KJ-600 carrierborne AEWC thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

general point for the above quotes

I think I did say that Z-18J cannot match the performance of a fixed wing AWACS no one would argue otherwise

but this is not about what you "feel" should be the requirement but rather what is the mission statement and practicality

CV-16 and CV-17 two war fighting carriers that can conduct independent air operations from territories far from home

Z-18J forms one part of the situational awareness and it is a capable system when working with other assets

just like the Merlin Crows-nest for two World Class QR Carriers are for the RN, you think UK would compromise two Carriers due to rotary wing AWACS? certainly not

when it comes to mission statement and practicality Z-18J is great for STOBAR

for CATOBAR which will have true sustainable long range long duration sorties fixed wing AWACS like KJ-600 is fundamental to the operational of the Carrier

FYI, Queen Elizabeth doesn't even have arresting cables to begin with. There is no way both her and her sister ship to operate E-2C/Ds even if they wanted to.

Also, the Queen Elizabeths can operate alongside the US supercarriers, which pretty much secures long-range AEW&C support from USN's E-2C/Ds with substantial on-station duration and better AEW&C capabilities.

In the meantime, China has nobody else other than herself to depend upon. And to operate in the "true blue" WestPac, how far and how long do you think that the KJ-200s and KJ-500s can reliably operate from bases in the mainland, especially when there are zero friendly airbases along the entire 1IC for the PLA's AEW&C assets and refueling tankers to operate from - Or worse, with the 1IC that still haven't been cleared of enemy forces?

And let me stress this again - The Z-18Js can only be ad-hoc AWACS platforms at best. Stop trying to assume as if the Z-18J can somehow magically work like how the E-2C/Ds are for the USN CSGs.

The PLAN deployed those Z-18Js onboard those ski-jump twins not because they actually wanted to, but because they really have no other choices. Hence, just as I previously mentioned - As soon as the KJ-600 has been proven to be viable and reliable for operation from China's ski-jump twins, the PLAN should proceed to deploy the KJ-600s onboard.

Last-but-not-least - FYI, The Yak-44 was actually meant to be STOBAR-capable as well beyond CATOBAR operations on the Ulyanovsk, hadn't due to the collapse of the USSR which caused the project to be scrapped.

 

[minime]

U.S navy didn't operate fix-wing AEW&C on STOBAR because they don't have STOBAR.
It's a myth that it can't be done.
The lack of fix-wing AEW&C on CV16&17 will become history when KJ-600 is ready.

 

[supersnoop]

Also to add: QE and entire RN will never operate without NATO/USN support as they have no replenishment capability.

 

[asif iqbal]

And let me stress this again - The Z-18Js can only be ad-hoc AWACS platforms at best. Stop trying to assume as if the Z-18J can somehow magically work like how the E-2C/Ds are for the USN CSGs.

you are clearly not reading any posts and just typing away leave it here now

 

[Blitzo]

you are clearly not reading any posts and just typing away leave it here now

View attachment 124806

To be fair, based on what you wrote in post #936, you were suggesting that Z-18J on CV-16/17 did not require replacing by KJ-600 (all based on the premise that KJ-600 could feasibly operated from a STOBAR carrier), see bolded parts below:

I don’t any problem with the Z-18J as AWACS for CV-16 and CV-17

does it give the situational awareness of a fixed wing AWACS? No, does that matter ? No

for open Pacific Ocean long endurance long range mission KJ-600 will be great from CV-18

CV-16 and CV-17 will have around the clock protection with Z-18J a great helicopter doesn’t need replacing

Could the KJ-600 operate from CV-16 and CV-17 in war time if needed? Probably Yes

Does it have to ? No

It’s all about practicality

On the one hand, you are in agreement that Z-18J doesn't provide the same capability/situational awareness as a fixed wing AEWC like KJ-600.
But on the other hand you are saying that Z-18J on CV-16/17 doesn't need replacing even if it can operate from CV-16/17 in war time, and it all depends on practicality.

You are focusing on the practicality of operating KJ-600 from CV-16/17, which is beside the point, because everyone already agrees that we do not know how feasibly KJ-600 can operate from CV-16/17.

Instead, the argument should be:
IF CV-16/17 can practically/feasibly operate KJ-600 in a regular manner that is viable, then it absolutely makes sense to replace Z-18J on CV-16/17 with KJ-600 because KJ-600 is significantly more capable than Z-18J.

