Indian media boasts that their domestically developed AWACS is on par with China's KJ-3000! Indians can certainly boast, but please don’t belittle China’s AWACS performance when you do—otherwise, the truth will come out!
On May 31, Indian media outlet *Defense Matrix* posted on X (formerly Twitter), stating that both China and India used Russia’s Il-76 platform for their previous-generation AWACS. However, their paths diverge for next-generation platforms:
China’s direction is the KJ-3000, based on the Y-20 transport aircraft, with an expected radar detection range exceeding 500 km;
India’s direction is Netra Mk-II, based on Airbus A321-200, also expected to have a radar detection range of over 500 km.
The report by *Defense Matrix* and comments from Indian netizens generally believe that China and India’s next-generation AWACS are technologically comparable, with similar detection ranges. However, India claims one advantage: using the A321, a mainstream commercial airliner, offers better cabin comfort, improved fuel efficiency, and greater internal space compared to dedicated military aircraft.
In contrast, China’s Y-20 is merely a transport aircraft, with significantly lower cabin comfort than a purpose-built passenger plane. Moreover, due to its larger aerodynamic drag, the Y-20 has poorer fuel economy. Therefore, China’s KJ-3000 appears clearly inferior in overall performance.
Is this Indian claim accurate? If we assess only based on comfort, the Indian argument holds some merit—adapting commercial airliners for AWACS roles is indeed ideal. However, China cannot access suitable commercial aircraft for such modifications. Even if China has already purchased certain aircraft, they are explicitly restricted to civilian use only—so the path of using commercial planes for AWACS development is effectively closed.
Unless the C919 becomes mature enough in the future, China could potentially use a fully domestic C919 airliner for AWACS conversion—this would be feasible. But currently, it’s not possible. So, using the Y-20 as a platform is the only available option for now—upgrades must wait until later.
Has Indian media misrepresented things? Absolutely yes! For example, regarding the maximum detection range of the Y-20-based AWACS, Indian media claims “over 500 km”—which is quite exaggerated. The KJ-3000 employs cutting-edge technologies: for instance, gallium nitride (GaN) T/R units with silicon carbide substrates, offering power density about three times that of gallium arsenide (GaAs), higher operating temperatures, and superior suitability for high-power airborne AESA radars.
Another key feature is the digital array active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar used in KJ-3000. Each T/R unit can directly perform digital beamforming (DBF), enabling stronger anti-jamming capabilities and enhanced multi-target handling. This means each array can generate multiple independent beams simultaneously—one beam for long-range surveillance, another for tracking fighter jets, another for missile lock-on, and yet another for electronic warfare—all operating independently without interference.
Moreover, beams can instantly switch and scan flexibly without mechanical rotation; multi-target capacity is greatly increased, capable of simultaneously tracking and processing hundreds of aerial targets. Digital weighting optimizes sidelobes, giving far superior anti-jamming and anti-interception performance compared to analog systems.
From a detection range perspective, key performance metrics include:
Stealth fighters (RCS ≈ 0.01–0.02 m², e.g., F-22/F-35): 300–360 km
Conventional fighters/bombers (RCS ≈ 1–5 m²): 700–800 km
High-altitude large targets (transport aircraft, tankers, at 10–30 km altitude): 900–1000 km (maximum detection range)
Low-altitude/ultra-low-altitude cruise missiles (limited by Earth curvature): ≈300 km
The maximum detection range exceeds 1000 km. Let’s put it plainly: the KJ-3000’s digital array is currently the most advanced in the world. India’s Netra Mk-II is nothing more than a footnote. With its own detection range capped at just over 500 km, labeling China’s KJ-3000 as also having "over 500 km" may seem honest—but it’s misleading professionals.
Netra Mk-II reportedly also uses GaN technology and digital beamforming (DBF), capable of forming dozens of simultaneous beams. Yet its detection performance lags far behind:
Typical fighter (RCS ≈ 1 m²): 400–450 km
Larger aircraft/tankers: ≈500 km
Stealth targets (RCS ≈ 0.01–0.1 m²): 200–250 km
Ballistic missiles (high altitude): up to 500 km+
Isn’t this nearly half of China’s KJ-3000 capability? Despite similar T/R units and phased-array architecture, why such a gap? The answer lies in Netra Mk-II’s balanced-beam antenna structure, which creates blind spots directly ahead and behind. Its T/R units, compared to the circular disk-shaped array of China’s KJ-3000, are estimated to be less than one-third in number, with drastically lower unit power. Total transmit power is likely only one-sixth to one-seventh of China’s system.
Given that detection range is proportional to the fourth root of equivalent radiated power, the difference is roughly a factor of two—not much more. Assuming China’s maximum detection range is 1000 km, India’s Netra Mk-II maxes out around 500 km—so claiming “over 500 km” is technically correct. But equating China’s 1000 km capability to “over 500 km”? What’s the intention there?
Is India trying to suggest its technology has caught up with China’s? This kind of logic is truly unprecedented! And most importantly, Netra Mk-II was only approved last August—just getting started. Achieving a true digital array system will require immense effort from India.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1866720818750464/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.