JMSDF v PLAN

[tankerwanabe]

No,  what i am saying is that the Chinese Su-27 derivatives are not more advanced than the F-2.  Being bigger does not make it more advanced.  Aside from its larger size & greater range due to that size, what makes you think the Su-27 is more advanced then the F-2.  With modern AEW aircraft, the detection range of an individual fighter is not that significant as the AEW asset is always going to detect the enemy 1st anyway & guide the fighters to their targets.

 

But yes a wing of F-2s can take out a wing of Su-27s, if needed just as a flight of Su-27s can take out a flight of F-2s.

 

Japan has F-15s to counter the Chinese Su-27 derivatives & the F-15 still has a lot of potential as I stated before.

 

The F-2 is a multi-role attack fighter not a long-range air-superiority fighter like the Su-27. Comparing the two is unrealistic as they are intended for different roles.

 

It is unfortunate for Japan that developement of the F-2 took so long & drove procurement costs up.  Japan is already looking for a replacement due to the high cost of the F-2.  We seem to agree on that.

 

What I am disagreeing with is your contention that the F-2 is "a gereration behind" its contempararies in the region.  The closest Chinese equivalent to the F-2 is the J-10 & in that case the same questionable agruments you have stated as to the superiority of the Su-27 over the F-2 can be applied to the F-2 over the J-10.

219463[/snapback]

 

What is the original issue? It is whether Japan wasted its money developing an indegenous fighter that (when finally operational) is outclassed.

 

Here, a F2 per unit cost is 105 million USD (not a misprint). While it could have purchased F16 block60s, Su-30Mkk (w/vetoring and western avionics), and F18E for half the money; or F15Es, Raphaels, and maybe even Eurofighters for equal or less.

 

Here, all these are superior to the F2s (not the theoretical one, but the operational one complete with massive teething problems in avionics and wing stress).

 

This shows that Japan spent more money for an inferior aircraft.

 

 

The second issue is AEW.

Let's for a second accept that the US, Russians, Israelis, and Japan is wrong since they all designate a large air-superiorty with powerful radars in the air-to-air role. And that you're right and AEW can replace powerful radars. The Su30mkk can still turn inside an F16. The F2 is a larger bird that use the same engines, and more optimized for strike rather than air-defense. That shows that the F2 is less nimble than an F16. What are your reasons to believe that an F2 take a Su30mmk in a knife fight?

 

Furthermore, what happens if the AEWs are taken out? They are quite big and slow for a primary target. Do F2s really want to trade BVR missiles with a Su30mmk?

 

Sorry, the F2 is inferior. Japan made a big mistake.

 

Woops, I forgot to reply to your subsequent posting about air-to-ground. So, what air-to-ground weapon does the F2 have that the Flanker doesn't have? To my recollection, the F2 was optimized for anti-ship strike. It is stuck with a subsonic harpoonese. I believe the Flankers are cleared to carry a supersonic versions.

Edited September 9, 2005 by tankerwanabe

[LeoTanker]

  It is stuck with a subsonic harpoonese. I believe the Flankers are cleared to carry a supersonic versions.

219848[/snapback]

 

 

Yup, SS-N-22 Sunburn /Moskit.

 

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm

http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=1605&catid=255

 

Nasty little cracker, and faaast as hell to...

[Daniel Papp]

Moskit:

Well, 4500kg is not a small piece, thatás the size of a smaller plane. I do think they are valid targets for AAMs.

 

 

F-2: The Japanese wants to build all their military equipment at home. You know, they do not want to lose the ability to build up if China or Russia goes crazy. So full, almost unconditional Technology Transfer is involved, especially in this case. THey do not want to spend trillions of yen and decades, they buy it for billions of dollars. And the main reason of the high $ costs: the yen is very strong against the dollar, so the program become relatively more expensive in $, than in yen. The plane itself hase a huge % of composites in it (there were some problems about this).

