AWACS for future chinese carrier

[Soyuz]

I recently read an article in a british military aerospace magazine that said that the chinese navy had been developing a E-2/Yak-44 style AWACS aircraft for use on a future Chinese carrier. I was just wondering if anyone had any further info on this project or had seen any photos of a mock up perhaps? Also would it be possible to launch such an aircraft from Varyag's ski jump or would this require the installation of steam catapults?

[bd popeye]

I read something similar..but I have a picture I found...True or not? I don't know!

http://legion.wplus.net/guide/air/m/yak44-1.jpg

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I read something similar..but I have a picture I found...True or not? I don't know!

http://legion.wplus.net/guide/air/m/yak44-1.jpg

I think he means something smaller.

[Gollevainen]

Not exactly, the Y-7 is bigger than Hawkeye. The question is, as already mentioned the ski-jump. For my knowlidge the turbodrop aircrafts of this size won't be able to take of from Ski-jump. So thats basicly rules out this aircraft type in chinese service in near future (i don't belive that china is capaple to produce a steam catabult)

Awacs are tough almoust neccererity so china must look for other solutions. The most appealing is the Ka-31 or similar system in some indegenious helicopter, perhaps in Z-8.

[bd popeye]

I found that picture on the forum of "above top secrect". I'm sure some of you have posted there. I have not. Is this aircraft real or not? Anyone know?

Because of it's size this aircraft could be shore based and operate in conjunction with the "mystical" PLAN carrier. Or maybe it can be launched from a ski ramp.

Here is a link to "above top secrect" where I found a discussion about a PLAN CV. If you read the forum you will see some failimar names. :rolleyes: Some of the post are quite childish and uninformed. :cool:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread147324/pg1

[IDonT]

I found that picture on the forum of "above top secrect". I'm sure some of you have posted there. I have not. Is this aircraft real or not? Anyone know?

Because of it's size this aircraft could be shore based and operate in conjunction with the "mystical" PLAN carrier. Or maybe it can be launched from a ski ramp.

Here is a link to "above top secrect" where I found a discussion about a PLAN CV. If you read the forum you will see some failimar names. :rolleyes: Some of the post are quite childish and uninformed. :cool:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread147324/pg1

Can a turbo prop plane be lauch via ski jump?

[walter]

Can a turbo prop plane be lauch via ski jump?

it is feasible for a turboprop to make it off a ski jump. In the past, rocket assisted take-offs have been demonstrated on even larger aircraft (C-130s) than the one pictured. After take-off the rockets are jettisoned. I think such a solution is easily doable. As for the picture, I have no idea if it is real. What aircraft type is that?


http://photos.airliners.net/middle/3/0/0/700003.jpg

[walter]

nevermind, I see now it is a yak-44.

[MIGleader]

the plain in the pic is a mock up for a future carrier awacs.

the people in above top secret tend to use links that take pictures out of context.

what might a future varyag size carrier hold?

[PLABUDDY]

22 Su-27s/Su-30s and 10 helo helicopters. Personally I think Varyag is enough for PLAN now, if they are working to finish it. Then they can buy or build more advanced carriers. :)

[Soyuz]

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=91417 This is the best picture i could find it's just the corner of a model, so maybe this project isn't as advanced as i thought! Yes the bottom one is definately a Yak-44 it even has the old soviet navy flag on the side. (Is that Wen Jiabao on the right of the picture??)

[Jeff Head]

Also would it be possible to launch such an aircraft from Varyag's ski jump or would this require the installation of steam catapults?

I believe if the Varyag carries any AWAC capability, it will either be a helo based platform, or perhaps some kind of VTOL platform.

The US would do well, and has studied, creating an AWAC version of the V-22 Opsprey. They would work well on the Amphibious ships in conjunction with the F-35 JSF.

I do not believe any aircraft as big as the one pictured by popeye will be suitable for the ski jump at all. Too heavy and not enough speed, particularly without very strong catapaults.

Just my opinion.

[Jeff Head]

That aircraft looks far too big and bulky for the Varyag and its ski jump popeye. Anyhow, as I understand it, that Yak (Russian) aircraft is just a mock-up...but am still waiting for further verification of that.

