PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread

[SanWenYu]

The Y-20 is too large to serve as a platform for ASW aircrafts. The MTOW of the Y-20 is in similar ranges as the 787, and we never see militaries elsewhere basing their ASW aircrafts on such widebody platforms.

Something the size of 737 and A320 would be more fitting as ASW platforms - Of which China already has the Y-9 to base on (namely the GX-15). Yes, the Y-9 is neither the most ideal nor the most optimal platform, yet it's the best available platform to China for such roles, apart from the fact where China can serial produce such aircrafts entirely on their own.

Speaking of speed - ASW aircrafts actually don't fly as fast and as high as commercial airliners when conducting ASW missions. They often fly close to the ocean surface at moderate speeds, which is where turboprop engines actually excel at.

Meanwhile, range and endurance-wise - I believe the Y-9 is pretty sufficient in these regards, despite being inferior to the jet-based counterparts. Until the C919 becomes risk-free enough for military applications (which I don't see happening for the next 10 years or so), the PLAN will just have to make do with whatever they have at the moment (plus perhaps adding/retrofitting refueling probes onto them).

I am aware that Y-20 would be less ideal than a narrow body like C9x9 for MPA/ELINT aircrafts. Now we have already developed this body for KJ-3000, I think it makes some sense to design, as a backup, the new MPA/ELINT aircrafts using this body if the fully domestically produced C9x9 will not be ready on time.

Conducting ASW does not need high speed but MPA need to reach the spot in high speed to not miss the opportunity.

 

[AndrewS]

But the serious plan by the DOD to now switch over to the E-2 signifies how good China decision was to use the Y-8/Y-9. It is mainly a cost issue but includes an operational one as well. Not only is a commercial jet based aircraft more expensive to build and more expensive to operate but it requires a long runway too.

The KJ-500 would have major advantages over the E-2 in range, loiter, radome size and power. There would always be need for high capacity/high speed/high altitude jet AEW like the KJ-2000/3000. But it is good to have the ubiquitous availability of the KJ-500/700 that very few (or maybe practically no other) air forces can afford.

It looks like the E-2D does have a respectable amount of power with 2 x 170 kVA generators, capable of surging to 225 kVA.

That compares to 2 x 180 kVA for the E-737 (and presumably for the E-7 as well)

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I am aware that Y-20 would be less ideal than a narrow body like C9x9 for MPA/ELINT aircrafts. Now we have already developed this body for KJ-3000, I think it makes some sense to design, as a backup, the new MPA/ELINT aircrafts using this body if the fully domestically produced C9x9 will not be ready on time.

Conducting ASW does not need high speed but MPA need to reach the spot in high speed to not miss the opportunity.

The PLAN doesn't really need a backup ASW aircraft based on the Y-20, all when the Y-9-based GX-15 is already good enough and can be produced in large numbers.

And again, sure, there are pros and cons with the GX-15 (and being a slightly/somewhat inferior counterpart to the P-8).

However, the costs and effort associated with developing a brand new ASW aircraft based on a significantly different class of aircraft platform just doesn't make the cut, especially considering that:
1. The GX-15 (and its Y-9 platform) is already mature and versatile; and
2. Those manpower, money and resources (which certainly aren't limitless) would be better spent in other projects with greater, more pressing priorities (next-gen AEW&C and ACP aircrafts, for instance).

Rather than having a Y-20 ASW "stopgap", China will be better off just induct more GX-15s to expand the size of her ASW aircraft fleet in order to mitigate the deficiencies in speed and endurance. It isn't just cheaper to go with what the PLAN has, but also increases the meaningful ASW coverage in both immediate and longer terms.

Plus, the upcoming Y-30 (which is slated as successor to the Y-8/9 family) is expected to provide comprehensive, significant upgrades over the Y-9 (which certainly includes range and endurance improvements, if not also slightly in speed), and I believe that the Y-30 should be ready by/around the end of this decade. If anything - The Y-30 would be a better option for future PLAN ASW aircrafts than the Y-20.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Turboprops should also be cheaper to build and maintain than turbofans, although I'm not sure about 4 vs 2.

4x means added redundancy.

In fact, there have been plenty of instances (if not a standard operating procedure) where the P-3 pilots would shut down 1x or even 2x of its 4x turboprop engines during ASW/patrol missions when their mission durations are extended (and/or their replacement/relief isn't expected to arrive at station on-time) in order to conserve fuel for longer on-station durations.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That's one perk of such propulsion configurations, although I'm not sure whether Chinese ASW aircrafts have done similar things before.

Also, the P-3 was supposed to be succeeded by the P-7 beginning in the 1990s, of which the winning design (from Lockheed) is essentially a stretched, improved version of the P-3 (i.e. also with 4x turboprop engines). Had it not been cancelled due to cost overruns at the end of the Cold War, the P-7 would've been the main ASW aircrafts of the USN today.

