PLA AEW&C, SIGINT, EW and MPA thread

[Gloire_bb]

View attachment 175086
KJ-500 is above E-2Ds in the video

The irony is it's kinda hard to place E-2D above E-3G either. For all it's superior electronics, it's just such a different capability set you can't really position one above the other.

Better capabilities and connectivity on one side of capability spectrum just doesn't offset one another. And that's the problem with Pentagon attempting E-2D backstop (probably on a similar reductive table) - with Iranian campaign happening...and exposing all E-2D flaws immediately.

Wrongest possible campaign for just this demonstration.
KJ-500a isn't "just" more(or less) capable than E-2D(it's far more), it's different. It's SSK to SSN comparison.
Different classes of ships.

 

[sequ]

Sorry if this isn't the right thread for it, but gunship Y-9??

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2057142457381613965

 

[Deino]

Sorry if this isn't the right thread for it, but gunship Y-9??

View attachment 175315

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2057142457381613965

Latest consensus was a weather reconnaissance variant?

 

[Blitzo]

Latest consensus was a weather reconnaissance variant?

I don't think that was a consensus.

Rather, we saw that there was a wing mounted weather tracking pod which might exist, and people attributed that to be what was present on the image of the wing mounted pylon of the relevant Y-9 airframe we saw previously (though I must say they didn't really look like one another -- the wing mounted pylons of the Y-9 gunship variant looks like it is a quad pylon of some sort for multiple payloads while the weather pod is a single unitary payload)

In any case if this image of the Y-9 gunship with the ventral cannon is true, then it should lend more weight to the idea that the weather tracking pod and the Y-9 gunship itself are not linked, and that the Y-9 gunship's wing pylons are likely a quad pylon for ATGMs or something.

 

[Deino]

Ok ... @huitong has updated his blog and now calls it the Y-9PT:

 

[Totoro]

The image is too blurry to really be sure, but it would appear there is just that one medium/large caliber gun on the plane. Perhaps anything of 20mm might not be noticable? Or they simply chose to add a gun on the left hand side, not visible in the image?
The belly mounted gun is unlikely to be larger than, what, 40 mm?
US did at first wanted to omit the 105mm gun on their latest AC130W but has since reversed course and now it carries one 30mm and one 105mm gun.
Of course, some sort of compact missile arsenal ability would really be perhaps even more useful than guns, and both US and Chinese planes are sure to use those.

 

[Originname]

1. there is already one ... just search for it!

Chinese Air Force related exports thread

Angadow glazes SAC a lot but given how UAE has purchased L-15 and trained with PLAAF to get first hand experience with Chinese combat aircraft, them picking J-35 is not far fetched.

www.sinodefenceforum.com

2. please add a source ... especially the part with AEW-assets and most of all a gun-ship version sounds much too much like a fan-boys Wet-dream.

Wet dream is coming?!)

 

[FKAMtS4kE]

I don't think that was a consensus.

Rather, we saw that there was a wing mounted weather tracking pod which might exist, and people attributed that to be what was present on the image of the wing mounted pylon of the relevant Y-9 airframe we saw previously (though I must say they didn't really look like one another -- the wing mounted pylons of the Y-9 gunship variant looks like it is a quad pylon of some sort for multiple payloads while the weather pod is a single unitary payload)

In any case if this image of the Y-9 gunship with the ventral cannon is true, then it should lend more weight to the idea that the weather tracking pod and the Y-9 gunship itself are not linked, and that the Y-9 gunship's wing pylons are likely a quad pylon for ATGMs or something.

Are we sure those are ATGMs? A total of 8 ATGMs seems very anemic for an aircraft of that size, especially when most attack helicopters can carry more than that.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Are we sure those are ATGMs? A total of 8 ATGMs seems very anemic for an aircraft of that size, especially when most attack helicopters can carry more than that.

The question is how many you can usefully employ, in a way that justifies risking high end overwatch asset yet can't be prosecuted with direct fire weapons(gun).

Currently it appears that best way to employ tactical stand off from this kind of aircraft is via some manually operated deployment rack.

ATGM has its niche, but it's in-between, and up to debate you'd get so many engagement opportunities.

Helicopters carry heavy ATGM loads not just because they can(they're designed for this load, rather than this load is fitted because they're large enough) - but because they have armored assault breaker role, and they(and should) operate and survive where such weapon load is useful/mission critical.
For gunship usecase, if you need more ATGM, add drones. Or, don't send gunship if the weapon you really expect/need the most is massed ATGM.

It's like with normal MPAs and their ASCM load: it isn't really difficult to fit more, it just isn't likely to be useful with that particular platform.
The only exception is Japan really, who're aiming their jet MPAs at long range anti ship and regional strike(heavy bomber role).

 

[Blitzo]

Are we sure those are ATGMs? A total of 8 ATGMs seems very anemic for an aircraft of that size, especially when most attack helicopters can carry more than that.

It's about right, for example a AC-130J has pylon mounted weapons and just two stations carrying 4 Hellfire missiles per station.

The primary weapon is still the gun, and in this case they seem to have gone for a ventral turret medium calibre auto cannon as the main gun armament.