I believe if the Varyag does get any AWAC capability, it will either be a helo based platform, or perhaps some kind of VTOL platform.

As I indicated to another poster, US would do well, and has studied, creating an AWAC version of the V-22 Opsprey. They would work well on the Amphibious ships in conjunction with the F-35 JSF.

Just my opinion.

By the way, I would be interested in your input/comments on this thread (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=273) about my recent trip over to Bremerton.

[Sczepan]

that aircraft can't be launched from a ski raneed , it needs catapult for carrier take off - so it could only be used, if carriers with ski rump (like the Varjag) additional have catapults in front of the angeld deck

[MIGleader]

maybe the propellors can work like rotors and the plan will be able to take off vertically.

[IDonT]

maybe the propellors can work like rotors and the plan will be able to take off vertically.


You are talking about the V-22 OPSREY. I think the US marines are putting it to service next year.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/V-22_Howitzer_lift-off.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22-pic01461.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/V-22_overpax.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22-dvic281.jpg

[walter]

that aircraft can't be launched from a ski raneed , it needs catapult for carrier take off - so it could only be used, if carriers with ski rump (like the Varjag) additional have catapults in front of the angeld deck

I said it once, I will say it again--there is another option to catapult assisted launches for an aircraft of this type--rocket assisted take off. Easy to implement, a no brainer really.

http://home.att.net/~onecowhill/wsb/media/63419/site1056.JPG

[Jeff Head]

That's off the ground. Show me a pic of a C-130 takiong off from a carrier.

While a STOL aircraft might take off from a carrier, in order to carry out its mission, particularly AWACS, it would need considerable weight for the equipment and the radar.

I believe a VTOL aircraft like an Osprey, or a helo will be the answer short of the PLAN developing a full catapault system for something like their own version of the Hawkeye.

[bd popeye]

That's off the ground. Show me a pic of a C-130 takiong off from a carri

Jeff, in 1963 the USN expermited with launching and recovering a C-130 The USS Forrestal CVA-59. It was "deck launched"

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp

[Jeff Head]

GREAT pics! Thanks popeye.

That's one of the great things about the internet...a wealth of knowledge available in an instant.

Clearly, the C-130 tests back then resulted in it not being considered for operational duty from the CV or CVN. Perhaps in an emergency or very special circumstances...but to normally carry such an aircraft in an operational mode would extremely limit other operations.

I still believe that the Varyag AWAC will most likley be helo at first, perhaps followed later by a VTOL developoment.

Until they have a full deck carrier, with cats, I do not believe they will field anything on a carrier like the Hawkeye.

Of course...this is just my opinion.

[Gollevainen]

Well i've heard that those RATO things are not quite popular onboard carriers...something to do whit the highly flamamble rocket fuels...mayby Popeye could tell more...

I once had this crazy tough that if Y-7/hawkeye size plane fitted whit similar type of engine aragment like in An-72 Coaler to provide STOL capapility?

http://www.scramble.nl/mil/2/russia/gfx/photos/orbat-cau-an72.jpg

Or what the hell...how about his one? THe Planned AWACS version of it called An-71 Madcap
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/an-72/an-71_03.jpg
http://www.aviation.ru/An/An-71.jpg

[Jeff Head]

Great pics there too! It is amazing what one can find.

I believe the US will ultimately develop an AWACS version of the V-22 Osprey. It would be a natural for any Wasp, Tarawa, or allied nation's jump jet carriers.

I would not be surprised tosee the PLAN ultimatley do something similar.

[MIGleader]

the turbo props on the model dont look big or strong enough to take off vertically like the ospry. maybe the chinese will use rokets, or maybe a combo.

its not imposible to put a catapult on the side deck of varyag.

[Jeff Head]

its not imposible to put a catapult on the side deck of varyag.

I agree that it is not impossible...but I personally believe it is unlikely.

I believe the first cats on PLAN carriers will come when they build their own.

Just my opinion.

[Su-27 Pilot]

I agree that it is not impossible...but I personally believe it is unlikely.

I believe the first cats on PLAN carriers will come when they build their own.

Just my opinion.

