IMO the Y-20 is still a better AEW&C platform than the C919. Although quadjets are not as fuel efficient as twinjets, the Y-20 actually has significantly more range and endurance as it is about a third larger than the C919 and carries more fuel. Other than that I believe sanction risk will be a deal breaker for COMAC even if they manage to localize all sub-systems.
PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread
- Thread starter Sczepan
- Start date
A few fallacies in your post:
- There are only a two countries in the world that build modern AEWC's: China and US.
- There is little need for PLA to operate outside of China territory.
- Y-20 is mass produced.
- There is a limit to the amount of time the crew can work in a high intensity conflict.
- Putting multiple crews on the planes in not a good idea in a high intensity conflict since there is a good chance the planes get shot down.
I agree KJ-3000 is much better than the E-7 but as of now we can't be sure if PLAAF intend on making KJ-3000 as the new backbone of their AEWC force or they'll run a high-lo mix with large amount of medium AEWC and only a small amount of KJ-3000s. But point still stands that KJ-500 is getting obsolete without a MLU that hopefully will also add a IFR probe and give it KJ-700's radar suite.
Last edited:
We can sort of map it out - and make reasonable guesses.
(1)manned AWACS are likely a tiered structure. They're by far most valuable units up in the air; they can't be hidden, they can't evade.
This likely makes them more "C" (command, but also processing units), removed far enough from action.
KJ-3000 higher and further(enjoying 360 coverage and likely working in a very low band), KJ-700 - lower and closer (with their highly precise optics id/tracking suites), but still far enough not to die.
Vulnerability is a problem, because it forces increased stand off - and not only makes high end stealth more effective, but also, crucially, makes terrain huggers(both aircraft but especially munitions) harder to track. I.e. individual radars are more of defensive assets(and frankly, high pK onboard active defenses are long overdue).
Solution to the former problem(high end stealth) - syncronized multistatic network working in same low bands (WZ-9s AEWs, but also with UHF/VHF ground radars).
Solution to frontline and small munition tracking is harder to get - as it requires higher bands, closer ranges and higher emission power in far more hostile forward environment.
CH-7 iirc was shown as a forward scanning node; hard to say in which band. But realistically, for now it seems that fighters will have to do the x-band situational awareness/intercept work very often.
Both you and Tomboy have some points which are correct, but overall it is more correct to say that in general, most nations that produce modern AEW&C aircraft, if they have the choice, would prefer to put them on an airliner/business jet airframe rather than a military transport airframe.
Whether that is E-7 with 737, or Saab's Erieye/Globaleye on various business jets, or Israel's CAEW on a business jet, or Japan's E-767 on the 767 airframe.
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).
Furthermore, the "benefit" of a military transport airframe being able to operate in less prepared runways is only partially true in the sense that it can potentially allow more flexible deployments but chances are your AEW&C won't really be operating from such unprepared runways to make use of that "advantage" to begin with, given the amount of offboard support that a modern AEW&C really needs.
For the PRC/PLA, it makes sense to use military transport airframes for their AEW&C projects, whether it is the Y-9 airframe (KJ-200/500/700) or Y-20B (KJ-3000), and that is primarily for two reasons:
- they don't have a modern, domestic airliner/business jet airframe available, but they do have the Y-9 and Y-20B airframes available
- they already operate (or will operate) Y-9 and Y-20B airframes in plentiful numbers anyhow, therefore they can get some commonality of supply/parts/maintenance
The true test of whether an airliner/business jet airframe or a military transport airframe is better for AEW&C roles overall (as opposed to simply for the PLA's unique airframe availability situation), is best posed by this hypothetical idea:
"If the PLA had a modern, domestic airliner/business jet airframe available (such as a 737 sized or 767 sized airframe) that they are able to adopt for military roles, and if they had aircraft of such types in similar numbers to military transport airframes (Y-9 or Y-20B) such that the commonality/economy of scale is equal between them, what sort of airframe would they prefer to adopt for the AEW&C role?"
The answer should be pretty sensibly said to be the airliner/business jet airframe option rather than the military transport airframe option.
HOWEVER -- the fact that an airliner/business jet airframe is more optimized than a military transport airframe for the AEW&C mission, does not mean that KJ-200/500/700 or KJ-3000 are ineffective or incapable. It merely means that if the same sensors/guts/processing of KJ-200/500/700 or KJ-3000 were able to be put on an airliner airframe of equivalent weight class/size, then they would likely be able to derive an even more capable platform off it.
In other words, the PLA's AEW&C procurement and platforms should be seen as a practical and sensible solution where they lack the most ideal/preferable airframe option, but are still able to operate a more than capable AEW&C fleet (both in terms of size, and individual platform capability) by virtue of getting other things right.
Just a very brief sum-up list of all the special mission aircrafts in the PLA for easier reference, based on @huitong's exhaustive lists on his Chinese Military Aviation Blogspot pages.
GX-? = AEW&C (KJ-3000)
GX-1 = ELINT (Y-8CB)
GX-2 = ELINT (Y-8JB)
GX-3 = ECM/EW (Y-8G)
GX-4 = ACP (Y-8T)
GX-5 = AEW&C (KJ-200)
GX-6 = ASW (Y-8FQ)
GX-7 = PW (Y-8XZ)
GX-8 = ELINT (Y-8JZ)
GX-9 = PW (Y-9XZ)
GX-10 = AEW&C (KJ-500)
GX-11 = ECM/EW (Y-9G)
GX-? = AEW&C (KJ-600)
GX-12 = ELINT (Y-9Z)
GX-13 = ECM/EW (Y-9LG)
GX-14 = TACAMO (Y-9T)
GX-15 = ASW (Y-9FQ)
GX-16 = AEW&C (KJ-700)
GX-? = AEW&C (KJ-3000)
GX-17 = ECM/EW (Y-9GR)
(Note: ACP = Airborne Command Post, PW = Psychological Warfare, TACAMO = Take-Charge-And-Move-Out (SSN + SSBN communication relays))
Apart from the above listed GXs, there are also the ACPs converted from two commercial 737-400s.
GX-? = AEW&C (KJ-3000)
GX-1 = ELINT (Y-8CB)
GX-2 = ELINT (Y-8JB)
GX-3 = ECM/EW (Y-8G)
GX-4 = ACP (Y-8T)
GX-5 = AEW&C (KJ-200)
GX-6 = ASW (Y-8FQ)
GX-7 = PW (Y-8XZ)
GX-8 = ELINT (Y-8JZ)
GX-9 = PW (Y-9XZ)
GX-10 = AEW&C (KJ-500)
GX-11 = ECM/EW (Y-9G)
GX-? = AEW&C (KJ-600)
GX-12 = ELINT (Y-9Z)
GX-13 = ECM/EW (Y-9LG)
GX-14 = TACAMO (Y-9T)
GX-15 = ASW (Y-9FQ)
GX-16 = AEW&C (KJ-700)
GX-? = AEW&C (KJ-3000)
GX-17 = ECM/EW (Y-9GR)
(Note: ACP = Airborne Command Post, PW = Psychological Warfare, TACAMO = Take-Charge-And-Move-Out (SSN + SSBN communication relays))
Apart from the above listed GXs, there are also the ACPs converted from two commercial 737-400s.
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.
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).
Well actually with recent development that the US is going to ban parts for C919 anyways, what's now stopping them from militarizing a fully domestic C919. It just seems like the engine that is fully foreign but it is banned now, otherwise everything else is either fully domestic or a JV with IP rights.
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.