 

From globalsecurity:

The FS-X will incorporate five technologies defined by FS-X agreements as Japanese (non-derived): active phased array fire control radar, integrated electronic warfare system, inertial reference/navigation system, mission computer hardware, and radar absorbing material. Japan is also developing a co-cured composite wing for the FS-X.

[Ishikawa]

About the F-2,this article may be helpful.

 

USFJ Commander takes a spin in Japan's new F-2 fighter

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...65&archive=true

 

And the JSDF has alredy completed the development of the Type 04 AAM (AAM-5) for the F-15 and F-2.

[Blunt Eversmoke]

Moskit:

Well, 4500kg is not a small piece, thatás the size of a smaller plane. I do think they are valid targets for AAMs.

220063[/snapback]

 

Yes, that it is. But its flight software was designed with exactly that in mind. See, by leaping from side to side during flight it administers heavy g-force on AAMs that follow its course blindly, and most of the lighter Western AAMs can't handle that - they take damage.

[Daniel Papp]

Yes, that it is. But its flight software was designed with exactly that in mind. See, by leaping from side to side during flight it administers heavy g-force on AAMs that follow its course blindly, and most of the lighter Western AAMs can't handle that - they take damage.

220076[/snapback]

 

I think evasive maneuvers are programmed for the terminal phase only (against self-defense SAMs/CIWSs), not on the intermediate course (it would take too much fuel, and would risk the rocket close to the surface). And how would it know that it is going to be shot down? Too much superfluous fighter-grade electronics would make the missile prohibitedly expensive

And most western radars has look-down/shoot-down abilities, it is not far fetched to suppose that an AMRAAM could work in similar situations. NTM Sidewinders. A M3 rocket should glow in the IR.

[Guest pfcem]

219848[/snapback]

 

You seem to be missing my point completely.

 

You said that the F-2 was a generation behind waht everybody else has.

 

I say you are wrong. In its size/weight class & in its intended role, it is as advanced (if not more advanced) as any of its contemporaries in the region.

 

You keep comparing the F-2 (a light/middle-weight multi-role attack fighter) with the Su-30MK (a heavy-weight air superiority fighter/interceptor) & faulting the F-2 for not being a heavy-weight air superiority fighter/interceptor. These are two aircraft intended for completely different roles. And as I have said before, just because the Su-30MK is a better heavy-weight air superiority fighter/interceptor, than the F-2, that does not make it more advanced & certainly not a generation ahead.

 

None of the aircraft you listed as possible substitutes for the F-2 existed when the F-2 program began.

[whyhow]

Sorry, didn't mean to not answer your post. There were so many I lost track.

Lets take a look at your argument.

 

1) Smaller RCS

What are we really talking about?  Detection isn't it? Once either bird lights up its radar it announces to the world where it is doesn't it?  So it comes down to who sees each other first and gets the first launch. This means that smaller RCS would matter only if each bird carries the same radar. But if the Su carries a bigger radar, then RCS is moot.

 

The problem with a heavyweight fighter like the Su-27 is that it is going to have a larger RCS compare to a smaller fighter like the F-16 or F-2, if no stealth technologies are applied. F-16 RCS is widely quoted as 1.2m^2, since the F-2 uses RAM in its design, its RCS is likely to be significantly smaller, to what extent is unknown. As an example, Mig-29s have RCS of 5m^2, while the Mig-29SMT boast 1.0-1.2m^2. Su-27 OTOH, has an often quoted RCS of 10m^2. F-2 AESA radar has a designed detection range (I know about its reported problem, more later) of 100km against presumed standard 5m^2 targets. Su-27SK's has a range of 80-100km against 3m^2 target. Therefore, F-2 should be able to detect a Su-27 at around 120km range, while the Su-27 can only detect a F-16 size target at 64-80km.

 

2) Better weapons?  Don't know about that. Those archers and r77 looks pretty potent.    Japans haven't sign on for the AIM9x yet. The r77 and amraam (and MICA) looks like parity to me.