Good one though. PLAN also showed strong interests in getting that Russian AWACS during the Peace mission 2005.

[Jeff Head]

Good one though. PLAN also showed strong interests in getting that Russian AWACS during the Peace mission 2005.

Thanks. I guess time will tell.

[MIGleader]

russian awacs? the plan can do better thanm that. they cant just go to the russians for everything on the carrier.

cmon, if the the first chinese cvbg is varyag holding sea flankers with helix's and featuring russian awacs and escorted by sovs and kilo's, that wouldn't be a big sense of natiional pride. the plan should do something like this if they want a carrier quik, but then they should build thy're own. i heard they already are.

[bd popeye]

Well i've heard that those RATO things are not quite popular onboard carriers...something to do whit the highly flamamble rocket fuels...mayby Popeye could tell more...

Yes those rockets would not be practical on a CVN. You'd have to clear the flight deck to launch something like that. I think that on the Forrestal they just deck launched the C-130. (took off from the stern like a runway)

[sumdud]

Well i've heard that those RATO things are not quite popular onboard carriers...something to do whit the highly flamamble rocket fuels...mayby Popeye could tell more...

I once had this crazy tough that if Y-7/hawkeye size plane fitted whit similar type of engine aragment like in An-72 Coaler to provide STOL capapility?

http://www.scramble.nl/mil/2/russia/gfx/photos/orbat-cau-an72.jpg

Or what the hell...how about his one? THe Planned AWACS version of it called An-71 Madcap
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/an-72/an-71_03.jpg
http://www.aviation.ru/An/An-71.jpg
Dam.... a bit late. (Didn't America have a C-14 like this?)

But, well, it can take off in 70m, so I say it'll work on a CV(N). I don't know about the landing though, those legs are independent of each other, but we just don't know how much stress it can take.(Looks kinda flimsy.) But since it is smaller n more STOLed, I'll pick it over the Hawkeye.

As for the Hercules, it's pointless. It takes the whole deck, making it totally impractical. But why the C-2 leave the deck?

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I've read that the F-14 have been used as a mini-AWACs. Could the same be done to a future variant of the J-8II?

[MIGleader]

the mkk2 is a better mini awacs tha any j-88. china does not need a mini awacs. it needs a big, powerful awacs, a y-8 varient may do.

[Gollevainen]

weirdest AWACS confircution that i've heard is based on Su-33KUBs airframe, it tought to be similar array as in Eyrie...but this was only wild suggestion, not any official proposal....

[Sczepan]

IOr what the hell...how about his one? THe Planned AWACS version of it called An-71 Madcap ... and the Y-7 could be nice carrier-borne awacs, but both of them should need catapult to take off by a carrier (I know, someone her plead for rocket assisted take off, but I think this is to dangerous by small carrier-deck - and to complicate ....)

[sumdud]

J-8? You can't use that thing on a carrier. Its engines are still too weak, and its gears are too flimsy. And who will do the processing of the data? This is AWACS, not AEW, you need communication. How can you even do that in the su-33KUB? (Well, maybe you can give it the Prowler config and a tail radar, but the Tail radar won't do you much.)

I still go with the An-71 as the best choice.

[Lavi]

The An-71 probably is the best choice of aircraft already built and flown, but I doubt that China will be interested in putting money on develping a carrierborne variant out of it. The most probable way forward for the PLAN is to build a new design, based on an old airframe, perhaps in cooperation with Russia.

[jakub]

Well i've heard that those RATO things are not quite popular onboard carriers...something to do whit the highly flamamble rocket fuels...mayby Popeye could tell more...

I once had this crazy tough that if Y-7/hawkeye size plane fitted whit similar type of engine aragment like in An-72 Coaler to provide STOL capapility?

http://www.scramble.nl/mil/2/russia/gfx/photos/orbat-cau-an72.jpg

Or what the hell...how about his one? THe Planned AWACS version of it called An-71 Madcap
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/an-72/an-71_03.jpg
http://www.aviation.ru/An/An-71.jpg

Jak-44 was designed to launch from Kuznetsov, so no catapult, no rocket burster, Madcap was thought too big for carrier ops.

