KJ-600 carrierborne AEWC thread

[zszczhyx]

Yes, distributed arrays should enable a Gannet-like 21st century CV AEW aircraft. A golden opportunity for PLAN to surpass USN in carrier operations.

What is Chinese for "gannet"?

塘鹅

 

[Lethe]

Are you saying they can make bad decisions as well as good ones?

I'm saying that "the Americans are doing it therefore it must be ok" is not a particularly compelling argument, particularly when the decision was taken in close proximity to a number of other decisions that have subsequently proven to be short-sighted. It should also be noted that USN actually tried to keep the Common Support Aircraft program alive, but it was killed by Congress.

The path that USN carrier air wings took following the end of the Cold War outright eliminated the valuable capabilities provided by the S-3B Viking and ES-3A Shadow and forced Super Hornet into the tanker role that it was far from optimized for, while eventually replacing the C-2 Greyhound with the CMV-22B Osprey which, like Super Hornet in the tanker role, is both overpriced and underperforming (range, speed, payload) for the role.

It's far from evident that CSA would've worked out. Certainly cramming a bunch of disparate requirements into a common airframe bears some resemblance to ambitions for the JSF program which caused so many problems. But it is also far from evident that the route chosen was the best available to USN at the time, let alone that China should follow the same path some two decades later.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Well, everyone who knows me, knows how much I hate these IMO usually constant copy claims since copying - especially when not having the real original one at hand - is not an easy task or almost impossible, but as it seems, here I'm running out of arguments and we can indeed call it a "copy" even with certain differences on the nose, tail, radar-mount ...

View attachment 112258

Looks like they effed up during the copy process and put the tail fins upside down.

 

[HighGround]

I'm saying that "the Americans are doing it therefore it must be ok" is not a particularly compelling argument, particularly when the decision was taken in close proximity to a number of other decisions that have subsequently proven to be short-sighted. It should also be noted that USN actually tried to keep the Common Support Aircraft program alive, but it was killed by Congress.

The path that USN carrier air wings took following the end of the Cold War outright eliminated the valuable capabilities provided by the S-3B Viking and ES-3A Shadow and forced Super Hornet into the tanker role that it was far from optimized for, while eventually replacing the C-2 Greyhound with the CMV-22B Osprey which, like Super Hornet in the tanker role, is both overpriced and underperforming (range, speed, payload) for the role.

It's far from evident that CSA would've worked out. Certainly cramming a bunch of disparate requirements into a common airframe bears some resemblance to ambitions for the JSF program which caused so many problems. But it is also far from evident that the route chosen was the best available to USN at the time, let alone that China should follow the same path some two decades later.

Indeed. Weapons programs are borne out of military requirements, but are shaped by political forces. It is important to understand the circumstances and origins of weapons programs.

That said, the PLA could've very well done that.

 

[Helius]

I'm saying that "the Americans are doing it therefore it must be ok" is not a particularly compelling argument, particularly when the decision was taken in close proximity to a number of other decisions that have subsequently proven to be short-sighted. It should also be noted that USN actually tried to keep the Common Support Aircraft program alive, but it was killed by Congress.

The path that USN carrier air wings took following the end of the Cold War outright eliminated the valuable capabilities provided by the S-3B Viking and ES-3A Shadow and forced Super Hornet into the tanker role that it was far from optimized for, while eventually replacing the C-2 Greyhound with the CMV-22B Osprey which, like Super Hornet in the tanker role, is both overpriced and underperforming (range, speed, payload) for the role.

It's far from evident that CSA would've worked out. Certainly cramming a bunch of disparate requirements into a common airframe bears some resemblance to ambitions for the JSF program which caused so many problems. But it is also far from evident that the route chosen was the best available to USN at the time, let alone that China should follow the same path some two decades later.

Speaking of, I think the S-3 platform could've been, perhaps could still be, a good basis for fixed-wing, carrier-borne ASW/AEW/ELINT/COD/tanker roles for the PLAN, esp. when compared to rotorcraft (and the odd J-15s doing buddy refueling) being the only means at present with which the PLAN has in its employ to fulfill those roles.

Granted the S-3 is a smaller aircraft than the C/E-2, yet it still has a better endurance with more than double the range and higher air speed, courtesy of the TF34 turbofans, which are essentially downscaled CF34s which China already has access to and could produce a domestic variant of, which would basically be a downscaled CJ-500.

Probably just about the only limiting factor with the S-3 is its size which may not be large enough to accommodate all the necessary electronics and equipment that the E-2 can in terms of using it effectively as an AEW&C aircraft, though I'm not quite sure whether a lengthened S-3 (basically an E-2 fitted with turbofans) would negatively affect its performance esp. in terms of endurance as compared to an actual E-2 with those T56 turboprops.

