF better.

What then happened was the terrible crash but that again had nothing to do to the avionics or radar since following the official crash report it was an icing problem, which caused the crash:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As such procurrement for the PLAAF and manufacturing of all Cat. III platforms were delayed until the problems were solved. That the PAF ordered their aircrfat only later was maybe some kind of luck but would that be earlier, it surely would have affected the delivery since both aircraft have the same airframe.

Deino

 

[tphuang]

Again you are missing the point, Sino-Pak AWACS deal goes back almost over a decade, and I have been following it all along, however after the crash in 2006 of the KJ-200 the balance beam was out of the question for export, maybe you think that the platform crashed and the balance bean was recovered intact

The rotodome version of Y-8 came out before KJ-200 crashed. It was what PAF wanted from the start.

I highly doubt that, it was a prototype undergoing high level testing and many high ranking operators went down with the aircraft all killed, they took all the experience and skills with them, this balance bean was only one of a few prototype PLAAF had, it was lost and destroyed and this caused a delay and setback in the KJ-200 AWACS and balance beam AWACS in general, it was back to square one again to re-build

Your point about the platform would only be valid if KJ-200 crashed recently, as in today, it would not cause delay in the production of new AWACS as they have balance beam in operation in pretty good numbers, back in 2006 they only had maybe 1 or 2 test balance beam, you losses one of them and that’s 50% lost equipment not to mention the people who died, it was back to the drawing board for balance beam and it was much quicker and easier to make rotodome for export specific to customer needs

there is a big difference between a test aircraft going down and an operational aircraft going down, the latter will not delay but the first one will

They lost 30 some people. 38th institute is a huge place with a lot of engineers. By then, they had already spent as much time testing on the radar and C&C system as they had on KJ-2000. The problem was with the platform, not the radar. You loose one platform, you can still continue finish testing the radar and C&C element with the other platform. They only ever had one KJ-2000 prototype. That never seemed to be a problem. So your argument that they had to go back to the drawing board doesn't work.

If they had to go back to square one with the design, it would've taken much longer than a year to get the production version out with a modified platform. Think about it, they had to identify the problem with the platform, come up with a fix, build a new one and then install the AEWC&C equipments on it. That took just over a year. If they had to re-test the radar, how long do you think it would've taken?

 

[asif iqbal]

So you are basically saying that the loss of the KJ-200 did not delay or effect the PLAAF AWACS programme? No chance and No way, I mean how many reports does it say that the crash was a major set back for PLAAF because of the loss of key personal and key components, need I even post them, you are just giving your opinion on the matter and just ignoring the facts

Go to the AFM May 2012 issue and they even talk about KJ-200 and the delays, I will scan it and post it when I get time

And the programme may have resumed but when did a balance beam on a new platform actually fly again operationally, wasn't it like few years back so that's longer than one year, actually then KJ-2000 programme was probably faster than the KJ-200

Anytime a aircraft goes down it effects the programme, no matter how good a avitaion sector one had that is a inherit effect of a crash, you can't separate the two

That is your opinion on the matter, that's fine by me, I have mine

 

[tphuang]

So you are basically saying that the loss of the KJ-200 did not delay or effect the PLAAF AWACS programme? No chance and No way, I mean how many reports does it say that the crash was a major set back for PLAAF because of the loss of key personal and key components, need I even post them, you are just giving your opinion on the matter and just ignoring the facts

Go to the AFM May 2012 issue and they even talk about KJ-200 and the delays, I will scan it and post it when I get time

And the programme may have resumed but when did a balance beam on a new platform actually fly again operationally, wasn't it like few years back so that's longer than one year, actually then KJ-2000 programme was probably faster than the KJ-200

Anytime a aircraft goes down it effects the programme, no matter how good a avitaion sector one had that is a inherit effect of a crash, you can't separate the two

That is your opinion on the matter, that's fine by me, I have mine

Look, Deino and I are not exactly novices on Chinese aviation, so I think you should give a little more credence to what we are saying. The crash of #2 KJ-200 prototype happened on June 3rd, 2006. We had pictures of new KJ-200 units by early 2008. If I remember correctly, they were even used for security at the time of Beijing Olympics. That's just over a year.

