KJ-600: Chinese carrier-capable AEW: developments, news, progress ...

Discussion in 'Navy' started by Bltizo, Jan 27, 2017.

  1. antiterror13
    Offline

    antiterror13 Colonel

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    4,547
    yeahhh everything doesn't make sense for people who dont know the stuff and ignorance :p

    @Bltizo has been following and contributing the above topic for very long time and he is respected and knows the things very very well. But I see, it is impossible to convince you about anything Chinese has achieved ... and thats ok, nobody cares anyway ... if you dont like it (or jealous) , just dont post or reply on this topic, very simple

    Mark Twain once said "It is better to keep your mouth shut and to appear stupid then to open it and remove all doubt" ;)
     
    #41 antiterror13, Jan 28, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2017
  2. Bltizo
    Online

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,528
    Likes Received:
    16,314
    I'm pretty sure my "story" has been a result of me carefully following the rumours, news and evidence of catapult development related to carrier development and construction over the better side of seven years.


    How on earth does that make sense. That is actually the complete opposite of making sense.

    The purpose for their catapult competition is to decide on which catapult to use on the first carrier. They're doing that because they don't want to make a mistake.

    If they do what you're saying and install both catapults on two different ships to "field test" them then that defeats the purpose of field testing them entirely because you're committing both ships to a dedicated catapult type anyway, meaning one of them is going to end up suffering for it because they'll be tied to their catapult type for the foreseeable future until a major refit, meaning either the steam catapult carrier will have to have a whole dedicated steam catapult support line during its use, or the EM catapult carrier will not have its catapult be as reliable.

    In either case, you are committing at least one whole carrier to be an expensive and inefficient platform that will either be using an older/obsolete catapult that will need to have a whole support line just for it, or be using a less reliable or less mature catapult that will impact the efficiency of the carrier it is installed on.


    OTOH, it makes much more sense to stress test both catapults on land first, before fitting them onto any carrier, and to carefully decide which one to fit onto the first carrier to make sure the decision is one informed by extensive test and comparison results. It is substantially cheaper and less risky than building two whole carriers and blindly fitting them on.



    I sort of understand where you think you are coming from, but the problem is you don't understand the Navy's thinking around catapults very well. I don't think you've been following this story for very long or very closely, so you don't have the base of information to make an informed analysis.
     
    bruceb1959, perfume, N00813 and 6 others like this.
  3. delft
    Offline

    delft Brigadier

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    6,750
    The aft propellers are shaped just as the front propellers, as if they turn in the same direction. I would also want the aft propeller to have a smaller diameter than the front propeller. The tip vortices of the front propeller move inwards because of the acceleration of the airflow through the propeller and then would be cut by the blades of the aft propeller contributing to the noise and reducing the propulsive efficiency. See the propellers of the An-70. Those propellers have fewer blades in the aft propeller than the front propeller no doubt to avoid losses due to trans sonic flow.
     
    bruceb1959, perfume, Equation and 3 others like this.
  4. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,118
    Likes Received:
    32,324
    We have been waiting for the PLAN to develop aq suitable AEW aircaft for their coming CATOBAR carriers.

    I believe the recently revealed JY-01 could be it.

    Here are some pictures and depictions of that aircraft:

    JZY-01-01.jpg JZY-01-02.jpg JZY-01-03.jpg JZY-01-04.jpg JZY-01-05.jpg

    Looks very much like the size and cabability they would be looking for.
     
    N00813, antiterror13 and Equation like this.
  5. Deino
    Offline

    Deino Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    25,414

    Even if the final two images are IMO a simple scale model and the very last one a fan art; just look at the tail jet engines.
     
    PanAsian and Equation like this.
  6. Deino
    Offline

    Deino Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    25,414
    From the same post in the J-20-thread, which shows both J-XX contenders, the new carrier AEW was also shown already !!

    ... but what's the one in the right corner ? A Yak-141 ???

    Deino

    China Aerospace Science and Technology-expo in 2000 - concepts.jpg
     
    #46 Deino, Feb 2, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2017
    Equation, N00813 and Blackstone like this.
  7. Jeff Head
    Offline

    Jeff Head General
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    24,118
    Likes Received:
    32,324
    Yes, the last two are certainly depictions and the one with the additional jet engines I believe is certainly even more than a depiction...it is more like fan-boi, or just unrealistic.

    But those other three are of an actualy aircraft I believe. I do not believe that is just a mockup. I'd love to see it in flight.

    Clearly the PLAN is making significant progress towards a true AEW aircraft...and it is clear that they have something fairly far along in terms of their design.
     
    Equation likes this.
  8. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,303
    Likes Received:
    10,636
    I though those Jets could be power generators, using air flow to capture energy for the radar.
     
  9. delft
    Offline

    delft Brigadier

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    6,750
    That is less efficient than having the generators driven directly by the engines.
     
    Equation likes this.
  10. Quickie
    Offline

    Quickie Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,989
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    A jamming signal that's as large as the target signal and of the same frequencies would be suffice for jamming, since the target signal would be too corrupted and masked out to be filtered out beyond a certain noise to signal ratio. This would of course mean the source of the jamming signal would now be drawing fire to itself.
     
Loading...

Share This Page