[Infra_Man99]

I believe if the Varyag carries any AWAC capability, it will either be a helo based platform, or perhaps some kind of VTOL platform.

The US would do well, and has studied, creating an AWAC version of the V-22 Opsprey. They would work well on the Amphibious ships in conjunction with the F-35 JSF.

I do not believe any aircraft as big as the one pictured by popeye will be suitable for the ski jump at all. Too heavy and not enough speed, particularly without very strong catapaults.

Just my opinion.

The Osprey needs major improvements and major changes if it is to be used as a naval AWACS.

The Osprey is still an unstable design for windy weather. It is still being worked on to land and take off in windy weather. This is bad for sea warfare.

The Osprey needs rotating wings instead of folding wings to efficiently fit on US aircraft carriers. The rotating wing will get in the way of the AWACS huge radar, unless the Osprey has a major redesign.

However, if the US Navy can do this to the Osprey or to a AWACS with Osprey capabilities, then this naval AWACS would have awesome naval capabilities.

[noone536]

i think for china to safe money they should turned old model bomber airplanes into AWACS

[Gollevainen]

Jak-44 was designed to launch from Kuznetsov, so no catapult, no rocket burster, Madcap was thought too big for carrier ops.

Nope. Perhaps the orginal design of the Kuznetsov when it still had catabults instead of Ski-jumps, a Yak-44 (or the plane that envolved to such) could have been fielded. But when the catabults were taken from the design, it ment that the AEW ability dropped considerably. Yak-44 was later adopted to serve onboard Ulyanovsk which featured catabults in the angled deck just for this reason.

Anyway, its not wise to dig threads that have been burried for three years...

[bd popeye]

The Osprey needs major improvements and major changes if it is to be used as a naval AWACS.

The Osprey is still an unstable design for windy weather. It is still being worked on to land and take off in windy weather. This is bad for sea warfare.

The Osprey needs rotating wings instead of folding wings to efficiently fit on US aircraft carriers. The rotating wing will get in the way of the AWACS huge radar, unless the Osprey has a major redesign.

However, if the US Navy can do this to the Osprey or to a AWACS with Osprey capabilities, then this naval AWACS would have awesome naval capabilities.

Ospreys have been deployed to Iraq. The Osprey has been certified to operate off of LHA/LHDs for over three years now. If you have ever been on a flight deck ..trust me it is windy.

The V-22 folds up nicely thank you. Slightly smaller than a folded CH-53.

Jeff Head has a link to an AEW version of the Osprey.

http://www.dezh.de/imghosting/bd9e0f495367cd50227f4ee1f70e3349.jpg
Download HiRes (http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/071003-N-1189B-072.jpg)

Lights on the flight deck of the multipurpose amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) illuminate a MV-22 Osprey attached to Marine Medium Tilt-rotor Squadron (VMM) 263 as it transits the Straits of Tiran.

[Pointblank]

I don't think we will see any AWACS based on the V-22 look like the E-2 or E-3 with the large dome on top. The recent trend, as shown in the Boeing Wedgetail and Erickson Erieye, is a beam on top of the airplane as the technology has advanced to a point where the electronics have shrunk, and there is less of a need for a mechanically scanned array.

[Sczepan]

I am notorious in amazing ideas:
what do you think about a derivate of this plane?
http://www.eads.com/xml/content/OF00000000400003/3/76/463763.jpg
The famous DO-31 is a VSTOL transport plane (for sure could use sky ramp to), developed from german Dornier-company.
(see: http://www.eads.com/1024/en/eads/history/airhist/1960_1969/dornier_do31_1962.html + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_31 )

Only two birds was build as I know. One of them is to visit in the "Deutsches Museum", http://www.deutsches-museum.de/uploads/pics/Do_31.jpg near munich, the other was visible at the company area in "Oberpaffenhofen". Last week I was there and missed this plane.
http://www.eads.com/xml/content/OF00000000400003/4/75/463754.jpg

