KJ-600 carrierborne AEWC thread

[Totoro]

Not only that, but KJ-600's radar seems to be using a single array.
If this image is anything to go by to.
The different coloring fairly clearly shows the dividing line is not in the middle. Denoting one half of the dish being the array and the backend hardware. While the other half is the radome.

 

[Cloud_Nine_]

Not only that, but KJ-600's radar seems to be using a single array.
If this image is anything to go by to. View attachment 110618
The different coloring fairly clearly shows the dividing line is not in the middle. Denoting one half of the dish being the array and the backend hardware. While the other half is the radome.

APY-9 is like this too tho. The dividing line for the "comb-like" yagi antenna arrays is not on the center line of the rotating dish as indicated by the rotary coupler in the center.

 

[Cloud_Nine_]

Isn't E-2D's radar asymmetric?

Yeah, it is, I somehow took it for granted that it was a dual-side thing. Apologies for that.

 

[asif iqbal]

ok so we have 6 x KJ600 in various forms of testing including ground testing

this is pretty much the number required for development

so after this I think we will see low rate production aircraft coming out in the next few years

it will be much easier to make a transport version of this aircraft for example if China wants to ship in the jet engines to the Carriers

 

[AF-1]

I doubt it will be any serial production before AEP500 is tested first on several prototypes (if its not happening already)

 

[Deino]

If not again a PS-job, this is the so far clearest image of one of the KJ-600 prototypes and as it seems in parts this particular image was already posted before, albeit with parts blurred out.

However I'm a bit surprised by the visible serial number #7106.

(Image via @捣蛋就捣蛋 from Weibo)

 

[Deino]

Well, everyone who knows me, knows how much I hate these IMO usually constant copy claims since copying - especially when not having the real original one at hand - is not an easy task or almost impossible, but as it seems, here I'm running out of arguments and we can indeed call it a "copy" even with certain differences on the nose, tail, radar-mount ...

 

[sheogorath]

Some design choices are logical and I don't see any reason why the chinese should change and "reinvent the wheel".

Inward facing main gear wheels allows for a reduction of wheel width footprint that would be lost if they were to be pointed out the other way. And as we all know, in aircraft carriers every inch counts

Exhausts under the flaps allows for it to blown on the flaps allowing for some extra lift during slow flights.

Everything else at the rear is just a "slave" to the similar aerodynamic configuration of the dish, and there is only so many ways you can fit a massive dish on top of a turboprop frame. Even the Yak-44 had a passing resemblance to the E-2.


At the end of the day, just play it safe. After all, this the third carrier-based AEW platform ever outside of the Brits and American and British desing in this area were laughably limited

 

[Atomicfrog]

Well, everyone who knows me, knows how much I hate these IMO usually constant copy claims since copying - especially when not having the real original one at hand - is not an easy task or almost impossible, but as it seems, here I'm running out of arguments and we can indeed call it a "copy" even with certain differences on the nose, tail, radar-mount ...

View attachment 112258

You can dig into creativeness and take some risks or just choose a design that have been proven. If you check all the requirement cases and they are the same... you choose project efficiency more than ingenuity...

 

[SlothmanAllen]

The E-2 might just be an ideal design and coming up with a better design might not have been worth the effort, especially if China already had detailed design/specifications for the E-2. So copying might just have been the best solution for China at the time. The US isn't in a rush to replace the E-2, so they obviously view the design as having a future.