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


SamuraiBlue

Captain
Of course, CV-16 and CV-17 won't be operating KJ-600 from their decks anyway, so this question is sort of moot.
Here is the hidden bonus for fixed wing UAV based AEW systems, they can be scaled down so it could be launched without a CATOBAR.
Basically instead of launching one large asset to cover a corner you send out multiple drones with much less weight.
This way you will be able to cover the area even if one vehicle is removed. This is the main reason why both US and NATO is considering to retire the E3 in the future and replace them with drones with the advent of Over the Horizon long range AA missiles.
As for extensive data networking, the US only started and will take another decade to place it into all assets, PLAAF and PLAN will take much longer with too many conventional assets which will require more retrofits placing a sat link, new onboard computers and advanced software.
 

Tam

Major
Registered Member
The trend is definitely going in that direction, but first PLAN nneds to obtain how to utilize this type of asset through direct human control to gain experience and insight on how to manage this type of technology at sea.
PLAN will also require a vast modification to the carrier to obtain aircraft control center housing various monitors with data link to other surface ships CIC to create a new central control center.
That will associate with Blizo's response in terms of risk, cost and timeline.
Both US and NATO are doing R&D on this and may place it onto the field in the next 10 to 20 years but we will probably not see it within this decade.
Being able to network won't be much of an issue as the PLAN might have already planned for it and laid the infrastructure.

CEC would use a circular omnidirectional or four planar arrays.

Illustration shows the evolution of USN's CEC antennas, with USG-1, USG-2 and finally USG-3.

2-Figure1-1 (2).png

Take a look at the Shandong's mast.

Screenshot 2020-09-12 at 2.23.54 PM.png

You see this four arrays below the Type 382 radar. Similar arrays are on the Type 055's integrated mast, above its X-band AESA radar.


ed36-hymscpr1215088.jpg


The mock up mast to test fittings for the 003 carrier holds even more of these panels.

PLN Type 003 carrier - Island mock up at Wuhan - 20190602 - 4.jpg


I don't think modifications are needed. They are already planned in advance.


Liaoning's March 2019 refit added a set of flat panels on each side of the island, sandwiched between ESM and ECM. This would be on the third shelf going down. Previously there was an EW related unit installed there.

Screenshot 2020-09-12 at 2.48.49 PM.png


On the Type 075, you see this four trapezoidal arrays, two on each side of the mast attached to the shelf holding an ESM unit. The planar arrays themselves should be rectangular, the trapezoidal housing is to reduce RCS from side reflections. You are going to need something to talk to those rotary UAVs and helicopters with blisters on their bellies.


Screenshot 2020-09-12 at 2.51.26 PM.png


They are not going to need some vast modification. They already built it into it.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #483
Here is the hidden bonus for fixed wing UAV based AEW systems, they can be scaled down so it could be launched without a CATOBAR.
Basically instead of launching one large asset to cover a corner you send out multiple drones with much less weight.
This way you will be able to cover the area even if one vehicle is removed. This is the main reason why both US and NATO is considering to retire the E3 in the future and replace them with drones with the advent of Over the Horizon long range AA missiles.
As for extensive data networking, the US only started and will take another decade to place it into all assets, PLAAF and PLAN will take much longer with too many conventional assets which will require more retrofits placing a sat link, new onboard computers and advanced software.
In the future I'm sure there will be fixed wing UAV AEWs of different sizes and configurations. Some might be able to be launched from a carrier without catapults.

One of the major benefits of UAV AEWs of course is its potential to be more distributed/less centralized and able to operate even when attrited against a higher threat environment, compared to large manned AEW&Cs. This is pretty well documented and everyone basically knows about it.

There are various technological hurdles to be crossed until UAV AEWs enter service in a meaningful way of course, and this goes for everyone. But perhaps it's worth noting that China's the only country so far to have flown a dedicated UAV AEW design (two in fact).

The challenge will be in developing the requisite aircraft and the autonomous software and datalinks to enable them to be properly integrated into the rest of the multi-domain order of battle.
But the installation and retrofit itself of said equipment into ships, bases and aircraft would not be particularly more difficult than any other MLU when introducing more advanced networking capabilities. It is even easier if you've built newer ships and aircraft with capabilities in mind to accommodate and control unmanned systems when they're introduced.
 

Tam

Major
Registered Member
Now as for all the other surface warships, how are they going to talk a UAV, AEW plane, or helo with CEC?

Something like this are being installed on the latest batch of 056A.

Screenshot 2020-08-22 at 10.44.26 AM.png


You see it on top of the hangers of 054A, at the left of this picture.

微信图片_20200720231813.jpg



You see it on the right of this picture, this one a 052D.


微信图片_20200911001259.jpg


Quite a number of these antennas all over here.


161-3.jpg


Internally they might be like this.


unnamed.png

Gyroscopically stabilized on the move flat array. They are normally associated with satellite communication but they can be used to communicate with anything on the sky including UAVs. As these ships already have two SATCOM sets, I wonder what these should be. Its not hard to see they can be used to communicate with various things in the sky and not just satellites as the array can be rotated and oriented to follow a moving object, while remaining stabilized against the ocean movement.

Similar application.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Communications on-the-move antenna to link UAVs and military ground vehicles introduced by CPI
CAMARILLO, Calif., 14 May 2015. Communications & Power Industries (CPI) in Camarillo, Calif., is introducing the GMA-100QB communications on-the-move antenna system for communications on-the-move antenna applications on military ground vehicles.
content_dam_mae_online_articles_2015_may_cpi_14_may_2015.png




What's interesting is that the ships that don't have these domes, are the ones with the four flat panels, and the ships without the four flat panels, are the ones with these domes.
 

Tam

Major
Registered Member
Those are not sensors. Those are datalinks that can be used by ships to talk to objects above, be it a satellite, a UAV, a helicopter or an aircraft. And they will be the ones that are going to talk to a KJ-600, along with others such as KJ-500, the naval Z-20, your rotary UAVs, your fixed wing UAVs, etc,. The point is, the infrastructure is already being placed as we speak, to allow ships, planes, drones, and satellites to digitally communicate with each other. These are like roads being laid in place, awaiting next for the cars to drive through them.

PLAN is not sensing or feely feely its way through this project as if this is some experiment that it will test, tune, test and tune. All these actions being laid point to the PLAN going into this networking project already fully committed.
 

para80

New Member
Registered Member
Its perhaps worth noting that the Soviet Yak-44 AEWC was designed to also operate from STOBAR carriers. That primarily explains its very impressive power figures. Not saying the same will be true for the Chinese aircraft necessarily, but just pointing out fixed wing AEWC does not automatically mean it needs a CATOBAR.
 

Richard Santos

Junior Member
Registered Member
The yak-44 carried far more fuel than the E-2, Far greater endurance, and take off weight twice that of E-2, which may explain the impressive power rating better.
 

para80

New Member
Registered Member
The yak-44 carried far more fuel than the E-2, Far greater endurance, and take off weight twice that of E-2, which may explain the impressive power rating better.
MTOW on the Yak was around 180% of the E-2, but power was more around 250% (rough estimates). So the discrepancy IMO is what explains the STOBAR requirement.
 

Top