In 2001 Wu Bangguo visited the factory and in 2003 the chinese D’Long International Strategic Investment and XAC (Xian Aircraft Manufactoring Corp) captured the Dornier company including the Dornier 728-programe - why not taking blue prints of this plane to?
Spannweite 18,0 m wiggspan /
Startmasse 21 000 kg (bei Senkrechtstart) take of wight (VTO)
Höchstgeschwindigkeit 710 km/h in 2500 m speed max/
Reichweite 1800 km range
Antrieb 2 x Bristol-Siddeley Pegasus (Hub- und Marschtriebwerke) normal engines
8 x Rolls-Royce RB 162 (Hubtriebwerke) VTOL engines
Schub 2 x 68,0 kN thrust normal engines
8 x 19,6 kN thrust VTOL engines

[Infra_Man99]

Ospreys have been deployed to Iraq. The Osprey has been certified to operate off of LHA/LHDs for over three years now. If you have ever been on a flight deck ..trust me it is windy.

The V-22 folds up nicely thank you. Slightly smaller than a folded CH-53.

Jeff Head has a link to an AEW version of the Osprey.

http://www.dezh.de/imghosting/bd9e0f495367cd50227f4ee1f70e3349.jpg
Download HiRes (http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/071003-N-1189B-072.jpg)

The Osprey has a long history of being more unstable in windy conditions for VTOL than helicopters. It is well-documented that the US marines are not 100% behind it until the Osprey continues to improve. I believe the US will make the Osprey a reliable design but at a high cost.

If you look closely, you'll notice that the Osprey rotates its wings to make it space efficient. It also folds its propellers, but the main space saving feature is the rotating wings. The Osprey does NOT fold its wings.

The Osprey can use more compact AEW technology to greatly minimize making major redesigns to the Osprey, but the Osprey will be at a disadvantage against a AEW plane with a large radar housed in a radome assuming everything is equal.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Osprey because it could possibly seamlessly combine VTOL of helicopters and flight of planes, but it is a very complex technology that still needs more improvements and more money, especially if it is going to be used for AEW.

I think it is obvious China is going to go for a conventional layout (folding wings, but NO rotatingwings) for their naval AWACS plane for the better value. Only much later on will China adopt Osprey's helicopter-plane features.

[bd popeye]

:offInfra_Man99, You are certainly entitled your opinion. I do not know if the Ospreys problems have been all solved.

But I do know, once again, the USN/USMC & USAF have certified the Osprey safe for flight. Despite it's long history of all sorts of trouble.

As I type this another detatchment of USMC Ospreys is being rotated to Iraq to relieve the detatchment already deployed..:off

I really think this is off topic and I apoligize for carring this on. I will end my part of this :off discussion right here.

[kenvui65]

I wonder if an airship AWACS will work for the navy? Any idea...?

[bd popeye]

I wonder if an airship AWACS will work for the navy? Any idea...?

Not in my opinion. An airship is to large and to slow..making it a great target.

[Finn McCool]

I wonder if an airship AWACS will work for the navy? Any idea...?

Well an airship doesn't necessarily have to have many metal parts which could help with stealth and make it more survivable but the main problem is that I don't think it could keep up with the fleet, and certainly not with fighter aircraft if that was required in a situation.

[bd popeye]

Well an airship doesn't necessarily have to have many metal parts which could help with stealth and make it more survivable but the main problem is that I don't think it could keep up with the fleet, and certainly not with fighter aircraft if that was required in a situation.

Good points! In addition where will it be based? If the CVSG(Carrier strike Group) deploys you need a foward base..something the PLAN sorely lacks.

:offSpeaking of carriers..A TV program named "Carriers" all about the USS Nimitz airs tonite on PBS(Public Broadcast System) in the US. Don't miss it!! True insight on the crew and inter workings of a CVN!

http://www.pbs.org/weta/carrier/ :off

[Obi Wan Russell]

An airship based AEW platform could be based aboard an auxilliary, eg a replenishment vessel with helo facilities provided the flight deck was large enough, as such it could keep within reach of the CVSG. Most airships around today have enough speed to patrol ahead of any warship but transit time to it's patrol area is far from ideal. It wouldn't have to keep pace with the fighters as they go ahead to investigate contacts and the airship would necessarily hang back out of harms way. American E-2s likewise stay out of harms way as much as possible , hence the need for long range radars. If an enemy aircraft gets within missile firing range of an AEW platform then something has gone seriously wrong somewhere, as it should be able to vector it's own fighters on to the threat long before it is in danger itself.

