KJ-600 carrierborne AEWC thread

[antiterror13]

@Bltizo

Your story has more holes then Swiss cheese.

If they were both reliable they could have just installed into one and place the other system into the following ship and do field testing while training the pilots at the same time.
It just don't make sense.

yeahhh everything doesn't make sense for people who dont know the stuff and ignorance

@Bltizo has been following and contributing the above topic for very long time and he is respected and knows the things very very well. But I see, it is impossible to convince you about anything Chinese has achieved ... and thats ok, nobody cares anyway ... if you dont like it (or jealous) , just dont post or reply on this topic, very simple

Mark Twain once said "It is better to keep your mouth shut and to appear stupid then to open it and remove all doubt"

 

[Blitzo]

@Bltizo

Your story has more holes then Swiss cheese.

I'm pretty sure my "story" has been a result of me carefully following the rumours, news and evidence of catapult development related to carrier development and construction over the better side of seven years.

If they were both reliable they could have just installed into one and place the other system into the following ship and do field testing while training the pilots at the same time.
It just don't make sense.

How on earth does that make sense. That is actually the complete opposite of making sense.

The purpose for their catapult competition is to decide on which catapult to use on the first carrier. They're doing that because they don't want to make a mistake.

If they do what you're saying and install both catapults on two different ships to "field test" them then that defeats the purpose of field testing them entirely because you're committing both ships to a dedicated catapult type anyway, meaning one of them is going to end up suffering for it because they'll be tied to their catapult type for the foreseeable future until a major refit, meaning either the steam catapult carrier will have to have a whole dedicated steam catapult support line during its use, or the EM catapult carrier will not have its catapult be as reliable.

In either case, you are committing at least one whole carrier to be an expensive and inefficient platform that will either be using an older/obsolete catapult that will need to have a whole support line just for it, or be using a less reliable or less mature catapult that will impact the efficiency of the carrier it is installed on.


OTOH, it makes much more sense to stress test both catapults on land first, before fitting them onto any carrier, and to carefully decide which one to fit onto the first carrier to make sure the decision is one informed by extensive test and comparison results. It is substantially cheaper and less risky than building two whole carriers and blindly fitting them on.



I sort of understand where you think you are coming from, but the problem is you don't understand the Navy's thinking around catapults very well. I don't think you've been following this story for very long or very closely, so you don't have the base of information to make an informed analysis.

 

[delft]

The Chinese AWACS? Note the counter-rotating propellers

The aft propellers are shaped just as the front propellers, as if they turn in the same direction. I would also want the aft propeller to have a smaller diameter than the front propeller. The tip vortices of the front propeller move inwards because of the acceleration of the airflow through the propeller and then would be cut by the blades of the aft propeller contributing to the noise and reducing the propulsive efficiency. See the propellers of the An-70. Those propellers have fewer blades in the aft propeller than the front propeller no doubt to avoid losses due to trans sonic flow.

 

[Jeff Head]

We have been waiting for the PLAN to develop aq suitable AEW aircaft for their coming CATOBAR carriers.

I believe the recently revealed JY-01 could be it.

Here are some pictures and depictions of that aircraft:



Looks very much like the size and cabability they would be looking for.

 

[Deino]

We have been waiting for the PLAN to develop aq suitable AEW aircaft for their coming CATOBAR carriers.

I believe the recently revealed JY-01 could be it.

Here are some pictures and depictions of that aircraft:

View attachment 36103 View attachment 36104 View attachment 36105 View attachment 36106 View attachment 36107

Looks very much like the size and cabability they would be looking for.

Even if the final two images are IMO a simple scale model and the very last one a fan art; just look at the tail jet engines.

 

[Deino]

From the same post in the J-20-thread, which shows both J-XX contenders, the new carrier AEW was also shown already !!

... but what's the one in the right corner ? A Yak-141 ???

Deino

 

[Jeff Head]

Even if the final two images are IMO a simple scale model and the very last one a fan art; just look at the tail jet engines.

Yes, the last two are certainly depictions and the one with the additional jet engines I believe is certainly even more than a depiction...it is more like fan-boi, or just unrealistic.

But those other three are of an actualy aircraft I believe. I do not believe that is just a mockup. I'd love to see it in flight.

Clearly the PLAN is making significant progress towards a true AEW aircraft...and it is clear that they have something fairly far along in terms of their design.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

I though those Jets could be power generators, using air flow to capture energy for the radar.

 

[delft]

I though those Jets could be power generators, using air flow to capture energy for the radar.

That is less efficient than having the generators driven directly by the engines.

 

[Quickie]

Those ships (and subs) contain pretty powerful processing hardware for the purpose of sifting through and isolating individual signatures though, right? My understanding has always been that with subsurface warfare the game is to leak as little and as weak a signature as possible. I imagine a loud jamming signal would be easily isolated and filtered out.

Band-passed frequency filter

It would be similar to any signals jamming. If you hit the received with enough interference, you can overload it and stop it from being able to register any useful signals it might pick up.

But to do that means you need to hit the receiver with more energy than its design tolerances to either trigger self-protection features like auto-gating, or to potentially cause real physical damage to the sensor.

I'm not even sure pining with active sonar at close range would be able to do that, so you probably need to develop effectively a kind of sonic weapon.

To do that would be far more provocative than even deliberately cutting TAS lines in my view.

A jamming signal that's as large as the target signal and of the same frequencies would be suffice for jamming, since the target signal would be too corrupted and masked out to be filtered out beyond a certain noise to signal ratio. This would of course mean the source of the jamming signal would now be drawing fire to itself.