Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
AEW birds are in mid transformation right now, When E3 was introduced They needed to be large Birds today we see more and more computerization and movement to remote operation.
More and being based of the Average high end private jet or small Regional and large business class jets. the E737 being a prime example.
P1 fits in that general class in terms of being roughly the size of a 737 (P8) as a platform so looking into a AEW version or a JSTAR role is a very logical move and some of the mission needs over lap.
The E767 is great for what is does but the numbers are more or less locked. built with E3 Radar and mission kit but placed in the 737 due to limited numbers of 707's.
The only actively being built AEW bird out side of China is probably the E2D because fo the Complexity and expense these are very specially built aircraft with limited runs.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
The E-10 M2CA was to be the USAF's next generation AEW&C, SIGINT, and SAR platform -- based off the boeing 767.
There were a variety of reasons why the E-10 was eventually cancelled, but I think the fact that it was based off the 767 platform is not one of them. In fact I would argue that having a larger platform for one's AEW&C is better than having a smaller one as that means more consoles, more power, more processing, more fuel and endurance, and more space for crew rest during missions.
....snip
Two engine platform is enough for normal operation but as I said, it's a flaw for mission critical situation where if one engine was to fail they would have to scrub the mission since they would not have enough electrical power to keep all the systems operational. Jet engines does fail so you need redundancy in those situation which is why two engined platforms are not enough.

It's like the argument of one engine verse two engine jet fighters in which majority would want two engines.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
But that is not the question he asked.



Which is exactly the point that others made in response.

Which is fine and provides the specificity that was missing from the original question.

Sure, sure, I'm just saying that it's a bit harsh to immediately throw water over his question when it actually does have some valid tangents related to the topic of notional JSDF AEW&Cs.

I'd also posit that even if he were asking about all Japanese radars, it's not exactly that ridiculous a proposition if one wasn't very familiar with the JSDF. At a glance, their most visible and prominent fighters (F-15), AEW&Cs (E-767 and E-2), and air defence ships (Kongo and Atago) all field US radars. One has to look a little deeper to realize the F-2s and Akizukis and other smaller ships are actually equipped with domestic radars, and even then their F-2s on the surface resemble F-16s.

I'm surprised that some people here would think he's trolling, and at the sensitivity of it.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Two engine platform is enough for normal operation but as I said, it's a flaw for mission critical situation where if one engine was to fail they would have to scrub the mission since they would not have enough electrical power to keep all the systems operational. Jet engines does fail so you need redundancy in those situation which is why two engined platforms are not enough.

It's like the argument of one engine verse two engine jet fighters in which majority would want two engines.

I'm pretty sure the original issue of one versus twin engines for fighters had less to do with their power generation and more to do with their ability to fly if an engine fails. A twin engine fighter with a single engine shut down is still able to limp back home while a single engine fighter will be forced to ditch.
I'm also not sure if a single engine shut down on an aircraft would mean that the aircraft would lose half its power. I perceive the main benefit of having multiple engines on an aircraft to be in regards to the same as for fighters -- more engines means one can fail and you can still fly.

.... but all that said, the fact that there are so many AEW and MPA aircraft operating with twin engines (not to mention tankers) makes me think that the reliability of their engines are high enough such that the threat of engine shut down is minimal, leading a twin engine arrangement (with benefits such as less maintenance, less drag, possibly less fuel consumption) to overrule the "redundancy" benefits of a four engine platform, while the negative effects of a four engine plane (more maintenance, more drag, possibly more fuel consumption compared to a twin engine plane) will always be around compared to a twin engine plane (at least for our current way of mounting engines).

In other words, the only major benefit I see for a four engine aircraft is it offers more redundancy, but if a twin engine aircraft has a sufficiently high reliability, then it may make a four engine plane's redundancy less important... whereupon other factors must be considered for each platform (maintenance, drag, and fuel consumption, for all three I think a twin engine arrangement comes out on top)
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
I'm pretty sure the original issue of one versus twin engines for fighters had less to do with their power generation and more to do with their ability to fly if an engine fails. A twin engine fighter with a single engine shut down is still able to limp back home while a single engine fighter will be forced to ditch.
I'm also not sure if a single engine shut down on an aircraft would mean that the aircraft would lose half its power. I perceive the main benefit of having multiple engines on an aircraft to be in regards to the same as for fighters -- more engines means one can fail and you can still fly.

.... but all that said, the fact that there are so many AEW and MPA aircraft operating with twin engines (not to mention tankers) makes me think that the reliability of their engines are high enough such that the threat of engine shut down is minimal, leading a twin engine arrangement (with benefits such as less maintenance, less drag, possibly less fuel consumption) to overrule the "redundancy" benefits of a four engine platform, while the negative effects of a four engine plane (more maintenance, more drag, possibly more fuel consumption compared to a twin engine plane) will always be around compared to a twin engine plane (at least for our current way of mounting engines).