Your post focused on the "practicality" part which is not unreasonable, but you didn't also acknowledge that KJ-600 is inherently far superior of a platform to Z-18J, by writing "CV-16 and CV-17 will have around the clock protection with Z-18J a great helicopter doesn’t need replacing" -- because CV-16/17 with a normal complement of Z-18J likely will not be able to provide round the clock 24/7 coverage, and making it sound like it "doesn't need replacement" rather than "we do not know if it it can feasibly be replaced".

 

[kentchang]

FYI, Queen Elizabeth doesn't even have arresting cables to begin with. There is no way both her and her sister ship to operate E-2C/Ds even if they wanted to.

Also, the Queen Elizabeths can operate alongside the US supercarriers, which pretty much secures long-range AEW&C support from USN's E-2C/Ds with substantial on-station duration and better AEW&C capabilities.

In the meantime, China has nobody else other than herself to depend upon. And to operate in the "true blue" WestPac, how far and how long do you think that the KJ-200s and KJ-500s can reliably operate from bases in the mainland, especially when there are zero friendly airbases along the entire 1IC for the PLA's AEW&C assets and refueling tankers to operate from - Or worse, with the 1IC that still haven't been cleared of enemy forces?

And let me stress this again - The Z-18Js can only be ad-hoc AWACS platforms at best. Stop trying to assume as if the Z-18J can somehow magically work like how the E-2C/Ds are for the USN CSGs.

The PLAN deployed those Z-18Js onboard those ski-jump twins not because they actually wanted to, but because they really have no other choices. Hence, just as I previously mentioned - As soon as the KJ-600 has been proven to be viable and reliable for operation from China's ski-jump twins, the PLAN should proceed to deploy the KJ-600s onboard.

Last-but-not-least - FYI, The Yak-44 was actually meant to be STOBAR-capable as well beyond CATOBAR operations on the Ulyanovsk, hadn't due to the collapse of the USSR which caused the project to be scrapped.

The UK role/example is a very good one. The Z-18J allows CV-16 and CV-17 to operate independently in theory and in training just like RN's Crowsnest Merlins. However, in practice, these two carriers can assume a support role to CATOBAR carriers doing ASW and flying CAP for the entire battle group. Recent USN exercises with Japanese, Australian, and British carriers seem to validate this work-sharing concept. Ergo, I see absolutely no need to consider stationing the KJ-600s on the STOBARs.

 

[Blitzo]

The UK role/example is a very good one. The Z-18J allows CV-16 and CV-17 to operate independently in theory and in training just like RN's Crowsnest Merlins. However, in practice, these two carriers can assume a support role to CATOBAR carriers doing ASW and flying CAP for the entire battle group. Recent USN exercises with Japanese, Australian, and British carriers seem to validate this work-sharing concept. Ergo, I see absolutely no need to consider stationing the KJ-600s on the STOBARs.

This entire discussion hinges on whether KJ-600s can viably and practically operate from the STOBARs.

If it can, then there is no reason why KJ-600s shouldn't be operated from CV-16/17, because it is simply that much better than Z-18J -- again, IF it can operate viably and practically from the STOBARs.

If KJ-600 is unable to viably and practically operate from the STOBARs then the entire discussion becomes moot.


But let's not pretend that "CV-16/17 with only Z-18J operating alongside a CATOBAR which provides KJ-600 as fixed wing AEWC" is somehow equal or non-inferior to "CV-16/17 that is able to operate KJ-600 alongside a CATOBAR which also provides KJ-600 as fixed wing AEWC".


The more carriers that can operate fixed wing AEW&C like KJ-600 the better.

It all comes down to whether it is viable or not.


Operating helicopter AEW like Z-18J or Crowsnest from a carrier in "support" of a CATOBAR which provides fixed wing AEW&C is just a cope and trying to make a situation not too suboptimal, however that does not mean it is optimal.

 

[asif iqbal]

To be fair, based on what you wrote in post #936, you were suggesting that Z-18J on CV-16/17 did not require replacing by KJ-600 (all based on the premise that KJ-600 could feasibly operated from a STOBAR carrier), see bolded parts below:





On the one hand, you are in agreement that Z-18J doesn't provide the same capability/situational awareness as a fixed wing AEWC like KJ-600.
But on the other hand you are saying that Z-18J on CV-16/17 doesn't need replacing even if it can operate from CV-16/17 in war time, and it all depends on practicality.

You are focusing on the practicality of operating KJ-600 from CV-16/17, which is beside the point, because everyone already agrees that we do not know how feasibly KJ-600 can operate from CV-16/17.

Instead, the argument should be:
IF CV-16/17 can practically/feasibly operate KJ-600 in a regular manner that is viable, then it absolutely makes sense to replace Z-18J on CV-16/17 with KJ-600 because KJ-600 is significantly more capable than Z-18J.

