What's new

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

Everything is speculative now, let's wait for the more information. Making an E-2 sized air frame is not hard, the hard part is whether the electronics can perform to standards.
If making a carrier capable E-sized airframe is not hard, then how come there currently is not equivalent operational?
The blurry BW pic is an E-2.

yak-44-image01.jpg


Only a full-sized mockup of the Yakovlev Yak-44 was ever produced, the fall of the Soviet Empire derailing all further development.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1170
https://tacairnet.com/2015/07/20/could-the-yak-44-make-a-comeback-for-russias-next-carrier/
pic_66.jpg

yak-44-image03.jpg


The Antonov An-71 (NATO reporting name: Madcap) was a Soviet AWACS aircraft intended for use with VVS-FA (Fighter Bomber) forces of the Soviet Air Force, developed from the An-72 transport. Only three prototypes were built before the program was cancelled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-71
As opposed to a basic one it is equipped with more powerful engines and additional accelerator which is a lifting engine of the Yak-38 airplane. On July 12, 1985 it first took-off from Svyatoshin airfield. Two flight prototypes have flown 1000 hours in common, but serial production of the airplane still has not been launched.
http://www.antonov.com/aircraft/antonov-gliders-and-airplanes/an-71
The An-71 was cancelled in favor of the twin-turboprop Yak-44 [which was in turn cancelled in 1993].
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/an-71.htm
88a5dd62ac16d3a44bf8f096070670a9.jpg

Note the 'Aeroflot' on the side: as if an air line would operate an AEWC aircraft .... ;-)
 
Last edited:
.
If making a carrier capable E-sized airframe is not hard, then how come there currently is not equivalent operational?
The blurry BW pic is an E-2.
Cause they don't have an operational catapult carrier yet. Let's be honest here, the E-2 is using 1970s designed air frame. The electronics are the most critical technology not the air frame. You of all people should know this.

It's a propeller plane for god's sake, I don't want to argue but what technology is so hard that we can't build these air frames?
 
.
Cause they didn't have an operational carrier yet. Let's be honest here, the E-2 is using 1970s designed air frame. The electronics are the most critical technology not the air frame.
In 2010, the Brazilian Navy contracted Marsh Aviation to convert four S-2T TurboTackers to Airborne Early Warning configuration, and upgrading four additional Grumman C-1 Trader for tanking and Carrier Onboard Delivery duties. They will operate from the NAe São Paulo.

Neither the Brits nor the French have developed a fixed wing platform for their carriers, with the former adopting helicopter-based solutions (like the Spanish and Italian navies) and the latter using the American E-2. Nor have the Indians.

turbotracker_brazil_725.jpg

http://defense-update.com/20141223_brazils_turbo_traders.html

Italian navy AEW EH101
0368489.jpg


The UK has ordered 10 Crowsnest airborne radar systems for its fleet of AW101 Merlin HM.2 helicopters
yourfile.jpg


Like the Brits earlier, the Spanish had the Sea King based AEW
an-sh-3d-sea-king-airborne-early-warning-helicopter-of-the-spanish-d84w1p.jpg

seaking_aew2_xv697.jpg


I'm very surprised we've not yet seen a serious S-3 Viking based AEW proposal yet. This would be slightly lighter but in the same genral weight class of E-2 Hawkeye.
 
.
In 2010, the Brazilian Navy contracted Marsh Aviation to convert four S-2T TurboTackers to Airborne Early Warning configuration, and upgrading four additional Grumman C-1 Trader for tanking and Carrier Onboard Delivery duties. They will operate from the NAe São Paulo.

