No, he's just phrasing it in a way that makes it sound like people expected Y-20Bs at that air base in January this year for some reason. There has been no such expectation.

Well, yes and no ... I think anyone with an interesting in bases, units and new equipment never expected Y-20Bs at this base - aka the 13th TD, 37th AR at Kaifeng - but since the first production Y-20B allegedly flew first in November 2022 and we've seen already grey ones (maybe with serial numbers and as such no longer prototypes) in March 2023, at least I would have expected to see some at another base by late 2023 / early 2024.

So far however there is no hint, which other unit may have got them and there are not that many options.
 
Well, yes and no ... I think anyone with an interesting in bases, units and new equipment never expected Y-20Bs at this base - aka the 13th TD, 37th AR at Kaifeng - but since the first production Y-20B allegedly flew first in November 2022 and we've seen already grey ones (maybe with serial numbers and as such no longer prototypes) in March 2023, at least I would have expected to see some at another base by late 2023 / early 2024.

So far however there is no hint, which other unit may have got them and there are not that many options.

My view is that:
1. There was no particular reason to expect Y-20Bs at this specific base, by that particular time when the satellite image was taken
2. There are probably Y-20Bs already in service but we just don't have images of it because they keep things close to their chest, and unless you have the satellite imagery resources of a great power tasked to actively finding them, you probably won't be able to luckily spot one by chance at this stage

All of which is to say there's nothing about Y-20B or WS-20s status that can be inferred from that picture.
 
Photo of Y-20BE model made in January.
Since version B is being offered for export I guess all that talk about WS-20 was simple FUD?
IMG_0900.png
 
@Deino
Any information about the cargo size Y-20 can fit in?

There are various images around which help sizing the cargo bay. length is fairly easy to estimate, but cargo floor width is harder. Though this image T7.jpg

suggests it could/should be around 4.2 meters wide, judging by the width of the ramp. Ramp edges themselves are 4.5 m.
When I use ramp to landing gear position ratio, and then size up the landing gear position to a measurable value like wingspan (as measured via google earth) then I get even more, closer to 4.7 m. But as one can imagine, doing measurements that way is bound to involve some inaccuracies.
I googled average pallet width in china and got 1200mm. Measuring to that i got 4.5 meters.
For the 4.5 meters to be possible, the guy in the picture would have to be 1.78 tall, which is also fairly believable. (2021 report said that 19 year old male average height was 176 cm) Once again, that's ramp edges.
All that taking into consideration, the part of the ramp that actually seems to be useable width is some 93.5% of the total ramp width, getting me from 4.5 meters to 4.21 meters.
 
Judging by that last image, the radome diameter might be 11.9 meters. For comparison, E-3's is 9.1 meters in diameter.
 
Isn't it 11.5m on the A-50EI (the radar system on which may have formed the template for Chinese efforts, after all)? Seems plausible.
 
The fact that the rotodome was not blurred, but the body of the plane was, might imply that the body houses some additional conformal arrays.
 
The fact that the rotodome was not blurred, but the body of the plane was, might imply that the body houses some additional conformal arrays.


exactly my theory too ... it looks like a bulge and not just like fins:

1735400973659.png
 
As I said on other forum, at first glance, seems to be comparable in concept to a-100.

Heavy, multi-band, multi-functional command/information/spectrum warfare stand off center node, rather than just awacs.
 
…. and a nice big juicy target.

Not to downplay Chinese success, but whoever is working on, or using AWACS/Wedgedales/… should be prepared to get disappointed in a future war.
 
…. and a nice big juicy target.

Not to downplay Chinese success, but whoever is working on, or using AWACS/Wedgedales/… should be prepared to get disappointed in a future war.
Yeah, though depending on circumstances(protection) and intensity, may still be worth it.
Ultimately, they aren't that irreplaceable if you have electronic industry. China has.
 
…. and a nice big juicy target.

Not to downplay Chinese success, but whoever is working on, or using AWACS/Wedgedales/… should be prepared to get disappointed in a future war.

So do the USAF! ;) ... and still all are developing and investing it them.
 
…. and a nice big juicy target.

Not to downplay Chinese success, but whoever is working on, or using AWACS/Wedgedales/… should be prepared to get disappointed in a future war.

Such platforms have a lot more uses outside the forward edge of peer competitor conflicts. Peacetime observation , conflicts with other countries, patrols in low threat areas/friendly airspace, etc. But yes, it seems unlikely this type of aircraft is particularly survivable near opponent tactical air for either side now, let alone by end of decade.
 
Let's see.

Something has to be done ultimately, or airspace control capability will just crumble.

Where it can lead - see shaheds as a first warning.

One way is probably just accept losing them at a certain rate, while keeping this rate under control. Though would be nice to give operators escape options better than now(basically no progress since ww2)
 
Let's see.

Something has to be done ultimately, or airspace control capability will just crumble.

Where it can lead - see shaheds as a first warning.

One way is probably just accept losing them at a certain rate, while keeping this rate under control. Though would be nice to give operators escape options better than now(basically no progress since ww2)
There are/were, with operators on ground instead of inside the airframe, , see Tu-126 (partial) and early SAAB 340 AEW&C
 
There are/were, with operators on ground instead of inside the airframe, , see Tu-126 (partial) and early SAAB 340 AEW&C
AEW instead of AWACS provides flat out different(lesser) capability.

