if you see when Russia offer AWAC to China, it was very unimpressive which is why they decide to try their own. Iraq have A Russian AWAC call Adam and in the magazine I read, it do not work very well in the war. I hope this do not make you angry.

Try to find out more about the Iraqi Baghdad conversions of the Il-76, aka Adnan-1 and Adnan-2 before comparing them to the A-50. By the way, you might want to put ‘pot calling the kettle black’ as an addition to your sig. :rolleyes:

bring it on here wins my nomination for the award for excellent timing 2006!

Pinko states

….and his utter guesswork is thrown into sharp relief by the below statement from bring it ons article:

Mullen’s comments come after the head of U.S. Pacific Command responded to the initial Washington Times story earlier in the week by saying the incident could have escalated into “something that was very unforeseen” if the Kitty Hawk had been conducting anti-submarine warfare operations at the time.

So we have from the initial article this statement:

The Kitty Hawk and several other warships were deployed in ocean waters near Okinawa at the time, as part of a routine fall deployment program.

Indicating that its not uncommon for the USN to be exercising in those particular waters at this time of year…that there is confirmation that no ASW was being undertaken and still the best that this amazing Chinese sub could manage was to surface 5 miles astern of its ‘target’ and decidedly out of position!!!.

…and to some this is indicative of Chinese Naval skill at arms. No wonder the Chinese Govt are officially shrugging their shoulders at this!!!

How dare you Jonesy question the unparalleled ingenuity and tactical superiority of the almighty PLAN?! Do you not see the great tracking capabilities demonstrated by the PLAN in stationing their sub in an announced exercise area for the USN and JMSDF forces? Oh what brilliance! I am a convert, honest to God, I tell ya. All hail the PLAN!

the question is how it can venture into the system and shoot things with medium range missiles without otherside knowing from where it is coming from.

Rivet Joint, Compass Call, ALR-94 and Prowler. If you still don’t understand, go find out what they are supposed to do.

upgraded A-50 claimed to have 1000km range and wth enhance passive detection system. dual mode AAMs are entering service.

You are smoking something, or the Russians are having too much vodka.

now there is MIG-31 as effective as fifth generation fighter with long range bvr and having the fuel for supersonic cruise.

And how many countries have the MIg-31? THe Mig-31 has only speed and altitude, not stealth or advanced avionics. A very good interceptor no doubt (performance wise), but not survivable in the way the F-22 is.

For those who think havong an AESA radar on an AEW platform means it definitely having a destructive capability… here’s an AWS&T article.

Users of radar weapons are cautious about unexpected consequences of directed energy

Directed-energy weapons, including the “weapons effects” of large active electronically scanned (AESA) radars, are a worry for researchers and planners who still don’t know all the benefits and unintentional damage that such devices might produce.
“There is always the unintended consequence,” says Air Vice Marshal (ret.) Norman Gray, deputy CEO of Australia’s Defense Materiel Organization. As a Royal Australian Air Force officer, Gray helped write the requirements for Wedgetail, the country’s new airborne early warning and control aircraft. It carries a large L-band radar that could theoretically produce weapons effects on enemy missiles or, perhaps, aircraft.
“If we hit somebody else with a non-kinetic weapon, we better know for sure there’s not going to be collateral damage to our own banking or economic system. You’ve got to be careful,” he says.
Gray points out that the RAAF has no requirement at this point to modify the Wedgetail’s multipurpose electronically scanned array (MESA) radar to create weapons effects to counter missiles. The only focus has been to produce a long-range sensor.
Even so, he cautions that “microwaves, if they touch you, are a problem. Just shutting down an electronic sensor does not protect it from electromagnetic pulse. You can’t stop [electrical] coupling through the system. [Researchers] have to do a lot more work on how you get around the complexities of protecting yourself if you put an electromagnetic pulse weapon on an aircraft [that is intended] to fry the electronics of an incoming missile.”
Scientists believe they can focus the energy of a large AESA radar into a 1/2-deg. beamwidth. That could put spikes of energy into an enemy electronics system powerful enough to create false targets, confuse computer memories or even damage key electronic components. But what if that beam hits some part of the aircraft carrying the radar weapon or some nearby friendly aircraft?
“If you can burn out the electronics of a missile while it’s still a mile away, and [the beam] hits your wingtip 50 ft. away, what have you done to yourself?” Gray says. “It’s a bunch of functional issues like that that are still [creating] difficulties for putting the [radar weapon] technology into airplanes. You want the radar to sweep all possible aspects [of the sky]–across the wings and back across the tail. Imagine what would happen at that range if I focused a high-power microwave weapon on it.”
For example, the Wedgetail’s vertical stabilizer holds a high-frequency antenna. Coupling a huge burst of microwave energy into the communications system would damage, and possibly disable, it. There also are electronics in the tail and wiring connected to critical cockpit electronics and into the generators that run simple things like the navigation lights; there are concerns about the hydraulics system that operates the rudder. That much energy would probably boil the hydraulics fluid and destroy its effectiveness.
Another sensitive device is the pitot-static tube in the tail, which, if shut off, would mean no air pressure data to control the aircraft. Those components could be encased in some sort of metal shield, but this would add weight to the aircraft and alter the radar’s grounding plane to the point it would not be able see anything to the rear.
“That’s why people aren’t rushing in to say, because this is an AESA, I can automatically do all these things,” Gray says. “Physics says it’s possible. The practicalities and the dangers are another thing entirely. Protecting yourself against a huge transmitter focused into a weapons-grade [device] would be a massive challenge. I think that will come, but there are a lot of things to get over, not the least of which is the fear of the crew.”

Stealth only reduced detection range. It does not make anything invisible to radar, not by a long shot. Every single B2 mission has to be planned maticulously to avoid getting too close to ground based radars. As such, it might not be the smartest thing in the world to do for F22s to be trying to get too close to hostile AWACS that might be able to hit the plane with enough radar signal for a readable return to show up before the raptor is within AMRAAM range.

F-22 has 2 more attributes than the B-2 in its survivability toolbox. That is Stealth + Speed + Altitude. 3 attributes that give it tremendous advantage over any air defense system. Stealth delays the detection of the F-22, while speed cuts the available reaction time of the defense system. Altitude increases the survivability of the Raptor by cutting the adversary’s missile range while furthering its own AMRAAM’s reach.

Also, if the AWACS has ASEA radar, then there is no reason why the AWACS won’t be able to do the same trick as advertised for the F22 whereby the radar signal could be focused to knock out a radar emitter, say that on an ARH AAM. ASEA radar equipped AWACS would also have a far higher chance of detecting a stealth platform further away.

That depends on being able to find the F-22 first. Doing something like that also requires that the enemy not harden his platforms. With the US the leader in AESA technology and probably the pioneer in researching the destructive effects of AESA, do you think they would not component shield the F-22 if there was a practical threat of the sort described?

Why in danger? If they are stealth, they don’t need to shoot awacs down 😀

Nic

Which is why F-22s are force enablers – they take down an enemy’s defense system (of which AWACs and SAMs are part of) to enable the legacy fleet to do their job much more effectively. Which is why the F-22s are worth their cost (and why the USAF is hugging the F-22 idea so tight despite its price tag) – they enhance the effectiveness of the USAF fleet as a whole with their additional capabilities in a way few other platforms do.

Any carrier China is getting is not going to do much power projection anywhere unless they get their ASW up to par. We’ll not talk about getting a level of capability enough to counter USN subs (practically no chance for the forseeable future), but a level needed to counter the Collins, Type 214s, Oyashios and Scorpenes and Challengers in the region.