Neither the Brits nor the French have developed a fixed wing platform for their carriers, with the former adopting helicopter-based solutions (like the Spanish and Italian navies) and the latter using the American E-2. Nor have the Indians.

turbotracker_brazil_725.jpg

http://defense-update.com/20141223_brazils_turbo_traders.html

Italian navy AEW EH101
0368489.jpg


The UK has ordered 10 Crowsnest airborne radar systems for its fleet of AW101 Merlin HM.2 helicopters
yourfile.jpg


Like the Brits earlier, the Spanish had the Sea King based AEW
an-sh-3d-sea-king-airborne-early-warning-helicopter-of-the-spanish-d84w1p.jpg

seaking_aew2_xv697.jpg


I'm very surprised we've not yet seen a serious S-3 Viking based AEW proposal yet. This would be slightly lighter but in the same genral weight class of E-2 Hawkeye.
One question, can E2 be used from STOBAR carriers?
 
.
Why would a country like France spends hundreds of million dollars to develop and build as few as three or four carrier borne AEW fixed wing aircraft for a sole aircraft carrier if they can buy with much lesser budget outlay from USA?

Spanish, Italian, British, Thailand all use ski-ramp, that rule out carrier based fixed wing AEW.

Brazil? Do they have the budget? Is the US willing to sell E2?
 
Last edited:
.
One question, can E2 be used from STOBAR carriers?


ed5870694f7f2510cad77c835f6c30bb.jpg


In general, ski-jumps make it possible for heavier aircraft to take off than a horizontal deck allows. However, ski-jump launches cannot match the payloads made possible by high-speed catapult launches. The catapult assisted ships (US and French CVN) appear to use about 262/2.5=105m to 337/3=112m launch length.

Ski-jump ramp takeoffs are considered safer than takeoffs over a flat-top carrier. When a Harrier launches from an American LHA, it would finish its takeoff roll and begin flight at 60 ft (18 m) above the water. It might not have a positive rate of climb, especially if the ship had pitched nose down during the takeoff roll. Using a ski-jump ramp, a Harrier will certainly launch with a positive rate of climb, and its momentum will carry it to 150 to 200 ft (46 to 61 m) above the water.

An AV-8B Harrier with a gross weight of 29,000 lb (13,000 kg) on a 59 °F (15 °C) day and a 35 kn (40 mph; 65 km/h) wind over the deck would require 400 ft (120 m) to takeoff using the 12° ski-jump ramp on the Spanish aircraft carrier Príncipe de Asturias. The same plane would use the entire 750 ft (230 m) length of the Tarawa class's flat flight deck.

The U.S. Air Force has examined the use of ski-jumps on land to enable short-field takeoffs. This was seen as "a possible solution to the runway denial problem in Europe" during the Cold War. When a ski-jump with a 9 degree exit angle is used, the takeoff roll of an F/A-18 Hornet can be cut in half i.e. from about 430m to 215m.

I believe the E-2D, which doesn't differ much from Hornet in terms of max weight, has a Minimum takeoff distance of 410 m using ground roll.

Given the QE layout, it has a good straight full length runway, very close to 280m. The ski jump is angled at 13°.
For Kuznetsov/Liaoning, length is 305 m overall. On these ships, the ski jump is angled at 12°.

So, imho, if a ski-jump with this kind of angle halves minimum T/O run, it would appear possible to launch an E-2 from the Stobar carriers mentioned, assuming turboprops can give them enough speed (as compared to turbofans of F/A-18). Of course, if necessary, one could add JATO/RATO gear to aid take off if needed: these shorten take off run.

Relative performance would really depend on what the ski-jump adds, which in part depends on angle (and how much a 1 degree difference matter), and the difference a few meter more or less runway makes.

Given the deck layout of Kuznetsov/Liaoning, however, using a full length take of run may create an operational problem as there is no full length runway marked out: normal flight ops may be disrupted. But clearly, this is not a technical problem. With QE, one likewise wonders if that row of F-35Bs on the port side of the deck would still be possible when launching an E-2D. With a wing span of 24.56 m for the E-2 (as compared to 10.7 m for F-35B) and a ship beam of 72-73 m overall for all these ships, there a question of how disruptive the E-2D would be to flight ops.

Therefor, yes, I think it would be possible (though I'm not sure how optimal a solution it would be for STOBAR CVs)
_____________
JATO Bottle
JATO+Bottle+cropped.jpg



P2V-3C_CVB-41_launch_1949.jpg

A Lockheed P2V-3C Neptune launches with “jet-assisted take-off (JATO)” from the USS Midway (CVB 41) probably on April 7, 1949. U.S. Navy photo

640px-Lockheed_P2V-3C_Neptune_takes_off_from_USS_Franklin_D._Roosevelt_%28CVB-42%29_on_2_July_1951_%2880-G-629296%29.jpg

U.S. Navy Lockheed P2V-3C Neptune launches with "Jet-assisted take-off (JATO)" from the aircraft carrier USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CVB-42) on 2 July 1951.
_____________
Why would a country like France spends hundreds of million dollars to develop and build as few as three or four carrier borne AEW fixed wing aircraft for a sole aircraft carrier if they can buy with much lesser budget outlay from USA?

Spanish, Italian, British, Thailand all use ski-ramp, that rule out carrier based fixed wing AEW.

Brazil? Do they have the budget? Is the US willing to sell E2?
As on the carriers themselves, the French could cooperate with the UK, providing not only a similar carrier (PA2) but also a common AEW solution, which could possibly be exported to e.g Brazil and/or India.

While the QE class now has a skijump, it is designed to also be able to accommodate catapults, like US and French carriers. Recall the British government had intended to purchase the F-35C carrier version of this aircraft, and adopted plans for Prince of Wales to be built to a Catapult Assisted Take Off Barrier Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR) configuration. After the projected costs of the CATOBAR system rose to around twice the original estimate, the government announced that it would revert to the original design.

Brazil has converted S-2T Trackers for AEW and for COD/Tanker roles and will continue using these on Sao Paolo for so long as she stays around.
 
Last edited:
. .
QE can definitely launch E2 with JATO attached, unfortunately though, it can not recover E2 because QE is a STOVL aircraft carrier. It has no arresting wires. It was design with F-35B/ Sea Harrier type vertical landing.
 
. .
That being a E-2 Hawkeye ;-)
Chinese news report will never tally with photo or pictures. They cant show the real thing yet cos its classify. They are just using E-2C for illustration.
 
.
QE can definitely launch E2 with JATO attached, unfortunately though, it can not recover E2 because QE is a STOVL aircraft carrier. It has no arresting wires. It was design with F-35B/ Sea Harrier type vertical landing.
Well, ain't that's interesting.....

On 30 September 2002, the MoD announced that the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force would operate the STOVL F-35B variant. Also announced was that the carriers would take the form of large, conventional carriers, initially adapted for STOVL operations. The carriers, expected to remain in service for fifty years, were designed for but not with catapults and arrestor wires. The carriers were thus planned to be "future proof", allowing them to operate a generation of CATOBAR aircraft beyond the F-35.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen...carrier#Aircraft_and_carrier_format_selection

The carriers had been sold as adaptable and easy to convert for CATOBAR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen...er#Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review_2010

After the projected costs of the CATOBAR system rose to around twice the original estimate, the government announced that it would revert to the original design on 10 May 2012. So, CATOBAR conversion was too costly but I think that's mainly because of the catapults involved. Converteam UK were working on an electro-magnetic catapult (EMCAT) system for the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier. But installing just a set of (conventional) arrestor wires may well be far cheaper than also installing EMALS!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System#United_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Arresting_Gear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arresting_gear

Chinese news report will never tally with photo or pictures. They cant show the real thing yet cos its classify. They are just using E-2C for illustration.
Then what was the purpose of post #22?
 
.
Then what was the purpose of post #22?

They are telling you KJ-600 project is real and in progress. (想象图)is just for illustration related to the project telling you of the imaginary photo.
 
Last edited:
. . . .

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom