KJ-600 carrierborne AEWC thread

[Jeff Head]

They've already been flying AEW&C over water for years using both the KJ-200 and KJ-500, and occasionally the KJ-2000. They have all the experience they need to develop the optimal carrier-borne AEW radar for fixed-wing aircraft. The areas where they can slip up is not in the design of the radar, but the entire package, AKA the aircraft. However, given how painstakingly methodical they've been with literally everything to do with their carrier programme, I doubt they'll slip up very much, if at all, in the design of the KJ-600.

Flying what amounts to a test article over the water, and designing, developing, building and then testing a production aircraft are completely different things.

The Chinese do not have the latter.

I am not playing down what they have achieved...just speaking to the reality of the relative positioning.

Once they have production aircraft board CATOBAR carriers and then have worked at training and developing those methodologies for many years, you will find that they will make unbridled progress throughout those years.

The US has also had the opportunity through many of those years to practice with and use them in actual combat environments...which accelerates the development and progress out of necessity.

Anyhow, as I say, the Chinese should be proud of what they are developing and other nation definitely cannot take it for granted or believe it will not make a difference...because it is going to make a huge difference.

 

[jobjed]

Flying what amounts to a test article over the water, and designing, developing, building and then testing a production aircraft are completely different things.

The Chinese do not have the latter.

The KJ-200 and KJ-2000 have been in service for over a decade, and the KJ-500 almost half a decade. They have all the experience they need to make an optimal radar for their carrier fixed-wing AEW&C. Keyword: radar.

Like I said, if they can slip up anywhere, it won't be on the radar, it'll be on the airframe. However, like I also said, I doubt they will slip up at all because they will take their sweet time to get everything right on the first go.

"Test articles" lol.

I am not playing down what they have achieved...just speaking to the reality of the relative positioning.

Once they have production aircraft board CATOBAR carriers and then have worked at training and developing those methodologies for many years, you will find that they will make unbridled progress throughout those years.

The US has also had the opportunity through many of those years to practice with and use them in actual combat environments...which accelerates the development and progress out of necessity.

Everything you said has nothing to do with the development of a radar.

 

[Jeff Head]

The KJ-200 and KJ-2000 have been in service for over a decade, and the KJ-500 almost half a decade. They have all the experience they need to make an optimal radar for their carrier fixed-wing AEW&C. Keyword: radar.

HAve they been flying any of them off of carriers in an operational mode?

If they have been flying operationally with the land-based groups that will admittedly help...but I was not under the impression that they had active squadrons doing that.

If they have, then yes, they have mode good progress already...but five years is still a very short time compared to what I am talking about.

Five years of experience is very limited and still is basically the time frames fopr testing these aircraft.

in fact, the US (and I bet the PLAAF and PLAN does the same) has a test squadron where they continue testing them throughout their life of 20-30 years so they can continuously improve them.

Anyhow...I understand what you are saying and I respect what they have done...but they are still new at this, particularly the AEW function for a carrier strike group.

 

[jobjed]

HAve they been flying any of them off of carriers in an operational mode?

Of course not, they don't have such an aircraft yet. But a radar works the same way regardless of how its hosting platform is launched; it makes no difference to the radar whether the aircraft it's attached to was catapulted off a carrier or took off from a ground-based airstrip.

If they have been flying operationally with the land-based groups that will admittedly help...but I was not under the impression that they had active squadrons doing that.

Then you have fallen behind on your PLA updates. The PLA's naval aviation forces have taken delivery of Y-8Js, KJ-200s and KJ-500s, and they are the naval air arm meaning their primary areas of operation are over the seas. The actual air force, even though not focused on maritime operations, have also flown over the seas.

The JASDF have taken pictures of Y-8Js and KJ-200s from the PLA's naval aviation, and KJ-200s from the PLA air force. Here's one of a naval Y-8J:

Here's one of a naval KJ-200:

And here's one of an air force KJ-200:

They were all photographed flying in the ADIZ declared by the JASDF, which is over the East China Sea.
Keyword: sea.

If they have, then yes, they have mode good progress already...but five years is still a very short time compared to what I am talking about.

Five years of experience is very limited and still is basically the time frames fopr testing these aircraft.

The KJ-200s entered service over a decade ago, not "five years", and the Y-8Js are coming up on almost twenty years.

Also, the amount of experience doesn't scale linearly with competency. For example, a country with aircraft operation experience of 100 years is not twice as competent as a country with 50 years experience, if at all. Once an organisation has reached a critical point in operational experience, there's practically no increases in competency for every additional year of operation thereafter. The PLAAF and PLANAF have almost definitely passed that critical point when it comes to operation of AEW&C radars, and Chinese industry has almost definitely passed that point when it comes to the design and manufacture of them.

Basically, your concerns for their carrier fixed-wing AEW&C radar have been moot since about 2012. Their competency with radar design, manufacture, and operation are as good as any other. It's their competency in the design and manufacture of the actual aircraft that carries the radar that can be questioned.

 

[Tam]

Analogy:

A person using his smartphone for 3 years does not necessarily make him or her a more productive user over a person using a smartphone for 1 year. That's also like saying a guy who has been using his PC for 10 years makes him a more productive user over a guy who has been using a PC for 5 years. Chances are, the guys with the newer PC and smartphones also have the better equipment.

 

[vincent]

Analogy:

A person using his smartphone for 3 years does not necessarily make him or her a more productive user over a person using a smartphone for 1 year. That's also like saying a guy who has been using his PC for 10 years makes him a more productive user over a guy who has been using a PC for 5 years. Chances are, the guys with the newer PC and smartphones also have the better equipment.

The correct analogy is comparing someone who developed games for XBox for 20+ years vs someone who have done it for 5 years. The developer with more experience will know more tricks on how to extract better performance from the same hardware.

That being said, there are plenty of smart math Phd's in China. One can't really say China haven't created signal processing hardware and software just as capable

 

[manqiangrexue]

The correct analogy is comparing someone who developed games for XBox for 20+ years vs someone who have done it for 5 years. The developer with more experience will know more tricks on how to extract better performance from the same hardware.

That being said, there are plenty of smart math Phd's in China. One can't really say China haven't created signal processing hardware and software just as capable

In the tech industry, being there for 20 years is no advantage because of how the systems evolve or become replaced. Someone 5 years in could run over someone with 20 years experience because he's got more versatile thinking while the older guy tries to rely on his experience. It's all about embracing new tech, not experience with old tech.

Anyway, hypothetical stuff is great, but for real world examples, China overtook the US in supercomputers, rail guns, quantum communications, etc... just like that. And we didn't know about the rail-guns until it wasn't possible to hide it anymore. So how many more fields has China surpassed the US in but has no reason to provide evidence to the world for?

 

[Tam]

The correct analogy is comparing someone who developed games for XBox for 20+ years vs someone who have done it for 5 years. The developer with more experience will know more tricks on how to extract better performance from the same hardware.

That being said, there are plenty of smart math Phd's in China. One can't really say China haven't created signal processing hardware and software just as capable

Except that hardware changes, and your knowledge optimizing on the old platform is worth zilch when it comes to working with a newer platform, that even on a less optimized state, still presents far better performance than the old platform on its most optimized state. Should mention that a lot of legacy experience comes from covering up and dealing with all the bugs, flaws and inadequacies of the old platform, which either the new platform has resolved on the hardware level, or simply didn't exist at all, with the new platform focused primarily on the next stage of specifications. Like that latest Chinese supercomputer. Instead of relying on legacy Intel architectures which has its baggage, the Chinese developed a new processor architecture that is optimized for massive parallelism, part of a broader development called Manycore architecture, as opposed to multicore.

China has certainly racked up its share of patents related to the telecommunications field, which also includes digital signal processing. That said you can also certainly ream off from another guy's patents, just as British and US radar development took off from German Siemens and Telefunken patents.

 

[vincent]

In the tech industry, being there for 20 years is no advantage because of how the systems evolve or become replaced. Someone 5 years in could run over someone with 20 years experience because he's got more versatile thinking while the older guy tries to rely on his experience. It's all about embracing new tech, not experience with old tech.

Anyway, hypothetical stuff is great, but for real world examples, China overtook the US in supercomputers, rail guns, quantum communications, etc... just like that. And we didn't know about the rail-guns until it wasn't possible to hide it anymore. So how many more fields has China surpassed the US in but has no reason to provide evidence to the world for?

Math is math. Calculation for Fourier transform and Laplace transform stay the same. Plus China couldn't produce decent Digitsl Signal Processing chips until recently. No need to be overly optimistic of China's capability in this area

 

[manqiangrexue]

Math is math. Calculation for Fourier transform and Laplace transform stay the same. Plus China couldn't produce decent Digitsl Signal Processing chips until recently. No need to be overly optimistic of China's capability in this area

Sure, calculations are calculations, the complexity and precision of which are often greatly enhanced with newer technology (especially supercomputing, in which China leads). Are you arguing against the common phenomenon of new young entrants outdoing their older counterparts/mentors in the tech industry?

"Recently" is the key word in your sentence. I'm not overly optimistic nor pessimistic. My stance is that between the E2C/D vs KJ-500/600, we do not have the knowledge to determine which is superior/more advanced. As my example pointed out, there are areas and technologies where China has surpassed the US (and often they are not revealed unless necessary), and of course, there are still areas in which the US maintains its lead for now. So the AWAC area could be either of these scenarios.