A2A

standard Su-27SK doesn't have R-77. upgraded J-11 variants maybe, but more likely to carry domestic SD-10 instead. R-73 coupled with HMS is a dangerous missile WVR , but the AAM-3 also reportly have off-boresight capability, while the Su-27SK probably still have a theoretic advantage, we must also take into account that the Japanese pilots are probably better trained due to access to ACM style training.

 

A2G

Chinese Su-27SK doesn't have any precision A2G capability as designed. While the Moskit missile mentioned by another poster was designed as a possible anti-ship weapon for the carrier version of the sukoi, the Chinese version certainly doesn't have that capability. In excercises, Chinese Su-27Sks haven't demonstrated the capability to drop anything beyond iron bombs and unguided rockets.

The F-2 on the other hand, has the full range of precision A2G weapons avaible to the Japanese, including Maverick, anti-ship missiles, and heat seeking bombs.

 

3)Better avionics?  I'm pretty sure the F2 is not getting the APG80. Last I heard the Japanese indeginous radar ran into software problems and they can't get detection above 50nm. Other than that, the program is pretty secretive. I couldn't find any source.

 

The AESA radar on the F-2 was the first radar of its type deployed on any fighter. The report of its problem dates from 2002, and was discovered during testings of the 19 preproduction aircrafts. Full deployment of the F-2s was delayed due to the problem, but since the it is in full deployment now, we should assume that the problem has been fixed. Even if we assume that the radar problem hasn't been fixed, and the detection range is still limited to 40nm (that's the figure I've read), that's still about 75km against 5m^2 targets, or about 90km against Su-27 size targets.

F-2 also have a integrated ECM suite.

 

But here's some info on what the Su27s family radar looks like:

 

    * For aircraft N011M has a 350 km search range and a 200 km tracking range.

    * A MiG-21 for instance can be detected at a distance of up to 135 km. Design maximum search range for an F-16 target was 140-160km.

    * A Bars' earlier variant, fitted with a five-kilowatt transmitter, proved to be capable of acquiring Su-27 fighters at a range of over 330 km.

    * It can track 20 air targets and engage the 8 most threatening targets simultaneously.

    * The forward hemisphere is ±90º in azimuth and ±55º in elevation.

    * N011M can withstand up to 5 percent transceiver loss without significant degredation in performance.

 

Source: VayuSena : A WebSite on the Indian Air Force

 

That looks like a pretty good avionics suite to me. 

 

Maybe the Japanese should have taken a look at what the Chinese bought before going off on their own with their $105 million per copy F2.

219453[/snapback]

 

N011M only offered to Indian Su-30MKI version, sorry, but Chinese Su-27SK, not even their Su-30MKK have radar with that kind of capabilities.

Edited September 10, 2005 by whyhow

[whyhow]

Last post because its off topic:

Whyhow I think you're wrong on many levels..

People in China do care about moral and ideological bankruptcy precisely because of the developmental divide we both agree exists. There has been a sea change away from lauding the robber baron capitalism of the Jiang years in China today, instead there is growing criticism of the idea that only getting rich matters. Thats because only some people (a minority) got rich and many of them are perceived to have done so through illegal, underhand, and corrupt means. But lets be honest, those people still have significant political clout and they are using it to protect their vested interests. When the hukou system is completely dismantled and all people wherever they were born can claim the same social benefits, the same access to education, healthcare, and other benfits, when they can move their families  to settle where they please, and when migrant workers are paid on time then you can talk about the poor performance of western countries in looking after the disadvantaged.

 

The banks are reporting growing NPLs again. That is because nothing has fundamentally changed in the way lending is conducted according to political rather than economic criteria. The reforms have stalled. A banking crisis would spark other related crises.

 

If you and the CPC think AIDS is a non-issue then China is in bigger trouble than I thought.

 

Your claims re nobody caring about the CPC's lack of ideological basis are laughable. It is precisely this worry that is mentioned in numerous speeches by Hu/Wen and it is this worry that drives the partywide campaign for advanced nature introduced after the 4th party plenum last year.

