KJ-600 carrierborne AEWC thread

[Tirdent]

It is an interesting idea though I wonder how apt a joined tandem wing would be for carrier ops given the claim that these wings are far more rigid and carrier ops are a violent affair.

The problem isn't so much structural but landing gear placement. With a joined wing, the "hole" between the wings is pretty much exactly where you'd ideally want to locate your main landing gear. You can either choose a Harrier-style tandem gear in the fuselage with outriggers on sponsons where the two wings join, or an F-16-like arrangement. On most counts the outrigger solution is probably an acceptable one but I don't think either option is very well suited to carrier ops, due to the main landing gear track. It's either very narrow (bad idea with such a wide wing span and a rolling deck) or very wide, making it unwieldy for deck handling and parking.

If you want to adopt a conformal, non-rotodome solution, it's probably hard to do appreciably better than the Beriev patent on balance - it's a pretty elegant implementation. It even somewhat mitigates the small nose/tail array size compared to CAEW & Wedgetail by mounting the broadside antennas at an angle, so they contribute some fore/aft coverage. Maybe make it uncrewed, to extend endurance. Configurations which are too exotic often promise great theoretical benefits in one respect, but at the expense of introducing non-trivial difficulties in satisfying other, more practical requirements.

EDIT: Sorry Deino, will desist.

 

[asif iqbal]

KJ-600 needs just 10-12 units

for all the Chinese carriers

the fact that they invested so much into such a smaller number shows how serious China is about carrier operations

if they build the second prototype next year then it should speed things up

at this stage China CANNOT afford a crash or any incident here

it will kill this project

 

[H2O]

at this stage China CANNOT afford a crash or any incident here

it will kill this project

A crash would not cancel the project; it'd only slow down the development.

 

[Richard Santos]

KJ-600 needs just 10-12 units

for all the Chinese carriers

the fact that they invested so much into such a smaller number shows how serious China is about carrier operations

if they build the second prototype next year then it should speed things up

at this stage China CANNOT afford a crash or any incident here

it will kill this project

the basic KJ-600 airframe is unlikely to be retired in the foreseeable future. Every Chinese CATOBAR carrier in the next 50-75 years will likely require 3-4. If China aims for an eventual semi-permanent force Level of 8 carriers, that’s 24-32 aircraft deployed At any given time. Double that at at Any given time to account for training and attrition reserve, gives 48-64 airframes active at any given time. Assume average service life of the airframe to be 20 years, Each individual airframe in the force level of 48-64 will need to be replaced roughly 3 times over in 50-75 years. So we are looking at asizeable total production run of perhaps 144-192 airframes just for the AWAC role Over the production life of the airframe.

assume on average the force will need 2 carrier onboard delivery cargo variants airframes to serve each carrier, plus training f and attribution reserve, and 20 year service life, that’s another 60-90 airframes Over the production life of the airframe type.

if the Chinese chooses to use this airframe for carrier fixed wing ASW Role. And assume china provides each carrier with a fixed wing ASW contingent similar in size to what the USN provided near the end of the Cold War, that’s another 8-10 airframes per flight deck, for a total of 64-80 deployed. Factor in attribution reserve and training, and possible shore based force, and 20 year airframe life, we are looking at another over 300-400 airframes.

Total together, we may be looking at a total production run of 500-700 airframes over perhaps 50-75 years. So far from a low production specialty airframe, the basic airframe of the kJ-600 could well see a Bigger and longer production run than any other chinese frontline combat or combat support aircraft currently in production.

 

[free_6ix9ine]

I understand the need for a carrier based AWAC system. But why go with a manned aircraft and not a UAV?

 

[Richard Santos]

several possible reasons:

1. UAV is not considered sufficiently mature to relied upon when the Chinese first expect to need functioning AWAC capability

2. The AWAC‘S autonomous Real-time control Role is Import, it is expected to serve as more than just a flying radar datalinked to controllers on the carriers

3. The AWAC shares an airframe with othet roles, those,other roles Requires a pilot and crew.

 

[Blitzo]

I understand the need for a carrier based AWAC system. But why go with a manned aircraft and not a UAV?

Because risk mitigation, cost mitigation, development timeline, technological maturity... all of which are of course related to each other.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

I understand the need for a carrier based AWAC system. But why go with a manned aircraft and not a UAV?

The trend is definitely going in that direction, but first PLAN nneds to obtain how to utilize this type of asset through direct human control to gain experience and insight on how to manage this type of technology at sea.
PLAN will also require a vast modification to the carrier to obtain aircraft control center housing various monitors with data link to other surface ships CIC to create a new central control center.
That will associate with Blizo's response in terms of risk, cost and timeline.
Both US and NATO are doing R&D on this and may place it onto the field in the next 10 to 20 years but we will probably not see it within this decade.

 

[Blitzo]

The trend is definitely going in that direction, but first PLAN nneds to obtain how to utilize this type of asset through direct human control to gain experience and insight on how to manage this type of technology at sea.
PLAN will also require a vast modification to the carrier to obtain aircraft control center housing various monitors with data link to other surface ships CIC to create a new central control center.
That will associate with Blizo's response in terms of risk, cost and timeline.
Both US and NATO are doing R&D on this and may place it onto the field in the next 10 to 20 years but we will probably not see it within this decade.

The networking side of things is probably less of a concern than the airframe and autonomy and cost/time side of things.

The PLA are already pursuing fixed wing land based AEW UAVs, and the PLAN has operated with the Z-8J AEW helicopters for years as well, and both the PLAAF and PLAN both have extensive experience with their respective manned fixed wing land based AEW&C aircraft.

I would be very surprised if the requisite facilities and networking hardware and software for accommodating manned fixed wing carrierborne AEW&C did not exist either in a FFBNW state in their carriers or potentially already existent.
The biggest change with operating a fixed wing manned AEW&C aircraft would be the crew, maintenance and deck handling side of things wrt the aircraft itself (and developing and producing the aircraft of course) -- but mastery of the greater AEW&C capability afforded by a fixed wing aircraft compared to a helicopter based AEW should be an adjustment of doctrine and slotting into similar or existing facilities.

Of course, CV-16 and CV-17 won't be operating KJ-600 from their decks anyway, so this question is sort of moot.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Of course, CV-16 and CV-17 won't be operating KJ-600 from their decks anyway, so this question is sort of moot.

Here is the hidden bonus for fixed wing UAV based AEW systems, they can be scaled down so it could be launched without a CATOBAR.
Basically instead of launching one large asset to cover a corner you send out multiple drones with much less weight.
This way you will be able to cover the area even if one vehicle is removed. This is the main reason why both US and NATO is considering to retire the E3 in the future and replace them with drones with the advent of Over the Horizon long range AA missiles.
As for extensive data networking, the US only started and will take another decade to place it into all assets, PLAAF and PLAN will take much longer with too many conventional assets which will require more retrofits placing a sat link, new onboard computers and advanced software.