But then again, Northrop Grumman did propose a turbofan-equipped Greyhound at some point -

 

[Tirdent]

Everything else at the rear is just a "slave" to the similar aerodynamic configuration of the dish, and there is only so many ways you can fit a massive dish on top of a turboprop frame. Even the Yak-44 had a passing resemblance to the E-2.

Sure, the basic configuration of the E-2 is a very well-adapted one for its task, yet the KJ-600 follows the template a little too closely for it to be chalked up to mere convergent evolution. Take the Yak-44 - as you say, superficially the similarities to the Hawkeye are likewise obvious, but in detail it was a far more original (and as a result in some ways more modern) design than this is.

If you choose turbofan propulsion instead of props, there are even more interesting alternatives, such as one with conformal radar arrays that Beriev patented a few years ago.

 

[snake65]

Sure, the basic configuration of the E-2 is a very well-adapted one for its task, yet the KJ-600 follows the template a little too closely for it to be chalked up to mere convergent evolution. Take the Yak-44 - as you say, superficially the similarities to the Hawkeye are likewise obvious, but in detail it was a far more original (and as a result in some ways more modern) design than this is.

If you choose turbofan propulsion instead of props, there are even more interesting alternatives, such as one with conformal radar arrays that Beriev patented a few years ago.

Well, I guess E-2 is not the worst prototype to choose.
Speaking of conformal arrays, KJ-600 is in the works way before any conformal AEW arrays patented.

 

[supersnoop]

The E-2 might just be an ideal design and coming up with a better design might not have been worth the effort, especially if China already had detailed design/specifications for the E-2. So copying might just have been the best solution for China at the time. The US isn't in a rush to replace the E-2, so they obviously view the design as having a future.

Only semi-serious…

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Subject: E-2
Message: 你要什麼?

An admiral no less!

Speaking of, I think the S-3 platform could've been, perhaps could still be, a good basis for fixed-wing, carrier-borne ASW/AEW/ELINT/COD/tanker roles for the PLAN, esp. when compared to rotorcraft (and the odd J-15s doing buddy refueling) being the only means at present with which the PLAN has in its employ to fulfill those roles.

Granted the S-3 is a smaller aircraft than the C/E-2, yet it still has a better endurance with more than double the range and higher air speed, courtesy of the TF34 turbofans, which are essentially downscaled CF34s which China already has access to and could produce a domestic variant of, which would basically be a downscaled CJ-500.

Probably just about the only limiting factor with the S-3 is its size which may not be large enough to accommodate all the necessary electronics and equipment that the E-2 can in terms of using it effectively as an AEW&C aircraft, though I'm not quite sure whether a lengthened S-3 (basically an E-2 fitted with turbofans) would negatively affect its performance esp. in terms of endurance as compared to an actual E-2 with those T56 turboprops.

But then again, Northrop Grumman did propose a turbofan-equipped Greyhound at some point -

View attachment 112316

Could the KJ-600 design simply be a case of low-risk and fast time to operational service?
Since there is no CJ-500 in operation yet, you basically have to develop this engine first.
In the past, it has not been unusual for PLA for have some parallel projects that overlap (Steam Catapult/EMALS) to hedge risks. Could be possible that a turbofan aircraft is/was worked on, but simply not ready in time for their timeline.

 

[Lethe]

Indeed. Weapons programs are borne out of military requirements, but are shaped by political forces. It is important to understand the circumstances and origins of weapons programs.

That said, the PLA could've very well done that.

I'm sure that PLAN's analysis of alternatives was robust and sophisticated even if it ultimately delivered a conservative platform closely modelled on the E-2 Hawkeye. Rather it is the external discourse amongst observers and hobbyists such as ourselves that often neglects to consider the full context in which particular decisions were made. There is a tendency, borne of American primacy, to hold the American status quo as the gold standard to which the PLA should necessarily aspire. This neglects to consider that the American military establishment as we see it today is largely the product of a particular period in history, the post-Cold War era, that was defined both by significant budget constraints (relative to the previous decade of indulgence), redefinition of roles and tasks following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and a basically ideological commitment, emerging from the experience of the 1991 Gulf War, to revolutionary technology as the path to securing a new era of American dominance. The latter in particular is underappreciated today and is the origin of the spectacular failures of Zumalt and LCS and the dubious success of the JSF and Ford programs. The upshot of all is that I think folks should spend less time looking at USN as it exists today, and more time looking at where it came from. The tasks that confront PLAN bear a greater resemblance to those of USN in the 1970s and 1980s than to those of the 1990s through mid-2000s that have delivered the American force structure, including the carrier air wing, that we see today.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Once the development of the KJ-600 has been completed and ready for PLAN service, will it become a viable AEW platform for export to friendly countries, even though it will be land-based only?

Personally, I believe that KJ-600 is suitable for countries with sizeable air forces but having tight budgets which prevent them from acquiring larger AEW(&C) aircrafts like the KJ-500.