 

On IPR, have you actually read anything by Chinese leaders in the last year. It is precisely the weakness in IPR protection and the need to encourage more home-grown innovation that Wu YI, Wen Jiabao, Hu Jintao are mentioning again and again. Microsoft sets up R&D facilities but keeps all the IP for itself not for China.

219430[/snapback]

 

agree this should be the last post.

 

The truth is only a smaller minority became VERY rich, but almost all Chinese have became richer to some degree. The standard of life have definitely improved dramatically for all Chinese, at the expense of less financial security perhaps compare to the "iron rice bows" of the past. There is a rapidly growing middle class in China which is also very pro-government. One middle class Chinese family I know was riding a bicycle in 1992, a gas-powered scouter in 1997, and driving a second hand VW sedan in 2003. But they are also working longer hours, the husband lost his job in 2004 (I think), but quickly found another one at the new Shanghai airport. In private conversation, they'll complain about the corruptions on one hand, but talk about how they can get in the actions too in the next sentence.

The situation of the peasants are not good as the urban dwellers for sure, but they are definitely improving as well. While bleeding heart liberals in the West might think that Made in China means made by "slave prison labors", the truth is while the wages might be low by western standard, these assembly-line jobs are still providing peasants from the countryside with an improving standard of living. Go to any department stores in Chinese cities, you'll see many peasant girls with spending money in their pocket for the first time and happily buying new cloth and cosmetics.

Of course, I never claimed the Chinese system is fair or better than what we have here. In fact, we have far more social welfare programs in our capitalist country than the supposely socialist China.

 

Again, I don't know much about modern banking practices. But from what I've heard from friends working in American financial institutions that want to do business in China, NPLs isn't the real problem, because all those state banks are backed by the full financial resources of the government which has ample cash reserve. The government allow certain amount of NPLs because they are keeping the old state owned enterprises in business, providing the workers with a livelyhood and promoting social stability. The real problem seems to be the chaotic accounting practices that could only be improved with more contacts with western companies

and hopefully changed attitudes.

 

I said AIDS is a non-issue because the Chinese government has finally recognized that it is an issue. Due to its mean of transmission, AIDS could only be a problem if the government doesn't care and doesn't have the means to deal with it. Neither of which is true in China anymore.

 

The speeches by Hu about how the Communist Party should return to its ideological roots is a joke. Most Chinese are more interested about a new stock tip than any talks about returning to the Communist ideological root. The partywide campaign is really designed to weed out the officials that own their position to Jiang. This is how the new generation of leaders consolidate their power.

 

Of course IPR is a problem, but it is not so serious a problem that would discourage foreign R&D investments in China. The fact that Microsoft could keep its IP developed in China with Chinese talents shows that the government could protect IP in cases where they really want to. And all those R&D centers funded by foreign investment are developing products aimed at the Chinese market and useful for Chinese economic development, and more importantly promoting new management techniques and responsible attitude toward IPR in China. The fact that the new leaders are talking about IPR is also a positive sign that they recognize the problem and are trying to improve the situation.

[swerve]

And the JSDF has alredy completed the development of the Type 04 AAM (AAM-5) for the F-15 and F-2.

 

Ishikawa, what do you know about Japanese AAMs? I'd like to know more, but there doesn't seem to be much published.

[Ishikawa]

Ishikawa, what do you know about Japanese AAMs? I'd like to know more, but there doesn't seem to be much published.

220259[/snapback]

 

About the AAM-5,the Japan Aviation News reported that news in December, 2004.

 

The photos of the (X)AAM-5.

http://www10.plala.or.jp/strgzr/special/aam-5/aam-5.html

http://www.yukai.jp/~airwolf2/GV9Z8912c-1.jpg

 

This is the link to the Japan Aviation News' Homepage

http://www.aviation-news.co.jp/

 

According to the Central Contract Office,the JDA expended 3.98 billion yen to buy AAM-5s in FY 2004.