 

[SanWenYu]

The PLAN doesn't really need a backup ASW aircraft based on the Y-20, all when the Y-9-based GX-15 is already good enough and can be produced in large numbers.

And again, sure, there are pros and cons with the GX-15 (and being a slightly/somewhat inferior counterpart to the P-8).

However, the costs and effort associated with developing a brand new ASW aircraft based on a significantly different class of aircraft platform just doesn't make the cut, especially considering that:
1. The GX-15 (and its Y-9 platform) is already mature and versatile; and
2. Those manpower, money and resources (which certainly aren't limitless) would be better spent in other projects with greater, more pressing priorities (next-gen AEW&C and ACP aircrafts, for instance).

Rather than having a Y-20 ASW "stopgap", China will be better off just induct more GX-15s to expand the size of her ASW aircraft fleet in order to mitigate the deficiencies in speed and endurance. It isn't just cheaper to go with what the PLAN has, but also increases the meaningful ASW coverage in both immediate and longer terms.

Plus, the upcoming Y-30 (which is slated as successor to the Y-8/9 family) is expected to provide comprehensive, significant upgrades over the Y-9 (which certainly includes range and endurance improvements, if not also slightly in speed), and I believe that it should be ready by the end of this decade. If anything - The Y-30 would be a better option for future PLAN ASW aircrafts than the Y-20.

The Y-9 based ASW are sufficient for now. China will need to have new MPA/ELINT aircrafts with longer range and endurance to go beyond 1IC and reach the 2IC even in peace time.

 

[sunnymaxi]

The Y-9 based ASW are sufficient for now. China will need to have new MPA/ELINT aircrafts with longer range and endurance to go beyond 1IC and reach the 2IC even in peace time.

Plus, the upcoming Y-30 (which is slated as successor to the Y-8/9 family) is expected to provide comprehensive, significant upgrades over the Y-9 (which certainly includes range and endurance improvements, if not also slightly in speed), and I believe that it should be ready by the end of this decade. If anything - The Y-30 would be a better option for future PLAN ASW aircrafts than the Y-20.

copying from @ACuriousPLAFan post..

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

The Y-9 based ASW are sufficient for now. China will need to have new MPA/ELINT aircrafts with longer range and endurance to go beyond 1IC and reach the 2IC even in peace time.

What makes you think that the current Y-9-based GX-15 hasn't already achieved that right now?

Here's from CCTV, and the reporting is on the older, Y-8-based GX-6 from some years ago:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And similar to what have been mentioned above - The deficiencies can be addressed/mitigated with having more ASW aircrafts (which is the simplest method), retrofit refueling probes for mid-air refueling, if not shutting down one or two of its engines to conserve fuel like the P-3 do during patrol missions, among other methods.

 

[ismellcopium]

What makes you think that the current Y-9-based GX-15 hasn't already achieved that right now?

Here's from CCTV, and the reporting is on the older, Y-8-based GX-6 from some years ago:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And similar to what have been mentioned above - The deficiencies can be addressed/mitigated with having more ASW aircrafts (which is the simplest method), retrofit refueling probes for mid-air refueling, if not shutting down one or two of its engines to conserve fuel like the P-3 do during patrol missions, among other methods.

The Y-9Q range with current old engines & no probes should still be a pretty major weak point though, probably on the order of ~2500km combat radius optimistically. That's not very far into 2IC.

 

[Tomboy]

The Y-9Q range with current old engines & no probes should still be a pretty major weak point though, probably on the order of ~2500km combat radius optimistically. That's not very far into 2IC.

Are you calculating this via the SCS bases

 

[SanWenYu]

Plus, the upcoming Y-30 (which is slated as successor to the Y-8/9 family) is expected to provide comprehensive, significant upgrades over the Y-9 (which certainly includes range and endurance improvements, if not also slightly in speed), and I believe that it should be ready by the end of this decade. If anything - The Y-30 would be a better option for future PLAN ASW aircrafts than the Y-20.

copying from @ACuriousPLAFan post..

Y-30 will still be a class well below Y-20 (and C9x9) in terms of range and endurance. And it will be years away unlike this Y-20 based body.

What makes you think that the current Y-9-based GX-15 hasn't already achieved that right now?

Sure it might be able to reach the 2IC today but how much time the Y-9 based ASW/MPA can stay near the 2IC to be meaningful? And how about to go beyond the 2IC? And the Indian Ocean?

I believe everyone agrees that China will need to have new MPA/ELINT/AEW&C/etc based on a narrow body with turbofan engines. If a fully domestic C9x9 variant won't be available soon, will such needs disappear somehow? The answer will be no of course. Then what options will China have for backup?

If the Y-9 and Y-30 bodies were so good for the MPA/AEW&C/etc. of the next decades, China would not have developed the KJ-3000 as we see today.