Having said that, I believe a ship based aircraft solution to AEW is best, and as a first step an exsisting aircraft design should be adapted, ie a twin turboprop preferrably with a degree of STOL performance. It doesn't have to be large, or even comparable in size to the Hawkeye necessarily, as it would be a first step to provide a degree of AEW cover to the fleet (which will always be better than no cover at all). A light STOL turboprop aircraft which could operate from a STOBAR carrier like Varyag without catapult assitance to launch (taking off from the angled deck, as propeller aircraft aren't usually considered suitable for ski jump launches) would be my first choice for this problem, which could then lead to something more substantial later on.

[Pointblank]

I am thinking the PLAN will use helicopter-based AEW assets first to familiarize themselves with the tactics. They can either purchase the Kamov Ka-31 AEW from Russia, or develop their own based off the Z-8 platform.

From there, if the Chinese choose to pursue a true fleet carrier, they can develop a family of aircraft that can be modified for fixed wing ASW, AEW, and COD. They do need to develop the tactics and the experience of operating one off a carrier though.

[Finn McCool]

It wouldn't have to keep pace with the fighters as they go ahead to investigate contacts and the airship would necessarily hang back out of harms way. American E-2s likewise stay out of harms way as much as possible , hence the need for long range radars. If an enemy aircraft gets within missile firing range of an AEW platform then something has gone seriously wrong somewhere, as it should be able to vector it's own fighters on to the threat long before it is in danger itself.


Yes that's what I was getting at. What I meant was the issue with transit time; if you ever had to "take a peak" and extend your radar coverage in one direction by moving your AWACS, an airship would take much too long.

[sandyj]

this aircraft was originaly designed and a prototype built as the russian answer to the U.S. carrier launched awacs. the version in the pic is a mockup of the original one before the prtotype was built.

this picture has been around since the late 90's and is far from being a new concept.

my first post here

the russian were going to use it for missile tracking out of Kamchtka island in the north pacfic. but then the cold war ended and then the money issue hit and this concept died a quick death and was never built.

the russian now use the Ka28 or 31 choppers now for there radar picket lines until something new comes along using the OKO radar system.

[crobato]

Welcome to the SDF, sandy. Its not usual to see you post in your own words too.

[gizhou]

Welcome to the SDF, sandy. Its not usual to see you post in your own words too.

Great insult - are you accusing him of plagarism?:nono:

[man overbored]

The Indian Navy approached the US about buying the E-2C for use from their converted Gorhskov. They intended to launch it over the ski jump after a take off run using most of the flight deck. An analysis was conducted that concluded a Hawkeye could not make it off the deck unless fuel was reduced such that the aircraft's usual five hour loiter time was reduced to one hour. The aircraft would have no margin for an engine failure on take off either, unlike a cat shot from a Nimitz where a Hawkeye would still fly after loosing an engine during the cat shot. Ultimately India chose not to buy E-2's.

[PrOeLiTeZ]

Crobato means that he/she usually post articles, interviews, documents etc...but no giving a personal view or opinion

[balance]

Friends,

AWACS is very important in detecting any incoming fighter or bomber. I have several questions:
1. What is the maximum altitude of AWACS operation? And what is the maximum altitude of the modern fighter such F-22, F-16?
2. What is the maximum altitude of such fighters' missiles?
3. What is the self-defense equipment of the AWACS?

The ultimate question is: Is AWACS vulnerable to fighters/bombers? And what does the PLAAF do to cover this weak point?

These are a lot of questions, and I would like to thank you for taking the time educate me about the basics of AWACS and its relationship with fighters/bombers.

