KJ-600 carrierborne AEWC thread

[BoraTas]

There are two: One from 1977-1982, another from 2005. Both tests utilized the E-2C, which has a MTOW of 26 tons.

I couldn't find these anywhere on Google. Only managed to find these on Baidu and Zhihu.

For the 1977-1982 tests conducted by the USN:

This one is the conditions for normal land-based runway takeoff for various carrier-based aircrafts, with E-2C included:
View attachment 124660

Here are the details of the ski jump used for the tests:
View attachment 124661

And here are the results of takeoffs of various carrier-based aircraft using catapults versus using the above ski jump:
View attachment 124662

To sum up the test - It is indeed possible for the E-2C to takeoff using a 6 or 9-degree ski jump with slightly lower airspeeds than that of catapults. No mention on the length of the entire runway for takeoff and deck wind available, however.

For the 2005 test:
Conducted by Northrop Grumman, the E-2C used a 12-degree ski jump with a deck wind of 25 knots. The total length of the simulated runway (including the ski jump section) is 165 meters. The E-2C is able to take-off with a takeoff weight of 24.9 tons, and with a climb rate of 2.5 m/s, the E-2C reached its minimum take-off speed before entering the ski jump section. The entire take-off process of the E-2C is said to have complied with the USN's single-engine take-off requirements.

It is also said that with a deck wind of 0 knots, the required length of the E-2C takeoff is 240 meters.

This one is likely taken from the Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers.

(For note, Liaoning and Shandong's longer takeoff position is 195 meters from the edge of the ski jumps on both carriers. It should also be noted that Liaoning's ski jump is angled at 14 degrees, while Shandong's ski jump is angled at 12 degrees.)

It seems a low-fuel take-off is indeed possible. They could top it up after take-off via tanking by J-15s. I wonder if you could fit a Z-18 to a 055 or the incoming destroyers. Having an AWACS, even a helo, would greatly enhance a surface group's capabilities. Active RF seekers plus an AWACS helo would enable them to engage below-horizon targets from very useful distances.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

It seems a low-fuel take-off is indeed possible. They could top it up after take-off via tanking by J-15s.

At present, the KJ-600 isn't fitted with a refueling probe. But a later add-on modification/retrofit like the KJ-500A shouldn't be difficult.

The USN's E-2D only got its refueling peobe modifications quite recently.

In the meantime, as far as I could find, the maximum fuel load for the E-2C stands at ~5.5 tons. Assuming the KJ-600 is a carbon copy of the E-2 for ease of discussion, subtracting ~1 ton of fuel load for ski-jump takeoff should still allow the KJ-600 to perform its missions well, with ~1 hour less on-station time.

I wonder if you could fit a Z-18 to a 055 or the incoming destroyers. Having an AWACS, even a helo, would greatly enhance a surface group's capabilities. Active RF seekers plus an AWACS helo would enable them to engage below-horizon targets from very useful distances.

Unfortunately, no. Z-18 is larger than the Z-20.

However, Z-18J should fit well on the LHDs and LPDs, given their lack of fixed-wing AWACS assets.

 

[Lethe]

For the 2005 test:
Conducted by Northrop Grumman, the E-2C used a 12-degree ski jump with a deck wind of 25 knots. The total length of the simulated runway (including the ski jump section) is 165 meters. The E-2C is able to take-off with a takeoff weight of 24.9 tons, and with a climb rate of 2.5 m/s, the E-2C reached its minimum take-off speed before entering the ski jump section. The entire take-off process of the E-2C is said to have complied with the USN's single-engine take-off requirements.

It is also said that with a deck wind of 0 knots, the required length of the E-2C takeoff is 240 meters.

This one is likely taken from the Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers.

(For note, Liaoning and Shandong's longer takeoff position is 195 meters from the edge of the ski jumps on both carriers. It should also be noted that Liaoning's ski jump is angled at 14 degrees, while Shandong's ski jump is angled at 12 degrees.)