In other words, the only major benefit I see for a four engine aircraft is it offers more redundancy, but if a twin engine aircraft has a sufficiently high reliability, then it may make a four engine plane's redundancy less important... whereupon other factors must be considered for each platform (maintenance, drag, and fuel consumption, for all three I think a twin engine arrangement comes out on top)

Are you really reading my original argument?
I said the two engined AWACS would have to return to base if one of their engine were to fail since it would not have enough electricity to power all the radar systems making it worthless on the battle field.They would not have to ditch the plane but the result would be similar not being able to fulfill their mission.

As for the E-2C/D although they are stable platform due to it's small size it does not fit the mission to maintain 24/7 coverage to cover the entire Japanese border in which E-2 would need to return to base after 6~8 hours requiring more planes for patrol rotation.The larger airframe such as the E-2 provides space for a second shift with rest space making it possible for much longer patrol time per flight.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Are you really reading my original argument?
I said the two engined AWACS would have to return to base if one of their engine were to fail since it would not have enough electricity to power all the radar systems making it worthless on the battle field.They would not have to ditch the plane but the result would be similar not being able to fulfill their mission.

Have you read mine?
My position is that a two engine AEW&C has less redundancy for flight. That is to say, if an engine shuts down, the twin engine aircraft will have to return to base.

I do not know if a single engine shut down will cut off half the power to the aircraft, and the design of the aircraft may be able to mitigate such an engine shut down. However I believe the importance of having multiple engines is more relevant for keeping an aircraft airborne than its redundancy for providing power to the aircraft during a mission, because I think that even if an engine shut down occurs on a four engine plane during a mission it will most likely be scrubbed rather than be forced to continue.

I.e.: if an engine shut down occurs during a mission, whether it is a four engine AEW&C or a two engine AEW&C, both will likely return to base rather than continue their mission. The difference is that the four engine AEW&C can afford to lose another engine before getting home.

I was not suggesting that a single engine shut down on either a four engine or twin engine AEW&C would result in the crew having to ditch the plane -- that only applies for twin engine versus single engine planes like fighters.

I would also ask, if you believe that mission viability of an AEW&C depends on electrical power for the aircraft, why do you think it's viable for a four engine AEW&C to continue with only three engines (say, 75% of normal capability) while it is suddenly not viable for a twin engine AEW&C to continue with only one engine (say 50% of normal capability)? Is that difference of 25% enough to make a four engine AEW&C that much more attractive despite all its other shortcomings compared to a twin engine AEW&C (maintenance, drag, fuel), keeping in mind that twin engine special mission platforms are widespread and thus likely considered to be very reliable?

By contrast, my position is that a one engine shut down of either a four engine or two engine AEW&C would likely result in the mission being scrubbed, not because of the reduced power generation, but because of the greater risk of losing the plane if more engines fail. And I see this as the main benefit of having multiple engines -- it provides greater ability for the aircraft to get back home if things go wrong.


As for the E-2C/D although they are stable platform due to it's small size it does not fit the mission to maintain 24/7 coverage to cover the entire Japanese border in which E-2 would need to return to base after 6~8 hours requiring more planes for patrol rotation.The larger airframe such as the E-2 provides space for a second shift with rest space making it possible for much longer patrol time per flight.

I mentioned the E-2 to say that it is possible to mount a powerful radar aboard a small platform, not to say that it is the optimal AEW&C platform by any means.

Obviously it is preferable to have AEW&C based off larger platforms to have more endurance, consoles, crew endurance/rest, etc, and this is something I have mentioned before in reply 1390:
In fact I would argue that having a larger platform for one's AEW&C is better than having a smaller one as that means more consoles, more power, more processing, more fuel and endurance, and more space for crew rest during missions.
 

shen

Senior Member
Yes but Japan does not want to repeat the F-2 fiasco in which Japan was planning to develop the F-2 independently acquiring US made jet engine but the US refused Japan's request in which they made a stern proposal in a joint development in return for providing the engines.
This had been a bad experience that turned worse when the US took all data on research of carbon composite and newly developed onboard AESA radar system for free in the name of Joint development.
It's a never again situation which Japan made sure it would not happen again.

nuclear umbrella isn't free you know.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Yes but Japan does not want to repeat the F-2 fiasco in which Japan was planning to develop the F-2 independently acquiring US made jet engine but the US refused Japan's request in which they made a stern proposal in a joint development in return for providing the engines.
This had been a bad experience that turned worse when the US took all data on research of carbon composite and newly developed onboard AESA radar system for free in the name of Joint development.
It's a never again situation which Japan made sure it would not happen again.

As much as I hate to say it but you are right. Japan got the short end of the deal in the F2 joint program with the US. They also begged for the F-22 but was effectively shut down. I can understand why they are leery of future joint ventures.
 

shen

Senior Member
It's that kind of attitude that really turns off Japanese, did you know that?
I am very much aware of politik but it's not a complete servant master relationship that's why they call it an ALLIANCE.

Why do you think the Taiwanese characterize weapon purchases from the US as protection money? Abe will change that if he get his way.
 
Top