We all have different opinions, but you are using a very illogical argument here. I am saying that the cause of the KJ-200 crash in 2006 was due to wing surface icing on the platform. That's why they needed to fix the platform. Of course the program was delayed, because KJ-200 intends to use that platform. No one here says the program was not delayed. That platform had problems and needed changes. And now, we see several projects using the same platform as KJ-200. ZDK-03 is one of those projects. That's why I asked you to point out the differences in their platforms if you can see them.

Somehow, you took that as me saying KJ-200 was not delayed.

The other things is that both ZDK-03 and KJ-200 are developed by the 38th institute. If personnel loses in KJ-200 hurt the development time of KJ-200, it would've done the same for ZDK-03. They have a pool of engineers and they are put within the company where they are needed. ZDK-03 can only gain from the experiences of the KJ-200 project.

Nowhere in any of my posts was I saying ZDK-03 was an inferior product. I wrote
"ZDK-03 was developed according to PAF requirements and KJ-200 for Chinese requirements. That's that."
I don't even understand why you got so defensive unless you feel compelled to persuade the Chinese members here that KJ-200 is worse than ZDK-03.

 

[no_name]

Some said crew overloading is also a factor, basically that it was the last verification flight and that some people who are not involved with the flight testing got on board through connections. Is this credible?

 

[Ricksk1d]

Good Morning Gentlemen,

I am a new member of this forum and I am hoping that some of you may be able to help me with research that I am currentlu undertaking. Firstly apologies for going "off topic" but I think that this may be the best thread in which to start. I am currently researching the History of AEW&C and its future so would like to wind the clock back here slightly to see if any of the experts in the field here can help.

I am currently focussing on the Kong Jiang-1 or Tu-4 "Bull" AEW aircraft that all of us enthusiasts have seen pictures of, which is I believe in a Beijing Aviation Museum. Can any one enlighten me on the following:

Date of entry into service

Development

Radar type / Range / specifications

Crew numbers

Number of airframes

Actual Role

Base Location

Retirement Date

Any other useful information

I am trying to cover the whole field in my research, from the TRE ACI Wellington, right up to the latest fascinating platforms emerging from China.

Thank you in advance for any members willing to help.

Regards

Ian S.

 

[asif iqbal]

Look, Deino and I are not exactly novices on Chinese aviation, so I think you should give a little more credence to what we are saying. The crash of #2 KJ-200 prototype happened on June 3rd, 2006. We had pictures of new KJ-200 units by early 2008. If I remember correctly, they were even used for security at the time of Beijing Olympics. That's just over a year.

We all have different opinions, but you are using a very illogical argument here. I am saying that the cause of the KJ-200 crash in 2006 was due to wing surface icing on the platform. That's why they needed to fix the platform. Of course the program was delayed, because KJ-200 intends to use that platform. No one here says the program was not delayed. That platform had problems and needed changes. And now, we see several projects using the same platform as KJ-200. ZDK-03 is one of those projects. That's why I asked you to point out the differences in their platforms if you can see them.

Somehow, you took that as me saying KJ-200 was not delayed.

The other things is that both ZDK-03 and KJ-200 are developed by the 38th institute. If personnel loses in KJ-200 hurt the development time of KJ-200, it would've done the same for ZDK-03. They have a pool of engineers and they are put within the company where they are needed. ZDK-03 can only gain from the experiences of the KJ-200 project.

Nowhere in any of my posts was I saying ZDK-03 was an inferior product. I wrote
"ZDK-03 was developed according to PAF requirements and KJ-200 for Chinese requirements. That's that."
I don't even understand why you got so defensive unless you feel compelled to persuade the Chinese members here that KJ-200 is worse than ZDK-03.

Ok if that is the case then i see the point, which isnt much different from what i was saying in my posts