The 2005 tests were conducted in the context of interest from India in operating E-2C from the future Vikramaditya, a proposal that was eventually rejected citing poor endurance which undoubtedly refers to the reduced fuel load required to meet take-off characteristics:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In early 2004, the Navy sent out a request for information (RFI) on carrier-based AEW&C systems to Northrop Grumman Corp., with an outline for a total of six aircraft to operate off the INS Vikramaaditya and Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC). Naval Headquarters received Northrop’s reply, with information on the aircraft, capabilities and programme, in October 2004 [....] four months later, Northrop Grumman sent senior executives to Delhi to meet Vice Admiral JS Bedi, then Controller, Warship Production & Acquisition.

The team that finally met Bedi, told me on February 11, 2005, three days before their meeting, “We did an assessment with the US Navy, and now believe that it is possible to launch the Hawkeye, with appropriate modifications, from the Gorshkov’s angle deck in the absence of a catapult jump. We will present our findings to the Navy next week, constituting a second order level of detail of the assessment we have made.”

But on March 23, 2005, I spoke to Vice Admiral Bedi. He indicated that after weighing the pros and cons of the Hawkeye, the Navy had decided not to pursue its interest in the aircraft. He said, “First of all, the Hawkeye is too big. In light conditions, the endurance of the aircraft goes down from five to just one hour. And for an early warning aircraft to have the capability of staying for only one hour makes no sense. We have decided not to consider the Hawkeye. There are other reasons for not taking up the Hawkeye offer. In a full take-off, a single engine failure could be disastrous,” Bedi said.

Of course this is far from a definitive statement. It is a claim made in casual conversation and it is unclear what the relevant parameters are -- does "light conditions" refer to low wind speed over the deck? Further, it is a claim made in defence of a decision already taken, a decision that, it is acknowledged, was informed by factors other than endurance. Without questioning the integrity of Vice Admiral Bedi, it would not be the first time that certain factors behind a decision have been "sexed up" for public consumption while others are obscured. Finally, the relevance of the E-2C/Vikramaditya example to the question of KJ-600 for Liaoning and Shandong is complicated by potentially significant powerplant or aerodynamic differences between E-2 and KJ-600, as well as the various dimensional differences between the Pr. 1143 and Pr. 1143.5 designs that universally favour the latter. Nonetheless, I do think the claim that the E-2C was examined and concluded to be non-viable for practical operations from Vikramaditya is at least as noteworthy as Northrop Grumman's claim that it was possible. After all, Northrop's job is to sell aircraft, how useful they are to the customer once the funds have cleared is neither here nor there.

 

[schenkus]

I don't think it's likely that the KJ-600 will operate from one of the STOBAR carriers, but rather that a STOBAR carrier will be used in a taskforce mixed with a CATOBAR carrier that can provide an AWACS cover for the whole taskforce, while the STOBAR carrier provides ASW helicopters in addition to its fighters.

 

[pkj]

I don't think it's likely that the KJ-600 will operate from one of the STOBAR carriers, but rather that a STOBAR carrier will be used in a taskforce mixed with a CATOBAR carrier that can provide an AWACS cover for the whole taskforce, while the STOBAR carrier provides ASW helicopters in addition to itsters.

Using CV-16/17 as a Little Brother ASW carrier in support of CV-18 Big Brother would seem "wasteful"?

In a taskforce, 16, 17, or 18 would presumably be in separate task groups with each CV operating with its own usual screens. The need for AWACs for each task group would still be there.

In it's own CVBG, even operating within just the 1IC, having AWACs would be a huge multiplier/equalizer for CV-16/17 (especially against the Japanese carriers).

My hope (since I have no flight performance data on KJ-600) is that it's light enough (~67klb versus ~43Klb presumably due to newer lighter electronics, material, etc) that it can indeed operate fron 16,17 without cripling performance penalties.


In addition, with the huge investment in KJ-600, it would seem to "just make more sense" to have it be able to operate from all the carriers.

 

[asif iqbal]

Indeed. However, even with the obvious tradeoffs, KJ-600 is still way better than those ad-hoc AWACS units i.e. Z-18J in pretty much every aspect.