 

The linl to the Central Contract Office

http://www.cco.jda.go.jp/

 

In any case,the latest news is reported in Japanese.

[jakec]

Time to warm up the engines on those F-2s!

 

Saturday, September 10, 2005 at 06:56 JST

TOKYO — Five Chinese naval ships, including a missile destroyer, were spotted Friday morning near the Chunxiao gas field in the East China Sea, where Japan and China have a dispute over demarcation, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force said.

 

The MSDF said a P-3C patrol plane spotted the five vessels around 9 a.m. in waters 290 kilometers northwest of Kume Island, Okinawa Prefecture, southwestern Japan

[swerve]

About the AAM-5,the Japan Aviation News reported that news in December, 2004.

 

In any case,the latest news is reported in Japanese.

220646[/snapback]

 

Thanks. I'll see if I can persuade my personal translator to help, but she's not usually very keen on things like this.

[tankerwanabe]

You seem to be missing my point completely.

 

You said that the F-2 was a generation behind waht everybody else has.

 

I say you are wrong.  In its size/weight class & in its intended role, it is as advanced (if not more advanced) as any of its contemporaries in the region.

 

You keep comparing the F-2 (a light/middle-weight multi-role attack fighter) with the Su-30MK (a heavy-weight air superiority fighter/interceptor) & faulting the F-2 for not being a heavy-weight air superiority fighter/interceptor.  These are two aircraft intended for completely different roles.  And as I have said before, just because the Su-30MK is a better heavy-weight air superiority fighter/interceptor, than the F-2, that does not make it more advanced & certainly not a generation ahead.

 

None of the aircraft you listed as possible substitutes for the F-2 existed when the F-2 program began.

220089[/snapback]

 

You're right. This is a viable analysis. Once the the Japanese gets the F2 to work as advertised, it may be not be a full generation behind.

 

Man, I am such a pushover when it comes to arguments.

[Guest pfcem]

You're right. This is a viable analysis. Once the the Japanese gets the F2 to work as advertised, it may be not be a full generation behind.

 

Man, I am such a pushover when it comes to arguments.

220778[/snapback]

 

We are still not quite in full agreement yet but close enough that in the interest of moving on...

 

The origonal post asks about 20 years form now & it is most likely that Japan will be flying F-22s & upgraded F-15s for air-superiority fighters. GE officials say that the F110 is capable of being upgraded beyond 32,000 lbs to as high as 36,000 lbs of thrust - can you imagine a F-15 with 72,000lbs of thrust with thrust vectoring (the US has developed 2-3 different thust vectoring systems for the F110/F110 engines but have not imployed any of them for whatever reason).

 

For light/middle-weight multirole fighters (essentially glorfied bomb trucks capable of escorting themselves into enemy territory), most likely a combinaton of F-35s & upgraded F-2s (up to 36,000 lbs trust again) but could substitue either of those with another yet undeveloped aircraft.

 

It is quite possible that both China & Japan will have some V/STOL "Harrier Carriers" by 2020 but I I doubt either would yet have any CTOL "supercarriers".

 

In terms of surface combatants, Japan has a decided advantage in capability there & I doubt that they would allow themselves to be ofertaken by China there.

 

Aslo note that in 20 years China may no longer be under communist rule. They have already & continue to move towards a much more capitalist society & the communist leadership may find it difficult to maintain power even in its current form. Political relations between China & the western world may evolve to the point that while remaining competitors in the world market but not military adversaries (much like Russia today).

Edited September 12, 2005 by pfcem

[Taesu]

China, Japan and Their Naval War

 

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomake...get=htworld.htm

 

September 12, 2005: Recently, a Chinese surface group was detected by a Japanese P-3C in disputed waters near the Senkaku Islands. The group, which consisted of a Sovremenny-class destroyer, two Jianghu I-class missile frigates, a replenishment ship, and a missile observation support ship, was a reasonably powerful force. It does lead to the question: Who would prevail in a fight with Japan over the Senkaku Islands?

