KJ-600 carrierborne AEWC thread

[HumanHDMI]

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

extra centerline support, wonder what this says about radar power etc.

 

[sheogorath]

On the contrary, the Gannet was a highly successful carrier borne ASW and AEW aircraft, widely exported with 347 built:

The Gannet makes sense as an MPA, just like its cousin hit with the ugly stick, the Alize. But as an AEW it was a horrible idea, just like the AEW versions of the Sea King.

At least the E-2 has some room for more growth and two -separated- engines

 

[SlothmanAllen]

extra centerline support, wonder what this says about radar power etc.

I believe an E-2D has the exact same centerline support you are mentioning.

 

[Lime]

PLA always pays much attention on good platforms like Su27, Blackhawk or E2. They think a good and mature platform can save a lot of research time and money if they never designed this kind of weapons before.

 

[H2O]

All this talk of "copying" is just juvenile with a hint of inferiority complex and maybe fear. This is war; not some damn fashion show. No General is going to care if his victory was won using the "copied" tools that his opponent also uses.

PLA always pays much attention on good platforms like Su27, Blackhawk or E2. They think a good and mature platform can save a lot of research time and money if they never designed this kind of weapons before.

Yes. It's a sound strategy when trying to catch up as quickly as possible with minimal funding. The trick is to recognize any problems of the design and improve on it.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

There's also the fact where the E-2 Hawkeye's design is pretty much the best that present technological level could ever offer for a carrier-based AEW platform.

That's also why the US Navy kept the design of E-2 pretty much unchanged for ~60 years now - because the design has been working (largely) as intended (apart from some hiccups due to operational restrictions).

Same goes with fighter jets, tanks, and just about everything else in the military realm - Functionality & Reliability >> Aesthetics.

Who the fvck cares whether your stuff looks different and/or better/worse than others, when all they care is whether your stuff can be killed first in war.

 

[Lethe]

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.

The USN/DoD/MIC collective that declined to pursue the Common Support Aircraft in favour of the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (and now CMV-22B Osprey to replace C-2 Greyhound) is the same collective that greenlit LCS, Ford, and Zumwalt.

 

[zszczhyx]

I think the key is whether the new radar technology in the future will allow for a better aerodynamic shape design for Carrier-based AEW aircraft.

 

[Maikeru]

I think the key is whether the new radar technology in the future will allow for a better aerodynamic shape design for Carrier-based AEW aircraft.

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"?

 

[SlothmanAllen]

The USN/DoD/MIC collective that declined to pursue the Common Support Aircraft in favour of the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (and now CMV-22B Osprey to replace C-2 Greyhound) is the same collective that greenlit LCS, Ford, and Zumwalt.

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