And while having none at present, here's hoping that refueling probes will be installed on newer KJ-600s in the future. The YY-20s should be able to bring meaningful quantity of transferable fuel for aerial refueling at a distance of 2000 kilometers from base.

In the meantime, hopefully the WJ-10 can make it onto serial production KJ-600s real soon...

I don’t any problem with the Z-18J as AWACS for CV-16 and CV-17

does it give the situational awareness of a fixed wing AWACS? No, does that matter ? No

for open Pacific Ocean long endurance long range mission KJ-600 will be great from CV-18

CV-16 and CV-17 will have around the clock protection with Z-18J a great helicopter doesn’t need replacing

Could the KJ-600 operate from CV-16 and CV-17 in war time if needed? Probably Yes

Does it have to ? No

It’s all about practicality

 

[minime]

CV-16 and CV-17 will have around the clock protection with Z-18J a great helicopter doesn’t need replacing

Could the KJ-600 operate from CV-16 and CV-17 in war time if needed? Probably Yes

Does it have to ? No

It’s all about practicality

Z-18J lacks range, loitering time and speed compare to KJ-600.
No where near around the clock protection.

I don't consider CV-16&17 an independent force with Z-18J.

 

[Maikeru]

Z-18J lacks range, loitering time and speed compare to KJ-600.
No where near around the clock protection.

I don't consider CV-16&17 an independent force with Z-18J.

More importantly it lacks altitude and a large radar.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I don’t any problem with the Z-18J as AWACS for CV-16 and CV-17

does it give the situational awareness of a fixed wing AWACS? No, does that matter ? No

That's where you are wrong.

KJ-600's capabilities when it comes to radar and sensor suites, mission range and endurance are HUGE improvements over the Z-18J. The very importance of the KJ-600 cannot be discarded.

for open Pacific Ocean long endurance long range mission KJ-600 will be great from CV-18

Even with Fujian entering service in late-2025 or early-2026, China will only be operating 3 CVs, of which only 1 is CATOBAR. This situation is expected to last until the late-2020s at the earliest.

Sooner or later, Fujian will have to be drydocked for maintenance, repairs and/or retrofits/upgrades. The negative impacts due to such a loss of more capable carrier-based AEW&C aircrafts cannot be understated, even if the loss is temporary in-nature.

That's why it is always better for as many CVs in PLAN service to have KJ-600s onboard as possible, whenever such opportunity is available. This guarantees that at least one AEW&C aircraft-equipped CV is always ready for deployment at a moment's notice.

CV-16 and CV-17 will have around the clock protection with Z-18J a great helicopter doesn’t need replacing

No, they don't.

From what is publicly available, the Z-18J's mission duration is less than 3 hours, which is a far cry from the 5-6 hours of the E-2C/D (and similarly, the KJ-600).

Could the KJ-600 operate from CV-16 and CV-17 in war time if needed? Probably Yes

Does it have to ? No

It’s all about practicality

As soon as the KJ-600 has been proven to be viable and reliable for operation from China's ski-jump twins, then it is prudent for the KJ-600s to be put onboard them.

Even though we are in peacetime right now, there is no harm putting KJ-600s onto those ski-jump twins. Even if not for permanent operation deployment, using the KJ-600 for operational concept evaluation and verification is still very much viable and valuable.

There is no use to wait until war starts before rushing to conduct all these - Or worse, until either or both the ski-jump twins have been rendered inoperable or lost during wartime.

 

[asif iqbal]

general point for the above quotes

I think I did say that Z-18J cannot match the performance of a fixed wing AWACS no one would argue otherwise

but this is not about what you "feel" should be the requirement but rather what is the mission statement and practicality

CV-16 and CV-17 two war fighting carriers that can conduct independent air operations from territories far from home

Z-18J forms one part of the situational awareness and it is a capable system when working with other assets

just like the Merlin Crows-nest for two World Class QR Carriers are for the RN, you think UK would compromise two Carriers due to rotary wing AWACS? certainly not

when it comes to mission statement and practicality Z-18J is great for STOBAR

for CATOBAR which will have true sustainable long range long duration sorties fixed wing AWACS like KJ-600 is fundamental to the operational of the Carrier