AWACS brings whole ecosystem(gathering, processing, analyzing, responding) to where it is needed.
AEW is but a radar in the sky, reliant on someone else to do dissimination and C&C, basically just a way to bring it higher.
 
AEW instead of AWACS provides flat out different(lesser) capability.

AWACS brings whole ecosystem(gathering, processing, analyzing, responding) to where it is needed.
AEW is but a radar in the sky, reliant on someone else to do dissimination and C&C, basically just a way to bring it higher.
That's why I specifically mention AEW&C, different requirements led to different configuration.
The follow-up of E-2 Hawkeye in the 80's was designed with all crew (4?) seating ejection seats, but that's just a design with a small crew in mind
 
Let's see.

Something has to be done ultimately, or airspace control capability will just crumble.

Where it can lead - see shaheds as a first warning.

One way is probably just accept losing them at a certain rate, while keeping this rate under control. Though would be nice to give operators escape options better than now(basically no progress since ww2)

I do not think AEW is something even China can afford to lose in any significant numbers. But the PRC certainly has plenty of wide open spaces within its own borders that AEW would be very useful for, even if directing tactical engagements against opponent fighters in contested areas is too dangerous. I’m sure the SCS also warrants high altitude 360 degree radar coverage, with less of a threat level as other theaters. An E-2 a thousand miles off the PRC coast might also expect a more mild operating environment.
 
AEW instead of AWACS provides flat out different(lesser) capability.

AWACS brings whole ecosystem(gathering, processing, analyzing, responding) to where it is needed.
AEW is but a radar in the sky, reliant on someone else to do dissimination and C&C, basically just a way to bring it higher.

Given a survivable low latency communication system; the difference between AEW and AWACS would be marginal to nothing. A big “if”, perhaps, but with mega LEO constellations, perhaps not an inconceivable one.
 
I do not think AEW is something even China can afford to lose in any significant numbers. But the PRC certainly has plenty of wide open spaces within its own borders that AEW would be very useful for, even if directing tactical engagements against opponent fighters in contested areas is too dangerous. I’m sure the SCS also warrants high altitude 360 degree radar coverage, with less of a threat level as other theaters. An E-2 a thousand miles off the PRC coast might also expect a more mild operating environment.
Ugh, thousand miles away they are just beyond any impact. It's as good as neutering them. Furthermore, honestly speaking - lonely E-2 thousand miles away to me is but a fancy form of mareuding J-36 bait. There should be a certain level of acceptable loss rate (perhaps 1/month?), determining patrol barrier. Opfor dead bend to neuter your S/A asset will probably do it(initiative and determination), but otherwise it's totally possible to make it into a risky fight, not a cold kill.

My internal expectation is more in line Hi/Lo mix, with:

Larger, advanced and crucially - faster multiband AWACS operating somewhat behind, screened(meaning missile protection first and foremost). Relatively cheaper L- band drones forming uninterrupted picture to prevent closer-range ambushes with higher pK, perhaps operating with more important operations.
Russia also plays with guiding heavy SAMs with AWACS, but results are...mixed as we know.

or

Smaller, turboprop ones(wedgetail probably fits between here and the above, too) providing barrier of situational awareness away from higher intensity spots, over friendly ground/space. And as we saw with new KJ-700 - with oversized "satellite" sized IR optics for coherency and LO detection.

or

traditional naval AEW operation, perhaps made somewhat easier by CCA escoort. The most straightforward, losing ships is ultimately more expensive than losing EWs.

Given a survivable low latency communication system; the difference between AEW and AWACS would be marginal to nothing. A big “if”, perhaps, but with mega LEO constellations, perhaps not an inconceivable one.
I am very sceptical they're going to be operable during direct confrontations between 1st tier nations.
They can remain untouched because price of triggering such nation is overwhelming, but if this isn't a problem - they're just ripe for intercept.
Sure, destroying them to unit may be yet hard to achieve without going nuclear(MCVs needed), but making system unreliable and interrupted is rather straightforward.
 
Ugh, thousand miles away they are just beyond any impact. It's as good as neutering them. Furthermore, honestly speaking - lonely E-2 thousand miles away to me is but a fancy form of mareuding J-36 bait. There should be a certain level of acceptable loss rate (perhaps 1/month?), determining patrol barrier. Opfor dead bend to neuter your S/A asset will probably do it(initiative and determination), but otherwise it's totally possible to make it into a risky fight, not a cold kill.

A thousand miles off the PRC coast means that any PLAN ship east of Taiwan is 800 miles away, within unrefueled F-18s stand off range and easy tomahawk engagement. The far side of Taiwan where landing ships would be holding still is 100-200 more. Perhaps it is a threat the PRC can deal with but it certainly is not one it can ignore.

Once a month has no meaning for any platform. I would assume both sides have long range anti air ramjet or scramjet weapons inside several years. In fact I assume the PLAAF has them now. That may not be debilitating for either side within a suitable defended bubble, but it makes offensive or very forward defensive operations problematic for both sides. And any PRC operation would by nature be offensive.

Also you seem to treat the J-36 as an operational system. We have seen what is at most a prototype.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom