KJ-600 carrierborne AEWC thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Bus doesn’t the power output and electricity depends on the engines?
Lethe
Captain
That's what I meant. KJ-500 with 4x WJ-6 turboprop is going to have greater potential for electrical power generation than KJ-600 with 2x WJ-6 turboprop and that feeds into potential radar performance (at the same level of technology), alongside structural considerations that allow the larger aircraft to support a larger radar, and to have greater cabin volume to accommodate more operators and equipment for data processing, analysis, and command and control. The consequence is that there is a clear market separation between small AEW platforms like KJ-600 (or SAAB Erieye) and larger ones such as KJ-500 or ZDK-03 (or E-7 Wedgetail).
ok, then sorry for my misunderstanding
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Rocket assist won’t work with a ski jump for the same reason a ski jump won’t work with a catapult - the added acceleration will cause the plane to hit the ski jump too fast and collapse the front landing gear. You will basically need to fundamentally redesign a plane to structurally take that much extra force, with all the significant weight and cost penalties that would entail.
The only way the KJ600 can take off from Liaoning or Shandong is if it used rocket assist take off from the angled deck. Not impossible, but risky.
Personally I don’t think the PLAN will take such a risky approach to routine operations. Instead it seems to have settled on the formula of pairing up its carriers to face off against USN carriers. Currently, while one-on-one, the Liaoning and Shandong are at a disadvantage against a USN Nimitz/Ford class, in a 2-v-1 scenario where both the Liaoning and Shandong are going up a single Nimitz/Ford class, the tables are turned.
The PLAN won’t be desperate to add KJ600 to the Liaoning or Shandong because in future operations where KJ600s might be needed, they will have 018 Fujian class and future Chinese CVNs they can pair up with them to carry the KJ600 when operating together with the Liaoning/Shandong.
The only way the KJ600 can take off from Liaoning or Shandong is if it used rocket assist take off from the angled deck. Not impossible, but risky.
Personally I don’t think the PLAN will take such a risky approach to routine operations. Instead it seems to have settled on the formula of pairing up its carriers to face off against USN carriers. Currently, while one-on-one, the Liaoning and Shandong are at a disadvantage against a USN Nimitz/Ford class, in a 2-v-1 scenario where both the Liaoning and Shandong are going up a single Nimitz/Ford class, the tables are turned.
The PLAN won’t be desperate to add KJ600 to the Liaoning or Shandong because in future operations where KJ600s might be needed, they will have 018 Fujian class and future Chinese CVNs they can pair up with them to carry the KJ600 when operating together with the Liaoning/Shandong.
Besides, once 076 LHDs enter service, outside of amphibious assault operations, one of them can be attached to Liaoning and Shandong each.
Other than providing extra aviation capacity for more J-15s, J-35s and carrier-based UCAVs in the future, the one (or two) catapult(s) onboard can also launch KJ-600s like those on Fujian and future Chinese supercarriers.
Adding one 076 LHD to each of the Liaoning and Shandong CSGs of essentially provides Liaoning and Shandong with ad-hoc AEW capabilities for their carrier strike groups respectively.
Forgive me if I sound stupid, but what if you put the catapult towards the landing deck rather than the ski jump.
Of course the operational cost is higher, but the acquisition cost is quite reasonable.
That being said, it probably makes more sense to mount the KJ-600 radar on a MA600/700, depends on the economics of course (ie. is it cheaper to use the same line as PLA or AVIC, maintenance, etc.)
plawolf
Lieutenant General
That is not stupid and it is a valid suggestion. The main issues will whether the costs (both monetary and opportunity) and time required justifies the investment.
The CV16 and 17 are China’s only carriers for the foreseeable future, than such a modification would certainly be a lot more justifiable.
However, with CV18 already launched and rumours of nuclear carriers potentially already under construction, just how much added utility would such a refit give the PLAN? Especially when the dry dock facilities and workers who would be needed for the refit would also be needed for new carrier construction. On top of that, you will be taking two perfectly serviceable operational carriers offline for years just as you are bringing additional new carriers online, which will completely mess up your entire carrier pilot training pipeline.
Not only are the Liaoning and Shandong important operational carriers with operational capabilities and responsibilities, they are also the cornerstone of the PLAN’s pilot training programme so that they can bring Fujian and future nuclear carriers up to full combat capabilities ASAP. And the pace of the PLAN adding carriers to the fleet is likely to only accelerate for at least a generation.
Even in 20-30 years time, once the PLAN has 10 CV18 and nuclear carriers operational, they will probably still be loathed to take Liaoning or Shandong out of service for years at a time for a catapult refit since with that many carriers, the routine training needs across the fleet will probably justify a dedicated training carrier.
At that point, rather than do a full MLU, which would be the perfect time for a catapult, they may well choose to just do some quick sensors upgrades and keep CV16 and 17 working as full time training carriers just to maintain the competency of its carrier pilot regiments to cover for refit and repair cycles of the mainline combat carriers as well as taking into consideration maintenance rotational requirements of CV16 and 17.
