PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread

[gelgoog]

The whole point of those rules of having a strict civilian business were to import Western aircraft components. If those become unavailable then why bother keeping this separation?

 

[Tomboy]

bro i don't understand why you insisting on C919 military version.

It's just like the others mentioned theres just so much advantages over a military transport, shame that advanced electronics has to be limited by old airframes. I believe the rules for no military use in the first place was to prevent US sanctions but nevertheless sanctions are already placed on the program and I doubt the US would be buying any C919s or any C series aircraft nor would any of the countries where US has a strong influence on while potential international customers would all be countries with strong ties with China so I doubt they care too much about China militarising it.

 

[sunnymaxi]

It's just like the others mentioned theres just so much advantages over a military transport, shame that advanced electronics has to be limited by old airframes. I believe the rules for no military use in the first place was to prevent US sanctions but nevertheless sanctions are already placed on the program and I doubt the US would be buying any C919s or any C series aircraft nor would any of the countries where US has a strong influence on while potential international customers would all be countries with strong ties with China so I doubt they care too much about China militarising it.

C919 is fully localized except Engine.. now its up to COMAC but their first responsibility is commercial service of the aircraft..

 

[Blitzo]

Just some additional points on why commercial airliners are much better than military transporters to serve as platforms for special mission aircrafts:

Commercial airliners are designed for high takeoff-&-landing cycles during commercial passenger service operations between major maintenance sessions, whereas military transporters are mainly designed to hauling cargo from point A to point B whenever the need arises. Besides, the intensity of hauling cargo for military transporters is considerably lower than the intensity at which commercial airliners haul passengers, especially for narrowbody airliners with multiple takeoff-&-landing cycles within a single day.

By default, missions conducted by special mission aircrafts (AEW&C, ELINT/SIGINT, ASW, EW etc) are often done at high frequencies, meaning high takeoff-&-landing cycles. We can see that the NATO AEW&C and ELINT aircrafts very frequently loiter along the NATO borders and above the southern Black Sea during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, providing intelligence on the Russian military for the Ukrainian military. We can also how frequently US special mission aircrafts (ELINT, SIGINT, ASW) aircrafts loiter outside of Chinese airspaces, on an almost daily basis, snooping out PLA communication and radar emissions and spying on PLAN submarine movements.

This requirement is something that commercial airliners are very much suited for, and much less so for military transporters.

To be fair, military transports do often conduct quite high frequency sorties as well, in fact one trait of a good military transport is high availability rate and uptime, and the ability to rapidly conduct airlift missions is not necessarily less demanding than that of commercial airlines.

There's also the fact that because commercial airliners don't need to conduct large-degree maneuvers, they only need to consider handling +2.25-2.5Gs of overload conditions. Military transporters, meanwhile, needs to be able to handle overload conditions of +3-4Gs, which is crucial during takeoff and landing operations near or inside combat zones.

And since special mission aircrafts don't have to conduct such degree of maneuvers like military transporters do, using military transporters as platforms for special mission roles is rather excessive (which also partially contributed to the "parasitic weight" you've mentioned earlier).

Moreover, speaking of weight - Passenger comfort is a paramount factor in civilian airliners, meaning that they have excellent noise abatement designs from the get-go. This is something which is less considered important for military transporters, because what noise complaints are the air force going to receive from the cargoes they haul? That means either additional noise cancelling measures need to be installed onboard military transporters (which increases weight), or just let the crew suffer - The latter of which is also highly detrimental, as special mission aircrafts often conduct missions for long/extended durations (ASW aircrafts in particular).

I do agree with the rest here.

 

[drowingfish]

bro i don't understand why you insisting on C919 military version.

COMAC have strict rules. C919/C929 and CJ series won't be used for military purpose. and yes COMAC have 50 percent stack in AECC and has authority on CJ-1000/CJ-2000.

when C919 first came out and everyone was goading for a military version I was very against this idea. However, now that the west has begun to cut off access to parts, I think military version becomes useful. Because let's say if a new engine was to be used for C919, then perhaps selling to the military first would keep the cashflow going for COMAC, and get enough air time for eventual commercial use.

 

[Atomicfrog]

Found on Weibo via @太湖军I名

View attachment 153173

Supplemental APU in front of the vertical stabilizer ?

 

[Tomboy]

Supplemental APU in front of the vertical stabilizer ?

That or some kind of cooling intake

 

[vincent]

There's also the fact that because commercial airliners don't need to conduct large-degree maneuvers, they only need to consider handling +2.25-2.5Gs of overload conditions. Military transporters, meanwhile, needs to be able to handle overload conditions of +3-4Gs, which is crucial during takeoff and landing operations near or inside combat zones.

AWACs and tankers don't have to perform high-G maneuvers before because they were not threaten by BVR missiles fired by stealth aircrafts that have range of 400km+. That's not the case anymore. The few extra G's may save an AWAC/tanker from being shot down in a peer-to-peer conflict.

Military planes are likely to have more redundancies built-in (like extra pair of engines) that make them more survivable if they do get hit.

Airliner/business jet airframes, whether they are narrowbody or widebody, offer more efficient use of space and have less "parasitic weight" than military transport airframes have (which are a carryover for their need to accommodate oversize cargo, as well as to land in less prepared runways). Airliner/business jet airframes are simply more efficient in that regard than a military transport airframe for things like AEW&C or other special mission roles (including MPA, or ELINT/SIGINT or standoff jamming etc -- and widebody airliners are also preferred for tanker aircraft due to similar reasons).

Military cargo planes having more volume can be a benefit as it allows more systems to be installed such as additional generators and other EW systems.

 

[Maikeru]

Well if COMAC is going to have a production gap due to non-availability of LEAP engines until CJ-1000A becomes available, is there a chance of using WS20 - equipped C919 special mission variants to keep the line busy? Long shot I know but presumably some sort of feasibility studies have been done.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Well if COMAC is going to have a production gap due to non-availability of LEAP engines until CJ-1000A becomes available, is there a chance of using WS20 - equipped C919 special mission variants to keep the line busy? Long shot I know but presumably some sort of feasibility studies have been done.

WS-20 comes no where close to meeting the noise and fuel efficiency requirements for an airliner.