[man overbored]

An AWACS is generally defenseless, relying on the fighters it helps control to protect it from attack. The actual radar horizon of the E-2 for example is highly classified but is at least 300nm and probably more. In the USN, the E-2 is data linked to the surface force and both share an integrated battle space picture. Every unit sees a combined picture generated from all the sensors in the strike group. Control of the fighters is coordinated with surface commanders. The defensive anti-air commander is not necessarily on the CV but more likely on a CG equipped with Aegis ( every CG now ). The E-2 does not act alone vectoring fighters to threats. There is a lot of computer power going on here as well to identify and prioritize threats. The same is true in the cockpit as most modern fire control radars will prioritize threats for the pilot or weapons officer to select.
Maximum altitude of most missiles depends on the altitude of the launch platform. Actual rocket burn lasts seconds, seldom longer. If a missile has to climb significantly or dive significantly this takes away from it's horizontal range. You have to think in three dimensions. Also a fighter on the deck can be given targeting data from a higher altitude asset with a longer radar horizon, or from a surface unit that is further out in the strike group. These aircraft seldome exceed 40,000 feet regardless of what the spec sheet says about their maximum altitude. What happens at high altitude is that your stall speed begins to approach your cruise speed, and the range of angle of attack the aircraft is capable of diminishes. Dogfighting at 40,000 feet is a lot more difficult due to basic aerodynamic limitations. Engine also do not tolerate high AoA at high speeds and altitudes.
Typically today a CV's escorts are well over the horizon from the CV due to the great range of modern weapons and sensors. It is nothing like WWII with the escorts grouped tightly around the "bird farm". This expands the strike group's radar horizon and increases the distance from the carrier that these ships may begin to engage incoming aircraft and missiles. If you thing about each ship having a hemisphere over it representing the range of it's weapons, you arrange these around the carrier so that they all overlap near the carrier providing long range air and ASW defenses. The Hummer sits above all of this.
Fighters will defend that AWACS. Lets face it, the Hummer is an aerodynamic slug. It has about a zero chance to protect itself. It would require a very long range missile system, and this implies you would need to devote space and weight to the necessary radars, fire control computers and install launch rails. This would greatly detract from the payload available for the Hummer's primary job of being an AWACS. Mounting something like a Sidewinder would be futile, there is no possilbe way a Hummer could maneuver sufficiently to get a shot off. For AIM-9X for example to make anything but a frontal shot ( implying the Hummer was lined up on the fighter, ha, good luck ! ) you need helmet mounted sights with all the ancillary stuff in the cockpit to track the pilot's head movements. The limited visibility from a Hummer's cockpit makes this a fantasy. You would need to have a bubble canopy and still the rotodome and those two big engines would limit where such a pilot could see. For many types of engagements even older 'Winders require the seeker to be slaved to the aircraft's intercept radar to achieve lock. No IR or IIR sensor can detect anything much beyond ten miles. This is a basic limitation of all such seekers. If something hostile makes it within ten miles of the Hummer the crew might as well bail before they are blown up cuz it will be over in a few seconds. It is pure fantasy for a Hummer to launch missiles to defend itself. Nope, the Hummer or any AWACS is completely reliant on other fighters for it's self defense, or from the missiles of the surface units in the strike group.

[PrOeLiTeZ]

AWACS aren't armed with weapons for offensive purposes its only got defensive counter measures (chaffs, flares, decoys, jammers, etc...). Survival of AWACS are the escort fighters responsibility in protecting their bird. No matter how high your AWACS will be an AAM can strike it. That is unless a dumb pilot shoots way out of its AAM range and looses fuel by the time it gets to the AWACS. AWACS can't manuver much so they can't do what fighters do. That is to manuver and make the AAM follow it, draining its fuel until it runs out. Remember though AWACS don't need to operate within its enemy range of engagment they have a large search radius so the AWACS can close enough but still beyond the fighters or G2A enegagment. They can operate outside their enemys area of dominance. AWACS are basically top heavey fat bird floating in the air with guards around it.