 

Such a battle would primarily involve the navies of both sides. Each operates on a different premise. Japan has a force of destroyers that are highly capable in anti-surface and anti-submarine operations. Japan’s guided missile destroyers are also highly capable anti-air vessels.

 

Japan has a total of 30 destroyers, nine guided-missile destroyers, and nine frigates. At least two of the older Tachikaze-class guided-missile destroyers will be replaced by the new Atago-class destroyers. Japan also has 16 modern diesel-electric submarines.

 

The Chinese navy is larger in numbers – carrying 25 destroyers and 45 frigates. However, of these 25 destroyers, 16 are the obsolete Luda class. The same is true for the Chinese frigates – two-thirds of them are the obsolete Jianghu-class ships. These are equipped with antiquated HY-2 missiles, which are copies of the old SS-N-2 Styx – state of the art for 1960. These days, a Styx is an easy kill for any modern surface-to-air missile. China has 65 diesel-electric submarines, but 52 of them are obsolete Romeo and Ming-class submarines. China’s Han-class SSNs are also old and noisy. Again, in terms of modern vessels, China is outnumbered.

 

Another factor is air cover. The disputed waters are within 300 kilometers of Okinawa. This is easily within the combat radius of the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force’s F-1, F-4EJ Kai, F-15J, and F-2 fighters. Japan has a major air base in Naha, and there is also Kadena Air Force Base, where the United States Air Force keeps a wing of F-15s. The oldest aircraft in service with Japan are the F-4EJ Kais and F-1s – the latter are being replaced by the F-2.

 

China’s fighters tend to be very old. The only real modern fighters are the J-11 (Russian Su-27) and the Su-30MKK (an Su-27 variant). Japan is almost at parity in terms of numbers (187 F-15J/DJs and 140 F-2s to 380 J-11/Su-30MKK in Chinese service). Japan has superb pilots as well, who get plenty of training. Chinese pilots get less flying time, although they are increasing their training.

 

Japan also has E-2 and E-767 airborne early warning aircraft that they have years of practice using, while China has only recently acquired Russian A-50 Mainstays.

 

In a straight naval-air fight over the Senkaku Islands, Japan has an advantage, even if they are on their own. While China is modernizing, Japan is not standing still, modernizing its military and keeping a qualitative edge over its larger neighbor. – Harold C. Hutchison (hchutch@ix.netcom.com)

[Josh]

When did the PRC aquire A-50's and how many of them do they have?

[whyhow]

When did the PRC aquire A-50's and how many of them do they have?

221304[/snapback]

 

One, KJ-2000, probably not fully operational yet. Its the same airframe that was send to Israel for the canceled Phalcon project. It appears to have a non-rotating radome, and according to internet speculations, mounts three domestic phased arrays for 360 degrees coverage. There is also another domestic project nicknamed "balance beam" that looks like Ericsson Erieye mounted on a Y-8 turboprop.

Edited September 12, 2005 by whyhow

[Josh]

One, KJ-2000, probably not fully operational yet. Its the same airframe that was send to Israel for the canceled Phalcon project. It appears to have a non-rotating radome, and according to internet speculations, mounts three domestic phased arrays for 360 degrees coverage. There is also another domestic project nicknamed "balance beam" that looks like Ericsson Erieye mounted on a Y-8 turboprop.

221485[/snapback]

 

So really no capability at all as of yet. Is there some reason that the Russian's won't sell them A-50's? Also, does the PRC have any projects to produce tanker a/c or does it possess this capability already?

[whyhow]

So really no capability at all as of yet. Is there some reason that the Russian's won't sell them A-50's? Also, does the PRC have any projects to produce tanker a/c or does it possess this capability already?

221549[/snapback]

 

No, no real capability yet. I think Russia probably offered A-50, but that system wasn't found to be satisfactory. India reportedly examined the A-50, turned it down, and went with the Phalcon.

