What's new

Future Chinese carrier-borne AEW: KJ-600 or KH-600

You are surely correct, but my point - maybe again to nitpick - was that the C-130's take off from a carrier was not a regular operational service deployment but more feasibility tests and for the E-2C, that this type indeed uses a catapult from US and French carriers.

That does not exclude the possibility - even if I'm not sure about it - that the KJ-600 could take off the Liaoning & Shandong by using its own power and the full length of the runway.
Exactly. And C-130 has 4 engines. It doesn't need to be made compact by folding the wings. E-2C needs to be made compact so it only has 2 engines. Just my amateurish thought.
 
.
Not sure about the prototype which might be using some WJ-6 variant at first even if WJ-10 is already available.
You probably don't want to test a new airplane especially a new design with a new engine at the same time.
But The production version must have WJ-10. It's not like using D30 for Y-20 for production at first where you only pay the price of range and load capacity with the inferior substitute while waiting for WS-20 or CJ-1000A.
But for KJ-600, powerful engines are essential since it must operate on the carriers.
So I think before it goes for production, it will start using WJ-10 on the later prototypes, if it's not equipped with WJ-10 yet.
But is WJ-10 itself ready for production?
 
. . .
China's first carrier-based, fixed-wing early warning aircraft makes maiden flight: reports
By Liu Xuanzun Source: Global Times Published: 2020/9/1 21:16:34
9


294c7ffb-94e1-4c08-9ac5-7356eed00579.jpeg

Aircrafts are visible on the deck of the aircraft carrier Liaoning of the PLA Navy. File photo: 81.cn


China's first aircraft carrier-based, fixed-wing early warning aircraft, reportedly called the KJ-600, successfully made its maiden flight in late August, foreign and Chinese media reported. This type of plane will become far-reaching eyes and significantly boost the comprehensive combat capability of Chinese aircraft carriers, which currently only have helicopters for early warning purposes, Chinese experts said on Tuesday.

An aircraft identified as the KJ-600 was recently spotted in Xi'an, capital of Northwest China's Shaanxi Province, in a commercial satellite image, Ordnance Industry Science Technology, a Xi'an-based magazine on the national defense industry, reported on Monday, citing a report on Forbes on Saturday.

Unverified photos posted on social media show it recently made its first test flight, the Chinese magazine said.

The Chinese military or the aircraft's manufacturer has not announced the maiden flight of the aircraft as of press time.

Wang Ya'nan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times on Tuesday that after China built an aircraft carrier, it was expected to develop an aircraft carrier-based early warning system as a priority project.

When China's aircraft carriers sail far away from inland to an extent that land-based early warning aircraft cannot provide early warning support, the carriers would lose their full combat potential without a carrier-based fixed-wing early warning aircraft, Wang said. He added that this kind of aircraft can quickly create an early warning and control system to allow an aircraft carrier combat group to independently carry out missions.

China's aircraft carriers currently rely on early warning helicopters to do the job, but they can only carry smaller radars, have limited speed, and only cover a radius of about 200 kilometers, while a fixed-wing early warning aircraft can cover about 400 to 500 kilometers, Wang said.

Judging from the images, Ordnance Industry Science Technology said that the KJ-600 has a very tight fuselage design, making it almost as long as the J-15 aircraft carrier-based fighter jet, and the Z-18 early warning helicopter.

The aircraft carries a radar on the top of its middle fuselage, similar to China's previous early warning aircraft KJ-2000 and KJ-500.

It likely uses two WJ-6C turboprop engines, but could switch to the newer WJ-10s in the future, the report said.

The Forbes report claimed that the KJ-600 looks like the US Navy's E-2C Hawkeye.

Wang said it is natural that similar technological requirements and approaches, including on the design of a carrier-operable aircraft platform and the development of small but capable radar, have led to this.

There is no evidence yet if the KJ-600 can operate on China's current two aircraft carriers, the Liaoning and the Shandong, which use ski-jump flight decks without catapults. China's third aircraft carrier is expected to use a flat flight deck with electromagnetic catapults, which will be compatible with the KJ-600, analysts said.

 
. .
regarding take off from a ski jump, several years ago the US proposed to sell the E-2 to India. it apears that hypotheticaly the E-2 could take off from the longest runway of the Indian CV if it carried significantly reduced fuel load that would only be enough for it to stay 1 hour in the air instead of 5 hours. CV-16 & 17 could probably do that too, in addition once the KJ-600 takes off it could be refueled by a J-15, so hypotheticaly let's say once the KJ-600 took off with very little fuel another J-15 is prepared to take off from the longest runway, the J-15 would carry no weapons & it would refuel the KJ-600 immediatley after the J-15 takes off and then immediatley land thus it would barely need to have any fuel for it's own leaving enough of it for the KJ-600 to be fueled completely to be able to stay 4 or 5 hours in the air.

also since this J-15 refueler would only spend few minutes in the air it would probably need significantly less time in maintenance than the other aircrafts on the CV before being prepared to take off again to refuel other fighters, they could have like 4 J-15 dedicated for refueling on the CV.
 
