PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread

[Richard Santos]

I think the mock up is close to the length and width of the E-2 using the J-15 as reference. The real E-2 is only 17m long, about as long as f/a-18c, much shorter than the F-14 or Su-27. This is similar to how the mockup compares to the J-15.

Remember the su-27 family has spawned 2 side by side twin seaters, the Su-34 and Su-33UB. The fuselage of neither are appreciably wider at the cockpit area compared to the single seater. The cockpit area of the mockup is similar in width to the j-15.

Almost the entire fuselage of a E-2 style AWAC is pressurized crew space. The crew behind the cockpit sit in a single row facing one side. Even if we give each crew member a generous 2 meters of space, In a 17 meter long fuselage, there is plenty of room behind the cockpit for 4 more crew sitting side by side facing to one side of the aircraft down the length of the fuselage.

 

[Jeff Head]

Edit: let's also remember E-2D only has three other personnel in addition to pilot and copilot, so I'm not sure why you expect the Chinese carrier AEWC to have an extra 4-6 crew in addition to the two pilots. I mean, I'm not opposed to having an extra console or something, but if we are trying to judge a sensible size for the Chinese AEWC I see no reason to immediately put forward a crew that is that much bigger than an E-2D.

I never said that it was in addition to the pilot and co-pilot. My meaning was the entire crew was about six.

 

[FORBIN]

Given the error that results from relatively low quality satellite images, and when considering the size of the mock ups, I suspect that any perceived slightly small dimensions is a result of the low quality of the satellite image and/or other visual effects is just visual and that the real thing's dimensions is sensible and consistent with what we would expect for a mock up of its purpose.


In other words, I think any mention of any minor possible discrepancy in dimensions in this case is basically not even worth pointing out, given the quality of the image resulting in significant visual error, and considering this is a mock up anyway.


And to be honest I think it doesn't look off at all. When one looks at a photo of the fuselage width of an funfolded E-2 taken at a certain height and then zoomed in to simulate the same kind of low quality photo of the wuhan mock up, its proportions look similarly "off" but really it's just normal.
(note the photo isn't meant to suggest that the two aircraft are the exact same size, having them next to each other is more to demonstrate that taking photos of sufficiently low quality and then zooming in will present visual errors that make things seem "off")
View attachment 39468






Edit: let's also remember E-2D only has three other personnel in addition to pilot and copilot, so I'm not sure why you expect the Chinese carrier AEWC to have an extra 4-6 crew in addition to the two pilots. I mean, I'm not opposed to having an extra console or something, but if we are trying to judge a sensible size for the Chinese AEWC I see no reason to immediately put forward a crew that is that much bigger than an E-2D.

But this new is a cousin of Yak-44 possible ?

 

[Blitzo]

But this new is a cousin of Yak-44 possible ?

What do you mean?

It isn't a cousin of the Yak-44, it is likely a derivative of the Y-7 which is a derivative of the An-24.

And yes, of course it is possible, the Chinese Navy is obviously going to induct a fixed wing AEW&C, and from previous years of photos and rumours and now this mock up it is going to have a configuration similar to the E-2.

I never said that it was in addition to the pilot and co-pilot. My meaning was the entire crew was about six.

Okay fair enough, but your post #1707 did say "The seating for the pilots is side by side, and there would be four to six other personnel in such an aircraft operating various consoles and equipment." which I think reasonably can be interpreted to mean the 4-6 "other" personnel (with their consoles and equipment) are in addition to the pilots.

If that isn't what you meant then no problem.

 

[Jeff Head]

What do you mean?

It isn't a cousin of the Yak-44, it is likely a derivative of the Y-7 which is a derivative of the An-24.

And yes, of course it is possible, the Chinese Navy is obviously going to induct a fixed wing AEW&C, and from previous years of photos and rumours and now this mock up it is going to have a configuration similar to the E-2.





Okay fair enough, but your post #1707 did say "The seating for the pilots is side by side, and there would be four to six other personnel in such an aircraft operating various consoles and equipment." which I think reasonably can be interpreted to mean the 4-6 "other" personnel (with their consoles and equipment) are in addition to the pilots.

If that isn't what you meant then no problem.

I can see how you would take that meaning...but that was not what was intended.

The J-15 has one pilot. The AEW will have c pilot and copilot sitting next to each other, and then four more...the meaning was six altogether, but the wording could be taken wrong.

Anyhow, that is what I meant by it.

 

[szbd]

I guess it's better than nothing but those stats suck pretty bad (if true). The E-2C can track 2,000+ targets at 650km.

well, if 2000+ bgm109 evenly distributed on the surface of a 650km radius half-globe, I believe E2C can track them, with bad accuracy. Because the size of bgm109 matches the wavelength of E2C's UHF rador, so produce big scattering. E2C can get enough S/N from 650km I think. But long wavelength give you bad accuracy.

 

[Iron Man]

well, if 2000+ bgm109 evenly distributed on the surface of a 650km radius half-globe, I believe E2C can track them, with bad accuracy. Because the size of bgm109 matches the wavelength of E2C's UHF rador, so produce big scattering. E2C can get enough S/N from 650km I think. But long wavelength give you bad accuracy.

