KJ-600 carrierborne AEWC thread & possible KY-600 (?) COD aircraft

[lcloo]

I think it would be more efficient to pair a 001 or 002 with a modified 076 to lose the well deck for extra hangar space. Load the 001/002 with fighters only, while using the 076 for AEW, ASW helicopters and drones.
Or perhaps even keep the well deck if they want to launch submersible drones from it.

That is mission specific. There can be many "more efficient combinations" of various aircraft carrier, amphibious ships and surface combatants to suit different missions.

For a better ASW mission, an SSK or SSN and a destroyer/frigate should be included.

 

[Confusionism]

They do, but helicopter based AEW solutions suck. Helicopters can't carry a large radar, they're slow, they have low service ceilings, poor loiter times, and there isn't space for many operators. They're better than nothing but fixed wing AEW is vastly better.

Helo AEW is not that bad; although it cannot compare to fixed-wing AEW, it still provides low-altitude coverage that shipborne radar cannot match. With just 1,000m of altitude, the detection range for sea skimming target can be extended to over 120km.

Moreover, since data links are available, there is no need to station all command and control personnel on the AEW aircraft.

 

[Blitzo]

Helo AEW is not that bad; although it cannot compare to fixed-wing AEW, it still provides low-altitude coverage that shipborne radar cannot match. With just 1,000m of altitude, the detection range for sea skimming target can be extended to over 120km.
View attachment 176903
Moreover, since data links are available, there is no need to station all command and control personnel on the AEW aircraft.

Radar horizon range at an altitude of 1000m is okay, and better than nothing, but compared to a proper carrierborne fixed wing AEW&C like something in the E-2 class with a standard mission altitude of something like 7000m, the radar horizon range is something like 340km (with according increases in surveilled area given radius is squared and all that -- a 120km radar horizon surveils only 1/8th the area of a 340km radar horizon). Then factor in the fixed wing benefits of speed, endurance, radar array size, and onboard crew relative to contemporary helicopter AEW systems that exist... and the difference is so significant that it's probably fair to say that relative to proper fixed wing carrierborne AEW&C that exist today, helicopter AEW do indeed "suck" and at best are "better than nothing".

(To be fair to Ka-31, its mission altitude is about 3000m, so its radar horizon is slightly over 220km rather than 120km, so the difference between a 220km vs 340km radar horizon in terms of surveilled area is more like 2/5th rather than 1/8th, but that is still a pretty substantial difference... and the rest still applies in terms of platform characteristics)

Onboard command/control crew for a AEW&C aircraft certainly can be partially augmented by a command/control personnel on a surface asset (ships or otherwise), and that is done with carrierborne fixed wing AEW&C as standard, but there is also still some benefit to having an adequately and proportionally sized organic airborne crew in the AEW&C as part of one's overall AEW&C/IADS/CAP screen in context of modern communications jamming and benefits of redundancy.

Doesn't China still have the Ka-31 with AEW radars?. Would be a fit with an upgraded local radar to fill in, if it provides better performance than Liaoning and Shandong's own radars.

Why would they go back to using Ka-31s rather than their own Z-18J/As, which are domestic, with more modern radars, and already the existing AEW asset for CV-16/17???

The prior discussion was about what sort of fixed wing AEW solution could be used aboard CV-16/17, to replace the existing Z-18J/A.... going to the Ka-31 would be a step backwards from the Z-18J/A.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I guess the only argument ka-31s are still useful is they fit into any standard PLAN hangar - you can throw one into literal frigate surface groups.

Though their detection range against modern low rcs sea skimmers honestly should be rather pitiful, on top of very likely compatibility issues with standard PLAN data links.

 

[Confusionism]

Radar horizon range at an altitude of 1000m is okay, and better than nothing, but compared to a proper carrierborne fixed wing AEW&C like something in the E-2 class with a standard mission altitude of something like 7000m, the radar horizon range is something like 340km (with according increases in surveilled area given radius is squared and all that -- a 120km radar horizon surveils only 1/8th the area of a 340km radar horizon). Then factor in the fixed wing benefits of speed, endurance, radar array size, and onboard crew relative to contemporary helicopter AEW systems that exist... and the difference is so significant that it's probably fair to say that relative to proper fixed wing carrierborne AEW&C that exist today, helicopter AEW do indeed "suck" and at best are "better than nothing".