There should be over a dozen H-6(Tu-16) bombers converted to tankers, I think they support the operation of J-8D. 8 Il-78s are reportedly included in the recent deal for Russian transport planes.

[jakec]

There are actually at least two KJ-2000 under test.

 

PLANAF has been operationally flying an airborne warning and control aircraft based on Y-8 Cub airframe using British search radar (similar to that in British Sea King AEW helicopters) for some years. There are a number in service.

 

PRC and Russia just signed a deal this week to transfer IL-78 MIDAS tankers.

[swerve]

There are actually at least two KJ-2000 under test.

 

PLANAF has been operationally flying an airborne warning and control aircraft based on Y-8 Cub airframe using British search radar (similar to that in British Sea King AEW helicopters) for some years. There are a number in service.

 

PRC and Russia just signed a deal this week to transfer IL-78 MIDAS tankers.

 

The Skymaster (a development of Searchwater) radars in those Y-8s is chin-mounted, IIRC. It's a smaller & lower-power set than most AEW radars, though AFAIK all it needs to match the capability of an Erieye or the APS-145 of a Hawkeye is a bigger & more powerful antenna - everything else is up to spec. Definitely a useful capacity, but inferior to what Japan currently has.

 

China bought Searchwater abput 1995-96. There are upgrades available, but I don't know if the Chinese have got hold of any, or if they still have the original 10-year old radars.

[Josh]

The Skymaster (a development of Searchwater) radars in those Y-8s  is chin-mounted, IIRC. It's a smaller & lower-power set than most AEW radars, though AFAIK all it needs to match the capability of an Erieye or the APS-145 of a Hawkeye is a bigger & more powerful antenna - everything else is up to spec. Definitely a useful capacity, but inferior to what Japan currently has.

 

China bought Searchwater abput 1995-96. There are upgrades available, but I don't know if the Chinese have got hold of any, or if they still have the original 10-year old radars.

221766[/snapback]

 

Read up on the Skymaster and Searchwater transfers. Why would the UK export systems that would allow the PRC to have a completely new capability (ie AEW or volume surface search)? That seems somewhat out of character...still, with out a compatible force of long range fighters or suitable extensive in flight refueling Y-8's seem to have limited wartime use.

[swerve]

Read up on the Skymaster and Searchwater transfers. Why would the UK export systems that would allow the PRC to have a completely new capability (ie AEW or volume surface search)? That seems somewhat out of character...still, with out a compatible force of long range fighters or suitable extensive in flight refueling Y-8's seem to have limited wartime use.

 

The Chinese said the radars were for anti-smuggling & anti-pirate coastguard use. Nobody complained - & the US government was advised beforehand, to give it an opportunity to complain.

 

The Y-8s do seem to be used as the Chinese said, but they've also exercised with destroyers & fighters, IIRC, which are a bit OTT for the advertised use. I think they really did want them for the declared purpose, but always had in mind their other capabilities. I expect they're not intended as a serious long-term AWACS asset, but their coastguard use gives valuable experience & training opportunities for the PLAN, so they're prepared when China gets more capable planes.

[Josh]

The Chinese said the radars were for anti-smuggling & anti-pirate coastguard use. Nobody complained - & the US government was advised beforehand, to give it an opportunity to complain.

 

The Y-8s do seem to be used as the Chinese said, but they've also exercised with destroyers & fighters, IIRC, which are a bit OTT for the advertised use. I think they really did want them for the declared purpose, but always had in mind their other capabilities. I expect they're not intended as a serious long-term AWACS asset, but their coastguard use gives valuable experience & training opportunities for the PLAN, so they're prepared when China gets more capable planes.

221870[/snapback]

 

Surprised the US didn't complain since the coastal areas are pretty obviously where any fight over taiwan would occur. But then I guess they don't feel threatened. Does anyone know if these units have the capability to datalink to other naval or air assets? In particular they could be useful as directors for AShM's from air, surface, or subsurface units.