[man overbored]

There are a couple of other considerations. The carrier strike group can go EMCON,or emissions control and simply disappear. The carrier does not need to radiate to maintain situational awareness or to communicate. Data links are very discrete. They are narrow pencil beams and line of sight. They do not radiate in a way that could ever be DF'ed, nor can they be read unless the sensor manages to get into the beam of the data link. With Link 16 battle group assets can share battle space data among each other including ship to aircraft, ship to ship, aircraft to aircraft and ship to satellite, all while maintaining radio silence. Carrier flight ops are routinely conducted under radio silence as well. For situational awareness the surface ships keep their radars on in a passive listening mode and rely on something like an AWACS for situational awareness, communicating with the AWACS directly via Link 16 or indirectly via satellite. An AWACS or two in the region does not give away the presence of a carrier strike group. An enemy has no idea there is a carrier around just because the AWACS is up and flying. The carrier can ( and usually does ) hide in weather to defeat satellites. A diversion can be made by using a cargo ship equipped with a special 20 foot van that transmits signals that mimick the emissions of the radars, navigation aids and recordings of typical battle group communications to fool any listening or direction finding gear into thinking this cargo ship is the carrier strike group. Meanwhile the actual carrier strike group is hiding unseen and undetected under a weather front on radio silence on it's way to do it's business.

[adeptitus]

Friends,

AWACS is very important in detecting any incoming fighter or bomber. I have several questions:
1. What is the maximum altitude of AWACS operation? And what is the maximum altitude of the modern fighter such F-22, F-16?
2. What is the maximum altitude of such fighters' missiles?
3. What is the self-defense equipment of the AWACS?

The ultimate question is: Is AWACS vulnerable to fighters/bombers? And what does the PLAAF do to cover this weak point?

These are a lot of questions, and I would like to thank you for taking the time educate me about the basics of AWACS and its relationship with fighters/bombers.


Most AWACS aircraft have service ceilings of ~40,000 ft, but that's not its optimum operating altitude.

Modern jet fighters have service ceilings of >50,000 ft, some, such as the MiG-25/31, goes up to 68,000 ft.

Most short & medium ranged AAM specs don't list max altitude data, because interceptions are not likely to occur at very high altitudes. Long-range missiles designed specifically for interceptors, such as the AIM-54 Phoenix & R-33/AA-9, have flight ceilings of 80,000-100,000 ft (24km-30km).

Modern AWACS only carry "soft-kill" defenses (ECM, decoys).

========

As an interesting side note, I think the largest aircraft to carry the AIM-9 is the RAF Nimrod.

[sandyj]

Friends,

AWACS is very important in detecting any incoming fighter or bomber. I have several questions:
1. What is the maximum altitude of AWACS operation? And what is the maximum altitude of the modern fighter such F-22, F-16?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
answer to ??
Awacs are very comfortable at 10,000 + feet they need a foot print of at least 400 miles for full coverage of a carrier battle fleet.
as they control a four fighter high cap as well as certain types of ship missile defense systems as well.

f-22 can run in the 60,000 foot level very comforatably -- F-16 top at 30,000 feet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What is the maximum altitude of such fighters' missiles?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
answer to ??

depends on what missile they are carrying but normaly the altitude that the aircraft is flying at the moment they turn them loose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What is the self-defense equipment of the AWACS?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
answer to ??
flares and electronic jamming equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ultimate question is: Is AWACS vulnerable to fighters/bombers? And what does the PLAAF do to cover this weak point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
AWACS are vunerable to BVR missiles and to the non emmittting type of missle which ride the radar beam of the sending aircraft.

to cover this weak spot as with any navy using them -- it is see them first before they see you and act accordingly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are a lot of questions, and I would like to thank you for taking the time educate me about the basics of AWACS and its relationship with fighters/bombers.

[peterAustralia]

hi all

Just my 0.02c worth here. I would assert that an AEW for a carrier would work well as an unmanned aircraft. The reasoning being that having an unmanned plane reduces weight and reduces maintenance. For example no cockpit, ejection seat etc is required. Having a composite unmanned aircraft results in greater simplicity for little things like inspection panels. As an unlikely structural failure will not lead to loss of life, things like spar inspection hatches can be eliminated.

The thinking behind the sketch is simplicity, getting the design back to its minimum in order to decrease structure weight, decrease overall weight and to lengthen endurance. The unusual configuration should allow for greater maneuverability in landing, lower landing speeds and shorter take off roll. Landings at high angle of attack might be possible. Have put my humble ideas here for comment.

http://www.geocities.com/peterevans_33/radarplane.html

regards,