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.
KJ-600 carrierborne AEWC thread & possible KY-600 (?) COD aircraft
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
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
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.
Last edited:
A Official nose photo from AVIC, including two intelligent probe-type air data calculators (there should be four symmetrical probes.red words says it's dangerous because it's a thermal probe. ), and the upper probe near the cockpit is an icing detector（and below one should be another detector,but I couldn't see everything clearly.）.
Last edited:
i was listening to guancha today and they made an interesting point. The aircraft are not going to be taking off and landing at this stage with maximum load (especially not on the first launch).
So the MTOW of KJ-600 off CV-18 is likely even higher than 32t, maybe close to 35t. The advantage in electronics it can carry over E-2D is quite large.
I wouldn't be surprised if the EMAL catapult can launch aircraft as heavy as 40t.
So the MTOW of KJ-600 off CV-18 is likely even higher than 32t, maybe close to 35t. The advantage in electronics it can carry over E-2D is quite large.
I wouldn't be surprised if the EMAL catapult can launch aircraft as heavy as 40t.
EM cat can launch aircraft beyond 40t.
EMALS's launch energy is 122MJ. PLAN papers often quote this number in their design too, so I assume Fujian's figure is around the same. To compare, steam cat's launch energy is 95MJ. So EM cat is 28% higher meaning 1.28 times of max launch weight. If F-35A's MTOW is 32t launched from a steam cat, EM cat can in theory lauch anything up to 41t only limited by structural strength of the aircraft.
Another thing to think is that steam cat has huge force at the begining and much lower force in the end. This means given the equal launch engergy (accelerating the same mass from 0 to takeoff speed), aircraft will be subjected to mucher higher stress from a steam cat. This means even if the steam cat's top energy is enough to launch X tonne, it may break it, so EM cat can always launch heavier load with the same energy.
EMALS's launch energy is 122MJ. PLAN papers often quote this number in their design too, so I assume Fujian's figure is around the same. To compare, steam cat's launch energy is 95MJ. So EM cat is 28% higher meaning 1.28 times of max launch weight. If F-35A's MTOW is 32t launched from a steam cat, EM cat can in theory lauch anything up to 41t only limited by structural strength of the aircraft.
Another thing to think is that steam cat has huge force at the begining and much lower force in the end. This means given the equal launch engergy (accelerating the same mass from 0 to takeoff speed), aircraft will be subjected to mucher higher stress from a steam cat. This means even if the steam cat's top energy is enough to launch X tonne, it may break it, so EM cat can always launch heavier load with the same energy.
note the bolded part here. Says it can detect low skimming missiles at much longer distance than helicopter or destroyer radar due to being able to see further around earth's curvature.
Says turboprop's low speed performance better than jet aircraft which is ideal for ISR, EW & patrol. Also lower operating cost.
I wonder if they will produce a ASW/MPA version of this.