Unless you have good signal processing. I keep saying software is of paramount importance, but fanbois just want to grab onto anything that will give them a swell of nationalistic pride without thinking through the details; they want so much for AESA to always be greater than PESA no matter the details, so that they can rest assured that 052D > Arleigh Burke. The truth is unfortunately for them, far more complicated. FYI, E-2C can track 3m^2-sized targets out to 333km and larger contacts out to 648km. This is with a UHF-band radar. For comparison, an F-16's frontal RCS is 5m^2 and a Su-27 is 15m^2. The E-2D (also UHF-band) is able to provide weapons-quality tracks on targets for OTH SM-2 and SM-6 engagements, so your claim of "bad accuracy" for a longer wavelength is not consistent with the actual facts. All things being equal, a longer wavelength will indeed give you a lower quality track, but as I keep stressing, things are frequently NOT equal.

 

[szbd]

Unless you have good signal processing. I keep saying software is of paramount importance, but fanbois just want to grab onto anything that will give them a swell of nationalistic pride without thinking through the details; they want so much for AESA to always be greater than PESA no matter the details, so that they can rest assured that 052D > Arleigh Burke. The truth is unfortunately for them, far more complicated. FYI, E-2C can track 3m^2-sized targets out to 333km and larger contacts out to 648km. This is with a UHF-band radar. For comparison, an F-16's frontal RCS is 5m^2 and a Su-27 is 15m^2. The E-2D (also UHF-band) is able to provide weapons-quality tracks on targets for OTH SM-2 and SM-6 engagements, so your claim of "bad accuracy" for a longer wavelength is not consistent with the actual facts. All things being equal, a longer wavelength will indeed give you a lower quality track, but as I keep stressing, things are frequently NOT equal.

You can never track anything to weapon quality by UHF, that is physics. The angle differenciation depends on wave length. E2 send the object info to agies and agies tell SM6 where to fly and search. SM6's own radar provides weapon quality info.

 

[szbd]

Unless you have good signal processing. I keep saying software is of paramount importance, but fanbois just want to grab onto anything that will give them a swell of nationalistic pride without thinking through the details; they want so much for AESA to always be greater than PESA no matter the details, so that they can rest assured that 052D > Arleigh Burke. The truth is unfortunately for them, far more complicated. FYI, E-2C can track 3m^2-sized targets out to 333km and larger contacts out to 648km. This is with a UHF-band radar. For comparison, an F-16's frontal RCS is 5m^2 and a Su-27 is 15m^2. The E-2D (also UHF-band) is able to provide weapons-quality tracks on targets for OTH SM-2 and SM-6 engagements, so your claim of "bad accuracy" for a longer wavelength is not consistent with the actual facts. All things being equal, a longer wavelength will indeed give you a lower quality track, but as I keep stressing, things are frequently NOT equal.

And please note, RCS depends on wavelengh, so you can make use of scattering. The S/N is proportional to RCSxrange, so scattering can make up your range. That's how UHF works. But angle accuracy depends on your aperture and wavelength, aperture also depends on wavelength unless you have unlimited radar size. The distance accuracy depends on your bandwidth, that is how narrow is your pulse in time domain. This also depends on wavlength. Therefore accuracy is strictly depends on wavelength. Accuracy has nothing to do with RCS. and accuracy's up limit strictly depends on wavelength. Your signal processing can only come close to this up limit.

 

[Iron Man]

You can never track anything to weapon quality by UHF, that is physics. The angle differenciation depends on wave length. E2 send the object info to agies and agies tell SM6 where to fly and search. SM6's own radar provides weapon quality info.

You should realize that "weapons-quality track" is NOT the same thing as "terminal illumination", which is what you are talking about. The SPY-1 is S-band and also provides "weapons-quality" tracks, but yet still has to hand off to the X-band SPG-62 FCR to provide the end-game terminal illumination. In fact CEC depends primarily upon SPY-1 S-band radars for tracking and yet is also credited with weapons-quality tracks. Weapons-quality simply means the discrimination is high enough to provide guidance for weapons enough to make it to the end game where onboard or offboard radars can take over for terminal illumination (or in the case of the SM-2, the IR sensor). This is quite different from something like Yagi antennas that also operate in the UHF or VHF bands but yet are totally incapable of providing weapons guidance, and is better described as "early warning" radars.

And please note, RCS depends on wavelengh, so you can make use of scattering. The S/N is proportional to RCSxrange, so scattering can make up your range. That's how UHF works. But angle accuracy depends on your aperture and wavelength, aperture also depends on wavelength unless you have unlimited radar size. The distance accuracy depends on your bandwidth, that is how narrow is your pulse in time domain. This also depends on wavlength. Therefore accuracy is strictly depends on wavelength. Accuracy has nothing to do with RCS. and accuracy's up limit strictly depends on wavelength. Your signal processing can only come close to this up limit.

RCS depends on wavelength to a certain extent. Apertures/openings, saw-tooth edges, and RCS paint will certainly be tailored to specific wavelengths, usually X- and S-band radars, but stealth shaping also significantly involves deflecting waves such that they do not return signal to the original emitter. This will work on any wavelength/frequency whether it's X-band or VHF-band. Also, I made no mention of accuracy having to do with RCS, which is something that you brought up with the Tomahawk's size.