Your post focused on the "practicality" part which is not unreasonable, but you didn't also acknowledge that KJ-600 is inherently far superior of a platform to Z-18J, by writing "CV-16 and CV-17 will have around the clock protection with Z-18J a great helicopter doesn’t need replacing" -- because CV-16/17 with a normal complement of Z-18J likely will not be able to provide round the clock 24/7 coverage, and making it sound like it "doesn't need replacement" rather than "we do not know if it it can feasibly be replaced".

yes I used "practicality" to cover the broad terms I am about to raise because I didnt think it was worth explaining the whole thing

so just to be clear

Z-18J is more practical from STOBAR than KJ-600
KJ-600 is more advanced than Z-18J
does that mean it should replace Z-18J on STOBAR?
No, because it doesnt make sense from a practicality point of view

the term "practicality", explained further below

building a small aircraft with radar on top for naval operation is nothing short of a fully blown space program, only few countries have done it and actually only one country has done it successfully the US, Soviet tried got close but by no means mastered it Britain and French just gave up and British dont give up so easily having mastered the Harrier Jump Jet that even Soviets struggled with and eventually failed

so in reality China is only the second nation to do this, landing a fixed wing AWACS on a flight deck and then taking off is a complicated as it gets with cross wings and local wind dynamics around the Carrier all playing devils advocate

Western nations over the decades have lost 1000s of pilots and aircraft in mastering the Carrier operations China on the other hand has lost a very small percentage thanks to its robust carrier program, simulations, land based training and learning where others failed

So some are now suggesting that KJ-600 should be used on STOBAR, thats like saying not only are we going to land a man on the moon we want to land the Rover sideways for fun, that is called taking a unnecessary risk which is beyond the scope of what China ever does and not in line the Chinese military development

if KJ-600 has a engine blow out on a STOBAR the damaged will be extensive, not only that you are now taking a very risky and sophisticated procedure and throwing a spanner in the works by saying you want to take off from a angled 12-14 degree ski jump? what kind of wind dynamics are crossing the ski jump and how is that going to effect the balance of the KJ-600? this is just a example question I am raising

the dual islands and ski jump on the HMS Queen Elizabeth were so complicated for a small fast fighter jet like the F35B UK and US spent close to a decade working on the problems of the local wind tornados generated from the downwash I mean Carrier are very dangerous and sophisticated places

you simply cannot type out some ridiculous suggestion without taking into account whole array of problems and issues associated with it

and to close the debate, do I think KJ-600 take off and land from CV-16 and CV-17? Yes I think its quite plausible and even do able with some modifications

are the risks associated with that outweighing the advantage, definitely No

when would the risk be less than the advantage ? I would say in war time when there is no other option

so in conclusion is Z-18J better than KJ-600 on the STOBAR, no its not

are the risks, development, time and effort associated with the KJ-600 operating from STOBAR less than Z-18J in peacetime, No which is why Z-18J platform is the preferred option

I am probably guilty of swaying the debate with words like "practicality" and even contradicting myself I see that but I just didnt want to spend the time and effort explaining the whole scenario and for that I apologise

 

[Maikeru]

yes I used "practicality" to cover the broad terms I am about to raise because I didnt think it was worth explaining the whole thing

so just to be clear

Z-18J is more practical from STOBAR than KJ-600
KJ-600 is more advanced than Z-18J
does that mean it should replace Z-18J on STOBAR?
No, because it doesnt make sense from a practicality point of view

the term "practicality", explained further below

building a small aircraft with radar on top for naval operation is nothing short of a fully blown space program, only few countries have done it and actually only one country has done it successfully the US, Soviet tried got close but by no means mastered it Britain and French just gave up and British dont give up so easily having mastered the Harrier Jump Jet that even Soviets struggled with and eventually failed

so in reality China is only the second nation to do this, landing a fixed wing AWACS on a flight deck and then taking off is a complicated as it gets with cross wings and local wind dynamics around the Carrier all playing devils advocate

Western nations over the decades have lost 1000s of pilots and aircraft in mastering the Carrier operations China on the other hand has lost a very small percentage thanks to its robust carrier program, simulations, land based training and learning where others failed

