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

[Syrida2887]

Clearly, there are a lot of antennas in the lower part of the fuselage to prove the level of its electronic detection and countermeasure technology.

 

[tphuang]

Clearly, there are a lot of antennas in the lower part of the fuselage to prove the level of its electronic detection and countermeasure technology.View attachment 161593

This is very important. KJ-600 wingspan is apparently 25m and length is 18m. You can space out all these antennas along the belly of the aircraft as well as the large wing. Whereas for flankers, you can basically only do it on the wings.

So, something like J-15DT probably can't do ESM as well as KJ-600. It seems to me something that's just more easily do-able when the passive detectors are spaced out.

I see one noticeable antenna sticking out under the wing, but I wonder if it's installed on the wing tip also

 

[taxiya]

I am sure the designers have taken the heat emitted by those big turbo prop engines into consideration but for an aircraft is constructed out of aluminum and I personally would prefer to see the hot exhaust from a turboprop engine not directly hitting the rear control surface of the aircraft. If Grumman, who have been building the E2 AWACS for decades, saw fit to move both the horizontal and vertical stabilizers of that aircraft out of the direct line of the hot engine exhaust then that is good enough for me but I fully accept that just because the Americans do something one way doesn't mean that is the only way it can be done.

I fail to see that difference between E2 and KJ-600. What do you mean?

1. Engine exhausts offset of vertical stablizers.
E2 engines are slightly inwards, looking from front and from afar. The viewing distance is impartant to reduce/eliminate perspective distortion.

I can not find a perfect frontal photo of KJ-600. But this one shows a large difference between distances of engines/vertical stablizers of each side. That means that the engines are installed inwardly (closer to fuselage) than vertical stablizers. This is the same thing as E-2.



2. Horizontal stablizers out of the way of jet exhaust.
KJ-600's engine is mounted under the wing which is on the same level as the stablizer.


Same in E-2

Conclusion, both aircraft are designed in the same way for whatever concern you have.

Also worth to note, the trailing edges of E-2 is right within the path of the hot exhaust. If it has no problem of being there why is it a problem for stablizers that are meters away?

And even more importantly, the placement of these surfaces is probably NOT due to consideration of hot gas but rather more aerodynamic efficiency, e.g. in the right path of stable air flow.