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


Just Hatched
Registered Member
WJ-6C and T-56-427 are in the same category.

Y-9's WJ-6Cs are rated at 5100 hp from memory.
The T-56-427 is rated at 5250 hp.

KJ-600 should be using WJ-6C or a close derivative.

In any case it certainly isn't using PW100C or any other engine from a western nation.
I guess we won't know T-O weight compared to E-2? Janes say T-56-427A for JASDF E-2D is 5820 shp

I think like T56 the WJ-6 is very proven design flying on many aircraft


I must admit I already had the same "feeling" as if the claim "this is only a blurred CG" could be an attempt to avoid any serious consequences as long as the image is blurred enough.

Just great... Now we have clickbait blurred CGs mixed with genuine blurred images that come with non-denial denials. Watching Chinese military development is never boring.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China's first carrier-based early warning plane continues flight tests: report
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Published: Feb 22, 2021 05:57 PM


A future aircraft carrier function demonstration model is on display at the newly renovated and expanded Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution in Beijing on Sunday. Photo: Liu Xuanzun/GT

China's first domestically developed fixed-wing early warning aircraft capable of taking off and landing on aircraft carriers recently conducted another successful flight test, state media revealed for the first time on Sunday, and Chinese military experts said they expect the plane to operate on large aircraft carriers equipped with catapults.


Junior Member
Registered Member
1. Does anyone have a link to the 'original' report?

2. This is pretty much confirming the previous idea that the picture was probably not CG, and was probably more CYA, right?

Richard Santos

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well ... still not a clear image, but by far the best we have until today: An image showing the XAC KJ-600 carrierborne AEW prototype no. 60001 in flight.

(Image via @矩阵航空Acer31 from Weibo)

View attachment 68670View attachment 68671

it is interesting the E-2’S outer vertical stabilizers joint with horizontal stabilizer above mid point, where as those of KJ joints below the midpoint,

On the E-2 the decision was driven by the desire to minimize the protruding height of the fins so the aircraft can more easily fit in for hangar storage. when the aircraft is parked the rotodome can also be lowered so the top is flush with the top of the Tail fin.

apparently on the KJ reduced the aircraft‘s parked height is less of a concern. So the failfin is allowed to stick up more. Why?

Two possibility comes to mind, and they are not muturally exclusive:

1. On the KJ, the greater concern if for more clearance under the tail, to prevent tail strike during take off of landing. The aircraft use arrested landing, so a nose high attitude at touch down is not important. So tail clearance for landing seems unlikely to be a major concern. That leaves concern for tail strike during take off. If the aircraft is catapult launched, it would not rotate until it it has left the deck, so again tail clearance during taking off seems unlikelt to be a major concern. That leaves take off on the bow ramp. Here tails\ strike would be a major concern. So the implication? The KJ is designed to operate from ski ramp.

2. The KJ is not meant to be hangared, and would be permanently deck parked. This seems unlikely, even if the KJ is normally deck parked, surely there can be time when it would be struck below for maintenance?