So some are now suggesting that KJ-600 should be used on STOBAR, thats like saying not only are we going to land a man on the moon we want to land the Rover sideways for fun, that is called taking a unnecessary risk which is beyond the scope of what China ever does and not in line the Chinese military development

if KJ-600 has a engine blow out on a STOBAR the damaged will be extensive, not only that you are now taking a very risky and sophisticated procedure and throwing a spanner in the works by saying you want to take off from a angled 12-14 degree ski jump? what kind of wind dynamics are crossing the ski jump and how is that going to effect the balance of the KJ-600? this is just a example question I am raising

the dual islands and ski jump on the HMS Queen Elizabeth were so complicated for a small fast fighter jet like the F35B UK and US spent close to a decade working on the problems of the local wind tornados generated from the downwash I mean Carrier are very dangerous and sophisticated places

you simply cannot type out some ridiculous suggestion without taking into account whole array of problems and issues associated with it

and to close the debate, do I think KJ-600 take off and land from CV-16 and CV-17? Yes I think its quite plausible and even do able with some modifications

are the risks associated with that outweighing the advantage, definitely No

when would the risk be less than the advantage ? I would say in war time when there is no other option

so in conclusion is Z-18J better than KJ-600 on the STOBAR, no its not

are the risks, development, time and effort associated with the KJ-600 operating from STOBAR less than Z-18J in peacetime, No which is why Z-18J platform is the preferred option

I am probably guilty of swaying the debate with words like "practicality" and even contradicting myself I see that but I just didnt want to spend the time and effort explaining the whole scenario and for that I apologise

Britain did not give up. It succeeded with the mighty Fairey Gannet AEW3:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I am going to petition PLAN to name the KJ-600 the "Gannet II".

 

[Lethe]

The British experience with CVF, indeed the experience of the Royal Navy in the 21st century, has been so budget-constrained that I don't think we can assume from the mere existence of Merlin/CROWSNEST that it is in fact an adequate solution. What I think is relevant about the British experience is that there was indeed some consideration given to operating E-2C/D Hawkeye from CVF in the early 2000s, and that it appears to have been discarded as a serious option sometime between the MASC Phase II studies awarded in 2002 (including to Northrop Grumman) and the Phase III studies awarded in 2005 (which did not include Northrop Grumman). Even after F-35B was selected to fulfil the JCA requirement in 2002, provisions were left in the CVF design to fit catapults and/or arrestor gear in future if required. The potential to operate the E-2 Hawkeye in either CATOBAR or STOBAR configurations is clearly the most compelling potential application for such allowances, yet one that was

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

despite CVF's relatively generous dimensions:

In June 2001, at the Paris Air Show, Northrop Grumman's Gary O’Loughlin, Director of International Business Development, revealed that the United Kingdom was considering purchasing up to 6 E-2 Hawkeyes [....] In July/August 2001 the MOD released a formal Request for Information (RFI) to Northrop Grumman seeking life cycle cost data in relation to its Hawkeye 2000 platform.

Despite the DPA's clear interest in other options, it is believed that the Concept Phase studies showed that the capabilities of the Hawkeye 2000, and even more its successor the Advanced Hawkeye, compared very favourably with other options when dealing with projected post-2015 threats and requirements. There was a lobby within the MOD still advocating a small Hawkeye purchase as the best and lowest risk option for MASC, even with the extra costs that would be incurred fitting the carrier platform with the associated equipment for CTOL operations. Indeed STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) was suggested as compromise [....] However the MOD showed no interest in the Hawkeye/STOBAR idea

So, was STOBAR Hawkeye discarded for CVF because operations were impractical owing to fuel state/take-off considerations? Because other options offered better value-for-money or were lower risk? Or because it was simply too expensive? One cannot say for sure. But I think clues can be found in the cost-cutting that occurred

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

over the same 2002-2005 period. Obviously all design and procurement decisions are a complex juggling act between requirements, "nice to haves", risks and costs. I think one can credibly argue that with CVF/F-35B/Crowsnest the UK arrived at something close to an optimal solution given the requirements and budgets available. At the same time there are clear indications of a service that is struggling to deliver on the mandate it has been assigned, such that one cannot be confident that specific decisions are in fact optimal outputs emerging from a robust decision-making process rather than being essentially forced moves dictated by a combination of inherited conditions and the iron first of HM Treasury.

As with the case of Vikramaditya, the relevance of CVF to the question of KJ-600 for Liaoning and Shandong is contestable. On the one hand we have studies from Northrop Grumman suggesting that fixed-wing AEW plus STOBAR can be done with relatively modest compromises, and apparent intent on the part of Yakovlev OKB and the former Soviet Navy to do just that. On the other hand we have the simple, undiluted fact that nobody has actually done it, reinforced by two examples of nations that have considered and subsequently rejected that model in favour of a rotary AEW solution.