.
regarding take off from a ski jump, several years ago the US proposed to sell the E-2 to India. it apears that hypotheticaly the E-2 could take off from the longest runway of the Indian CV if it carried significantly reduced fuel load that would only be enough for it to stay 1 hour in the air instead of 5 hours. CV-16 & 17 could probably do that too, in addition once the KJ-600 takes off it could be refueled by a J-15, so hypotheticaly let's say once the KJ-600 took off with very little fuel another J-15 is prepared to take off from the longest runway, the J-15 would carry no weapons & it would refuel the KJ-600 immediatley after the J-15 takes off and then immediatley land thus it would barely need to have any fuel for it's own leaving enough of it for the KJ-600 to be fueled completely to be able to stay 4 or 5 hours in the air.

also since this J-15 refueler would only spend few minutes in the air it would probably need significantly less time in maintenance than the other aircrafts on the CV before being prepared to take off again to refuel other fighters, they could have like 4 J-15 dedicated for refueling on the CV.
I believe landing is the bigger problem here.
Too risky for it operating on ski-jump CVs.
Not worth it.
More likely CV-16/17 will be covered by land based AEWs instead.

For power projection tasks away from land based, leave them for 003/004s.
 
.
regarding take off from a ski jump, several years ago the US proposed to sell the E-2 to India. it apears that hypotheticaly the E-2 could take off from the longest runway of the Indian CV if it carried significantly reduced fuel load that would only be enough for it to stay 1 hour in the air instead of 5 hours. CV-16 & 17 could probably do that too, in addition once the KJ-600 takes off it could be refueled by a J-15, so hypotheticaly let's say once the KJ-600 took off with very little fuel another J-15 is prepared to take off from the longest runway, the J-15 would carry no weapons & it would refuel the KJ-600 immediatley after the J-15 takes off and then immediatley land thus it would barely need to have any fuel for it's own leaving enough of it for the KJ-600 to be fueled completely to be able to stay 4 or 5 hours in the air.

also since this J-15 refueler would only spend few minutes in the air it would probably need significantly less time in maintenance than the other aircrafts on the CV before being prepared to take off again to refuel other fighters, they could have like 4 J-15 dedicated for refueling on the CV.

Liaoning and Shandong have longer runways than the Indian CV, so KJ-600 should be able to carry more fuel, especially if it's equipped with WJ-10 which is more powerful than the T56 on E-2C.
 
Last edited:
.
I believe landing is the bigger problem here.
Too risky for it operating on ski-jump CVs.
Not worth it.
More likely CV-16/17 will be covered by land based AEWs instead.

For power projection tasks away from land based, leave them for 003/004s.

Why is landing a bigger problem?
CV-16/17 will not be just like coast guard and under the support of land-based forces forever, they will have to go deep in the ocean especially before PLAN gets enough Type 003/004s. And because of the importance of AWE and its much superior capability over Z-18J, IMHO operating KJ-600 on CV-16/17 is worth every effort even some risk.
 
Last edited:
.
Why is landing a bigger problem?
CV-16/17 will not be just like coast guard and under the support of land-based forces forever, they will have to go deep in the ocean especially before PLAN gets enough Type 003/004s. And because of the importance of AWE and its much superior capability over Z-18J, IMHO operating KJ-600 on CV-16/17 is worth every effort even some risk.
because landing on a Carrier puts a lot of stress on the airframe and landing gear. you land with full throttle hoping your hook catches the line.
 
.
Why is landing a bigger problem?
CV-16/17 will not be just like coast guard and under the support of land-based forces forever, they will have to go deep in the ocean especially before PLAN gets enough Type 003/004s. And because of the importance of AWE and its much superior capability over Z-18J, IMHO operating KJ-600 on CV-16/17 is worth every effort even some risk.
because landing on a Carrier puts a lot of stress on the airframe and landing gear. you land with full throttle hoping your hook catches the line.
In general landing on a AC is a much bigger challenge and risk compare to taking off from AC.
Reason is as @casual explained here. Also add one: it required much more skill for pilots.
You can check some USN pilots review, landing on AC is a death or live test very time for them.

On second thought, landing on 001/002 or 003/004 impose same amount of challenges. So I take back my point.

But I stand by my rest points, 001/002 should be for near costal and SCS tasks.
Actually such tasks are probably the only tasks we can foresee in coming decade.
 
Last edited:
. . . .

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom