Ski-jump launch of KJ-600 mainly depends on the engine output. Otherwise you'll have to limit MTOW and mission duration.
KJ-600 carrierborne AEWC thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Ski-jump launch of KJ-600 mainly depends on the engine output. Otherwise you'll have to limit MTOW and mission duration.
Indeed. However, even with the obvious tradeoffs, KJ-600 is still way better than those ad-hoc AWACS units i.e. Z-18J in pretty much every aspect.
And while having none at present, here's hoping that refueling probes will be installed on newer KJ-600s in the future. The YY-20s should be able to bring meaningful quantity of transferable fuel for aerial refueling at a distance of 2000 kilometers from base.
In the meantime, hopefully the WJ-10 can make it onto serial production KJ-600s real soon...
Last edited:
Might have RATO instead when used from a STOBAR to maintain the MTOW?
Higher fire hazard, not 100% reliable. Of course you could, but it won't be a standard procedure.
Not sure about STOBAR use with these huge propellers but maybe i'm wrong.
It can probably lift off without the jump from the angled deck but without parked aircrafts to do so at the rear. It's more of an operational hassle to do so. C-130 was able to lift off from angled deck without any help and without RATO on USS forrestal afterall.
But I thought the whole thing with Ulyanovsk and her odd mix of catapult and ramp was that the catapult was for launching Yak-44 while Su-33 and MiG-29K continue to use the ramp?
Has there been any experiment with launching C-2 or E-2 from ramps ala the ramp test with F/A-18?
Touch and go is different from taking off from 0kts.
They took off from the stern at ZERO knots several times..observe;
They made twenty-one unassisted take offs. Watch on youtube!
They have done taking off from 0kts... well 30kts because of the speed of the carrier + head winds.
If we take the E-2 Hawkeye, it have 75kts stall speed. we remove combined speed of carrier and head winds,, about 40kts. Don't need to accelerate much.
There are two: One from 1977-1982, another from 2005. Both tests utilized the E-2C, which has a MTOW of 26 tons.
I couldn't find these anywhere on Google. Only managed to find these on Baidu and Zhihu.
For the 1977-1982 tests conducted by the USN:
This one is the conditions for normal land-based runway takeoff for various carrier-based aircrafts, with E-2C included:
Here are the details of the ski jump used for the tests:
And here are the results of takeoffs of various carrier-based aircraft using catapults versus using the above ski jump:
To sum up the test - It is indeed possible for the E-2C to takeoff using a 6 or 9-degree ski jump with slightly lower airspeeds than that of catapults. No mention on the length of the entire runway for takeoff and deck wind available, however.
For the 2005 test:
Conducted by Northrop Grumman, the E-2C used a 12-degree ski jump with a deck wind of 25 knots. The total length of the simulated runway (including the ski jump section) is 165 meters. The E-2C is able to take-off with a takeoff weight of 24.9 tons, and with a climb rate of 2.5 m/s, the E-2C reached its minimum take-off speed before entering the ski jump section. The entire take-off process of the E-2C is said to have complied with the USN's single-engine take-off requirements.
It is also said that with a deck wind of 0 knots, the required length of the E-2C takeoff is 240 meters.
This one is likely taken from the Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers.
(For note, Liaoning and Shandong's longer takeoff position is 195 meters from the edge of the ski jumps on both carriers. It should also be noted that Liaoning's ski jump is angled at 14 degrees, while Shandong's ski jump is angled at 12 degrees.)
Last edited: