Chinese carrier AEW aircraft spotted

A new version of the Y-7J has been spotted in China, parked on their carrier deck mockup in Wuhan. The aircraft appears to be a combination of an AN-26 front end, and an aft fuselage similar to a C-2 or E-2. The aircraft is projected to have a range of up to 1400 miles. It has a similar radar antenna to the E-2 Hawkeye, which will probably be a UHF type radar system. Around 2005, a picture of a politician visiting a design firm showed a partial image of an aircraft similar to this design, with both a dish and beam style radar system mounted. It also appears to have two small jet engines below the tail area on the aft fuselage.

The new model of Y-7J (03) carrier-capable tactical airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft was spotted in Wuhan, Hubei province, China.

That was reported by military-informant.com.

The prototype of the new aircraft was established on the model aircraft carrier in Wuhan Province. The model aircraft carrier is estimated at being 300 meters (984 feet) long and 80 meters (262 feet) wide. The model is complete with a helicopter landing pad and a model of a carrier-borne aircraft.

defence-blog.com...

Looks like a "MiniWACS" knock off...

The technology looks to be 80s era; still a few generations behind us...

Echo check...

a reply to: madmac5150

The airframe is fairly irrelevant, it's the radar that matters. The newest version of the E-2D has one of the more advanced UHF radars flying, while the airframe is largely the same as the original E-2, and externally, the radar is the same as the original.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: madmac5150

The airframe is fairly irrelevant, it's the radar that matters. The newest version of the E-2D has one of the more advanced UHF radars flying, while the airframe is largely the same as the original E-2, and externally, the radar is the same as the original.

...and that Radar is somewhat impressive, but still at least 2 generations behind current U.S. stealth technology.

a reply to: madmac5150

UHF/VHF radar will work better than a standard radar against small stealth targets like the F-22 and F-35. Not well enough to make them irrelevant, but better than it will work against a large bomber. There's absolutely no way to tell what kind of radar is on this aircraft, but the best bet is that it is some kind of UHF/VHF radar system.

I wonder if they are stepping up since the announcement of India getting more AWACS themselves.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: madmac5150

UHF/VHF radar will work better than a standard radar against small stealth targets like the F-22 and F-35. Not well enough to make them irrelevant, but better than it will work against a large bomber. There's absolutely no way to tell what kind of radar is on this aircraft, but the best bet is that it is some kind of UHF/VHF radar system.

It would have to be a seriously advanced design to use the circular dish as a receiver, and have it be effective against radar scattering stealth technology. If they have figured that out... then, we are screwed.

yeah gotta go with Zaphod on this one it's whats under the shell that counts, like lightning bolt battery charge systems. What it really comes down to is how this plane will be able to adapt to changing radar technology notwithstanding platform carrier evolution.
I can only hope they're responding to Indias AWAC development otherwise its about propaganda to its citizenry or globally or just a good old build up of arms.

a reply to: madmac5150

It's not as hard as you think. New airborne radars are AESA systems, which means that while the dish rotates, the radar system itself is electronically steered. The IFF and ADS receiver, if they're built in, rotate to give 360 degree coverage. The radar itself doesn't need to move to transmit and receive. The Chinese have had beam and dish antennas on aircraft for years, as do most large nation military forces.

Longer frequency radars reflect off certain aspects of stealth aircraft, such as the vertical fin. They aren't large enough to have the required amount of RAM to prevent it. It's a natural effect of the angles involved in the aircraft, and the longer wavelength radars.

You always get one insecure person that says oh ours are more advanced but egos aside this is impressive! It may be "a generation behind" but not long ago the Chinese were 3-4 generations behind.

a reply to: muSSang
you always get that one Chinese communist that says they're catching up quickly but foregoes to mention the theft of technology

And a cross section of a plane is circular; perfect place for a radar receiver? hell naw make it big and slap it on the roof.

a reply to: muSSang

They're a ways from having a true blue water navy, and especially a true carrier force, but they're getting the pieces together. When their third carrier hits the water, and they have a CATOBAR hull, then things will get interesting. It's going to take awhile to build their doctrine, and get the experience, but they can start getting some of that under their belt with the land based "carriers".

a reply to: BeneGesseritWitch

There is no radar small enough to get that kind of coverage that could go anywhere else. A radar system installed in the aircraft, such as the one in the nose, can only see about 180 degrees, out to maybe a couple hundred miles. A roof mounted radar can reach over 300 miles, and has 360 degree coverage, in addition to having a lot more power than a nose mounted system.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: madmac5150

It's not as hard as you think. New airborne radars are AESA systems, which means that while the dish rotates, the radar system itself is electronically steered. The IFF and ADS receiver, if they're built in, rotate to give 360 degree coverage. The radar itself doesn't need to move to transmit and receive. The Chinese have had beam and dish antennas on aircraft for years, as do most large nation military forces.

Longer frequency radars reflect off certain aspects of stealth aircraft, such as the vertical fin. They aren't large enough to have the required amount of RAM to prevent it. It's a natural effect of the angles involved in the aircraft, and the longer wavelength radars.

My understanding from contacts in the industry say that this obstacle has been overcome with ECM ... but, I am a few years out of the killing other people business.

a reply to: madmac5150

ECM is like putting up a giant neon sign saying "Look! I'm out here, and in this area!" While EW systems have been getting better, counter jamming systems have been as well. Longer wavelength radars are also hard to jam. Both of which make them useful for at least seeing if something is flying around out there.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: madmac5150

ECM is like putting up a giant neon sign saying "Look! I'm out here, and in this area!" Longer wavelength radars are also hard to jam. Both of which make them useful for at least seeing if something is flying around out there.

We do still have F-16CJs and AGM-88s. Longer wavelength radars give the AGM-88 a cleaner shot on target... and with the HARMS loiter time on target,... I'd lay odds on us.

a reply to: madmac5150

Which works great against ground based targets that aren't moving, or moving slowly in the case of the newest HARM. But this is an airborne target, that's moving. The HARM isn't designed to work air to air. And our longest ranged air to air missile is much shorter ranged than an airborne radar, which makes killing an airborne radar much harder.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: madmac5150

Which works great against ground based targets that aren't moving, or moving slowly in the case of the newest HARM. But this is an airborne target, that's moving. The HARM isn't designed to work air to air. And our longest ranged air to air missile is much shorter ranged than an airborne radar, which makes killing an airborne radar much harder.

Time to bring back the AIM-4, methinks...