KJ-600 carrierborne AEWC thread

[Rafi]

They can, though it likely isn't worth it.

The C-2 tanker variant was scraped because the F/A-18s can buddy refuel. There's also the MQ-28 now - Both of which can fly much faster and more agile than the C-2.

TBH, compared to the transporter or even tanker variant, an ASW variant of the KJ-600 (perhaps can be named KQ-600?) would be much suited for the PLAN use. Would be a worthy addition to the future PLAN CV airwings as a S-3 Viking-counterpart.

or they could design it to be mission specific and use a modular system to convert into a transporter/aerial refuelled/MPA

 

[Gloire_bb]

They can, though it likely isn't worth it.

The C-2 tanker variant was scraped because the F/A-18s can buddy refuel. There's also the MQ-28 now - Both of which can fly much faster and more agile than the C-2.

TBH, compared to the transporter or even tanker variant, an ASW variant of the KJ-600 (perhaps can be named KQ-600?) would be much suited for the PLAN use. Would be a worthy addition to the future PLAN CV airwings as a S-3 Viking-counterpart.

it's a complicated story. First, C-2 is indeed sort of bad base for the purpose: it's slow and can't keep up with the strike package, it's not exactly that heavy and can take only thish# much fuel. But this is only a start of the story.

Buddy tankers were a forced USN solution, which came with lots of compromises.

Lazy AI table for reference:

Buddy tankers, due to the nature of really unsuitable base, come with several downsides:
They burn a lot of fuel (engines, drag), they're very expensive to operate. Thus, despite technically carrying respectable fuel load(full internal+2-4 tanks), their transferable fuel at range sucks, terribly.
Buddy tankers work best in two ways:
1, to immediately refuel strike aircraft after take off and climb. This way they can take off with full weapon load with low fuel, but still reach full strike range. Tanker immediately returns.
2, to give small "sips" on the route in a combined load(for example, tanker/escort). Escort/tanker, that can take on some useful low drag a2a load(for example, 2 amraams, 2 sidewinders).

MQ-25 tried to get the best of both worlds, with 15000 pounds at 500 nmi on just one engine, without pilot and risks (still can't truly keep up, but you can simply pre-position them).
Reality got more mixed, however, because damn thing costs almost 150 million apiece in serial production (!). That's two F-35(or more than half of type 31 frigate) for a price of one flying fuel tank, that can't even take full internal F-35 worth of fuel.
Yes, it's small, foldable and convenient on the deck; yes, it has great potential to refuel drone operations. But absurdity is visible: whether this was the goal or not, it is not a readily disposable asset, and its ability to extend carrier wing range for the price isn't that impressive.
How GJ-11 will compare? Hard to say, but tbh something more dedicated and, above else, much larger is probably desirable.

 

[lcloo]

I think twin prop engined KJ-600 derived fuel tanker is too slow for the comfort of the fighter jet pilots during the refueling. PLAN can look to other options, especially faster jet engined drones with large internal useable space.

One such example is the jet engined Jiu-Tian drone shown at last Zhuhai airshow. They will have to modify these drones to aircraft carrier catapult take-off and arrestor landing capable. Jiu-Tian is just an example, they can choose other drones which they think are more suitable.

The SS-UAV, also known by its Chinese name “Jiu Tian” (High Sky), is stealing the spotlight at the 15th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition. This behemoth weighs in at an impressive 16 tonnes at maximum takeoff weight, showcasing China’s ambitious push into advanced drone warfare.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Again, my mistake on the MQ-28. It should've been MQ-25.

J15s would not be able to ariel refuel as well as a tanker variant of KJ600. And there is currently no MQ28 equivalent.

Though I do think an ASW variant would be of great use. I also think ariel refueling is super important otherwise why would US Navy create a MQ28?

For the MQ-25 - Sooner or latter, the PLAN will get their own counterpart to the MQ-25, especially as the PLAN carrier fleet continues expanding and sails farther into the true blue Pacific. Sooner or later, that need will come knocking from the war-planning departments of the PLAN HQ.

Hence for the time being, buddy-tanking with the J-15 oughta do.

They can make the transporter work as tanker by adding the fueling accessories, like Y-20B and A330MRTT

It's not as simple as that.

The Y-20B and A330MRTT (plus A400M, honorable mention) rolled off their assembly lines with all the required internal plumbing systems already in place, meaning that they can be configured as refueling tankers simply by loading a fuel tank into the cargo bay, fuel pods onto the wings and doing some connections between the fuel tank, fuel pods and the internal plumbing systems right before a refueling mission takes place.

You'd need to do all that to enable the KJ-600 (or KY-600) to be capable of that mission - Which certainly leads to additional weight from all those internal plumbing systems. This is an even bigger of an issue for carrier-based aircrafts, as they cannot get too heavy to avoid being unable to climb post-launch, even with EMCAT assistance.

Also, we're talking about a turboprop-powered aircraft, not a turbofan/turbojet-powered aircraft here.

or they could design it to be mission specific and use a modular system to convert into a transporter/aerial refuelled/MPA

Mission-specific is the opposite of a modular system.

it's a complicated story. First, C-2 is indeed sort of bad base for the purpose: it's slow and can't keep up with the strike package, it's not exactly that heavy and can take only thish# much fuel. But this is only a start of the story.

Buddy tankers were a forced USN solution, which came with lots of compromises.

Lazy AI table for reference:
View attachment 148216
Buddy tankers, due to the nature of really unsuitable base, come with several downsides:
They burn a lot of fuel (engines, drag), they're very expensive to operate. Thus, despite technically carrying respectable fuel load(full internal+2-4 tanks), their transferable fuel at range sucks, terribly.
Buddy tankers work best in two ways:
1, to immediately refuel strike aircraft after take off and climb. This way they can take off with full weapon load with low fuel, but still reach full strike range. Tanker immediately returns.
2, to give small "sips" on the route in a combined load(for example, tanker/escort). Escort/tanker, that can take on some useful low drag a2a load(for example, 2 amraams, 2 sidewinders).

MQ-25 tried to get the best of both worlds, with 15000 pounds at 500 nmi on just one engine, without pilot and risks (still can't truly keep up, but you can simply pre-position them).
Reality got more mixed, however, because damn thing costs almost 150 million apiece in serial production (!). That's two F-35(or more than half of type 31 frigate) for a price of one flying fuel tank, that can't even take full internal F-35 worth of fuel.
Yes, it's small, foldable and convenient on the deck; yes, it has great potential to refuel drone operations. But absurdity is visible: whether this was the goal or not, it is not a readily disposable asset, and its ability to extend carrier wing range for the price isn't that impressive.
How GJ-11 will compare? Hard to say, but tbh something more dedicated and, above else, much larger is probably desirable.

For its intended role as an unmanned refueling tanker, the MQ-25 is pretty sufficient. Also, fighter pilots (especially carrier-based ones) rarely, if ever gets refueled mid-air while running on fumes - They are trained to specifically avoid such situations unless exceptional circumstances.

And, yes - I do expect the MQ-25 (and whatever counterparts coming out of China in the future) to be attritable as well, given its unmanned nature = The ability to follow allied fighters deeper into contested/enemy-controlled airspaces without risk to more expensive and capable platforms (i.e. fighters) and priceless pilots.

As for the A-3 Skywarrior (of which the KA-3B stemmed from) - Its MTOW is ~37 tons, and is powered by two turbojet engines. I think the distinction between the KA-3B (or pretty much the entire A-3 family) and the C-2, let alone the MQ-25 is pretty clear here. The thrust-to-weight ratio is key.

They would need something like a counterpart to the shelved Greyhound 21 (i.e. turbofan-powered C-2/E-2) to reach 2/3rds (if not one-to-one) of what the MQ-25 is capable of.



As for the cost - We're talking about China. Come on.

 

[TheWanderWit]

I think twin prop engined KJ-600 derived fuel tanker is too slow for the comfort of the fighter jet pilots during the refueling. PLAN can look to other options, especially faster jet engined drones with large internal useable space.

One such example is the jet engined Jiu-Tian drone shown at last Zhuhai airshow. They will have to modify these drones to aircraft carrier catapult take-off and arrestor landing capable. Jiu-Tian is just an example, they can choose other drones which they think are more suitable.

The SS-UAV, also known by its Chinese name “Jiu Tian” (High Sky), is stealing the spotlight at the 15th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition. This behemoth weighs in at an impressive 16 tonnes at maximum takeoff weight, showcasing China’s ambitious push into advanced drone warfare.

Wouldn't that drone be a bit too large for a carrier?