PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread

[Hendrik_2000]

I'm sorry but it's not so simple. Sikorsky was bought by Lockheed in late 2015, however Sikorsky is still often referred to as its own entity in media and commentary because Lockheed chose it so.

We have not seen any evidence that Shaanxi has been absorbed by XAC in the way that you describe such that it does not deserve to still be referred to as an entity.

Media or individual can call Sikorski by its name AS DIVISION OF Lockheed but officially it owned by lockheed Back to Shanxi. I think AVIC share is listed in Shanghai bourse Check if there is SXAC listed there is only XAC, CAC, SAC
You can call it Shanxi plant but not Shanxi company
There is only one SAC just like there is only one IBM no misinterpretation here so if Dafencao said SAC and he meant Shanxi that is illogical because Shanxi aircraft corporation cease to exists

You buy a house and you leave the previous owner name on the title of the house Gee you are generous person!

 

[Deino]

@Hendrik_2000

Sorry to step in but since I started with the correction and especially since the tone of this discussion is going far off I must step in.

Please take care that no-one want to make a fool out of you, no-one said so and if you feel that way I do not understand the reason.

All we did is to explain the term SAC as being also valid for Shaanxi, a minor mistake that could happen and IMO nothing serious.
Why diverting this small fail with the story of SAC (Shaanxi's) merger with XAC is something I do not understand and as @Bltizo diescribed, so far no official media outlet or anything else written and published calls the Y-9 series a product of XAC. Even more since You quote only Wiki ...

So in summary You are making a fuss out of our "not calling the Y-9 a XAC product" and diminish our credibility as PLA-watchers while at the same time you do know that SAC is commonly also referred to for Shaanxi and not only Shenyang and all the reaming discussion is on semantics.
Maybe you should remember that during the days all mayor Chinese enterprises were merged under AVIC I and AVIC II, even the no-one called the J-8- or J-11 or J-10 series AVIC types, they all remained SAC J-8 and J-11 and CAC J-10.

So if this merger is indeed correct - I must admit the current structure of the whole AVIC conglomerate is even more confusing for me than the PLAAF's Orbat - I would be grateful for more information, but why such a mess is beyond my understanding.

Best,
Deino

 

[Hendrik_2000]

 

[by78]

Belly view.

(1200 x 800)

 

[gelgoog]

...
So if this merger is indeed correct - I must admit the current structure of the whole AVIC conglomerate is even more confusing for me than the PLAAF's Orbat - I would be grateful for more information, but why such a mess is beyond my understanding.

I think it is similar to what the Russians did when they merged their aviation industry under UAC's umbrella. It is basically done in order to streamline the processes for exports and probably to shrink the top level management structure. You share the people who control things like funding, loans, and other administrative overhead which are not part of the technical side of the business. But it is a really thin layer. The design centers and the factories still hold most of the power and people.

 

[by78]

Y-9JZ and KJ-500 taking off. All images are high-resolution.

 

[by78]

Just a few more high-resolution images of various AWACS in service...

 

[by78]

Family photo...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(2048 x 1152)

 

[Deino]

Well now assigned to the 8. Naval Air Division ... that's new or is the serial number psed??

I must admit that surprises me since already the 9th NAD in the STC flies that type and since the new 3. NAD in the ETC has gained KJ-500H, so that ASWs for the 3. NAD or even more the 2. NAD in the NTC I would have expected them more likely. Or is there another reorganisation in the making (following rumours, the Naval Aviation University also gained J-11BH/BSH from the 9. NAD) :what:

 

[by78]

Y-8Q ASW...

(1500 x 1000)