(To be fair to Ka-31, its mission altitude is about 3000m, so its radar horizon is slightly over 220km rather than 120km, so the difference between a 220km vs 340km radar horizon in terms of surveilled area is more like 2/5th rather than 1/8th, but that is still a pretty substantial difference... and the rest still applies in terms of platform characteristics)

Onboard command/control crew for a AEW&C aircraft certainly can be partially augmented by a command/control personnel on a surface asset (ships or otherwise), and that is done with carrierborne fixed wing AEW&C as standard, but there is also still some benefit to having an adequately and proportionally sized organic airborne crew in the AEW&C as part of one's overall AEW&C/IADS/CAP screen in context of modern communications jamming and benefits of redundancy.

With all due respect, your habit of nitpicking is really annoying.

I’ve said from the very beginning that Helo AEW and fixed-wing AEW cannot be compared—it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Although they are not well-suited for directing carriers' air wings in combat operations, for a task force without an CV, the low-altitude targets coverage provided by Helo AEW is crucial and cannot be ignored; it’s definitely not just a case of “better than nothing.” It extends the warning time for subsonic sea-skimming AShM from 2.5min to more than 15min. It represents a fundamental difference in air defense operations.

 

[Stealthflanker]

The main issue with Helo based AEW is endurance. large platforms like say KJ-2000 or KJ-500 can stay aloft for many hours 8-12 or more limited by crew health condition as those plane can carry galley, bunk etc. Smaller AEW like E-2 can only stay airborne for like 5 hours. Helicopter sadly.. shorter Ka-31 for example have only 2.5 hours of endurance.

 

[Racek49]

The main issue with Helo based AEW is endurance. large platforms like say KJ-2000 or KJ-500 can stay aloft for many hours 8-12 or more limited by crew health condition as those plane can carry galley, bunk etc. Smaller AEW like E-2 can only stay airborne for like 5 hours. Helicopter sadly.. shorter Ka-31 for example have only 2.5 hours of endurance.

Of course, you are absolutely right. Now the only thing missing is to solve the problem of a fixed-wing AEW for Kuznetsov-type platforms with a ski jump.

 

[sheogorath]

Why would they go back to using Ka-31s rather than their own Z-18J/As, which are domestic, with more modern radars, and already the existing AEW asset for CV-16/17???

The prior discussion was about what sort of fixed wing AEW solution could be used aboard CV-16/17, to replace the existing Z-18J/A.... going to the Ka-31 would be a step backwards from the Z-18J/A.

I had forgotten there was an AEW variant of the Z-18 and still had the Ka-31s in mind.

 

[Blitzo]

With all due respect, your habit of nitpicking is really annoying.

I’ve said from the very beginning that Helo AEW and fixed-wing AEW cannot be compared—it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Although they are not well-suited for directing carriers' air wings in combat operations, for a task force without an CV, the low-altitude targets coverage provided by Helo AEW is crucial and cannot be ignored; it’s definitely not just a case of “better than nothing.” It extends the warning time for subsonic sea-skimming AShM from 2.5min to more than 15min. It represents a fundamental difference in air defense operations.

I'm not nitpicking, thank you very much.
I wrote my post to emphasize that of I think 4Tran's description of helicopter vs fixed wing AEWC is more accurate than yours.

Leading with "helicopter AEW is not that bad" and talking about its capabilities without putting it in relation to fixed wing AEWC capabilities, gives excess positive weight to helicopter AEWC due to lack of context of what it is actually being compared with.

If we were comparing helicopter AEWC with shipborne radars, then you'd have a point. (Obviously an airborne radar system is "crucial" versus not having one at all in isolation.)
But the prior discussion was comparing helicopter AEWC with fixed wing carrier AEWC.

 

[Stealthflanker]

Of course, you are absolutely right. Now the only thing missing is to solve the problem of a fixed-wing AEW for Kuznetsov-type platforms with a ski jump.

No UAV solution ? Like taking out the men can free up some weight. For lightweight, operation in higher band e.g upper S or C-band can be considered. For C-band case (6 GHz), which should be compatible with HHQ-9. One would arrive at about radar weight of 2.9 metric tonne. It's for 5 x 1.5 m meter aperture. The radar would be Multifunction Array, with several modes

The specifics can be reviewed here, it will be rich with TRM the aperture contain 9775. I adopted my sheet originally used for multifunction air-missile defense radar, but should be fine, as it use generalized search radar equations.

Spoiler: Some estimated parameters

Or yeah just use a bigger helicopter that can still fit.