Again, I refer to the phrase I used originally -- "substantially modify". Obviously it doesn't refer to merely "shrinking down" a larger plane.
Correct. And you are now digging an even deeper hole for yourself because you are at least acknowledging the true scale of "modification" needed to magically turn a Y-7 into an H-600, and yet refusing to acknowledge how impractical (or even impossible) this would be and simultaneously unable to provide a single example in all of aircraft history where a plane was shrunk down, gutted out, reboned, and facelifted into an essentially totally different much smaller plane with an entirely different role and launch/landing methods.
1. No change as in you're thinking of leaving the landing gear in the 2 turbofan engine nacelles in the same way as E-2/H-600/Yak-44? Or in the wings?
2. considering the diameter of the fuselage of H-600, moving the landing gear from the engine nacelles to the fuselage under carriage almost certainly would change the cross section of the fuselage at that location rather dramatically.
I think the onus here is on you to demonstrate that a turbofan powered variant of H-600 could allow the landing gear to retain the current position.
I don't think the onus is on me at all. The default position (null hypothesis) is no change; a change (such as a different location of the landing gear) requires evidence from you, not from me.
Secondly, even if the landing gear is located underneath the fuselage, it's not a big deal. Take this example:
The only thing that is affected by the presence of a landing gear bulge in the fuselage is the fuselage and only in the specific area impacted, i.e. the middle section of that ATR.
Third, I'm not talking about relocating an H-600's landing to the fuselage. If the H-600 was going to have a turbofan engine, it would have been designed from the ground up as a turbofan-engined plane, not modified from a turbopro-engined plane, because the PLAN has no prior experience in carrier-based AEW/C aircraft at all, so there is absolutely nothing to "modify".
And how many of those are derived from turboprop driven aircraft originally? If you really want to go back of course there are older 1st gen fighters like F-80 that are jet powered and with unswept, straight wings.
Furthermore, when we consider contemporary turbofan powered aircraft intended for long endurance such as AEW&C and air to ground surveillance have swept wings (e.g.: P-8, E-7, and various business jets with military derivatives).
Even turbofan powered aircraft designed for carriers intended for long endurance missions like S-3 and EA-6B have swept wings as well.
I'm not sure how it even remotely matters that none of them were derived from turboprops, since you were asking only about how many turbofan-engine aircraft had the kind of wings that the E-2 has. So now you are moving the goalposts to something else, and worse that something else is totally irrelevant.
Lastly, there are few if any direct "conversions" of turboprop driven aircraft to become turbofan or jet powered aircraft without very substantial modifications causing it in effect to become an entirely new aircraft.
If you're suggesting that H-600 can be converted into a turbofan powered airframe with minor modifications then I think the onus is on you to demonstrate some evidence supporting the principle
I'm not suggesting the H-600 can be "converted" into a turbofan-engine plane with only minor modifications. Not's not what I said. What I'm saying is that a turbofan H-600 would have been designed from the ground up as a turbofan H-600, since AGAIN, there are no blueprints that the PLAN possesses for a turboprop AEW/C plane that they would then have to "convert" into a turbofan AEW. The PLAN started with literally nothing and built the H-600 from the ground up. You keep getting stuck in the mindset of the PLAN having some kind of baseline "expertise" in a turboprop AEW and having to take some kind of extra risk to create a turbofan AEW when it isn't even remotely the case.
Neither never progressed beyond paper and models. Both were canceled leaving only the Kuznetsov and Helicopters. The Kuz then ended up in Ukraine as Russian boarders shrank. The Russians recovered her but the sister ship was left until it was bought and towed to China.
They were canceled due to the cancelation of the Soviet Union, not because either design was flawed. Had the USSR not been canceled, both designs would almost certainly have gone forward into production.
Developed for the Common Support Aircraft requirement. Lock-Matt was proceeding along an established path to meet a desired product to replace S3,E2,C2,ES2. That program however was axed.
This left the Navy with the E2 and no other options. Part if of its mission was absorbed by the CMV22 and perhaps the MU(X) program will take up what is left.
Read carefully what I said. I said that the USN did not specifically call for a turbofan-engine design, which is true. In fact "logistics support and aerial refueling" call for the same low-medium speed highly fuel-efficient aircraft that AEW/C planes call for.
From this site
it seems the USN had absolutely no interest in a Viking-based AEW:
In the early 1990s, Lockheed proposed new production of a dedicated tanker version of the S-3B, of course known tentatively as the "KS-3B". It was similar in concept to the KS-3A, though it was to use a buddy refueling pod to carry its hose assembly instead of having it built in. The Navy didn't bite on this idea either, and it never got to the demonstration stage. A proposal for an airborne early warning (AEW) version of the Viking was another non-starter.
