Future Chinese carrier-borne AEW: KJ-600 or KH-600

[Deino]

Bro it actually really is a copy so what else should I say.

Just look at it.

I know this is an often repeated meme, sometimes correct, sometimes wrong and most often a tool used to diminish China's success in recent years since it is "only a copy".

I however would like to add three things:

1. we haven't seen yet the real KJ-600 and everyone's already crying "copycat" ... so at least give them a chance to show us what and how they built taht type and then be can discuss to what extent it is a copy.

2. why are such claims only aimed against China? A new ROC or South Korean UAV/UCAV which are more clones of US types and they are heralded as "ingenious and developments", whereas in China everything is a copy. When South Korea India and Turkey are presenting their new fighters they are great achievements and in return the FC-31 is a F-35 copy!

3. as if aeronautical engineering, designing and esp. building an aircraft would be so early only by the look of it? And do have only Chinese mastered this art of engineering?

 

[serenity]

Certainly is outside a copy of E-2. Internal equipment and radar electronic details will be very difference. The E-2 shape and outside design works well for carrier so we copied it. Its outside is definitely a copy. Who cares. Everyone copies something or another. Everyone who will make 5th gen fighters will share similar designs in most places. E-2 shape works very well for the job of launching and landing from carrier while also carrying the radar and electronics. Some of us are too sensitive about this accusation because many cases it is not true. In this case it is.

Most tables have similar layout and structure same with cars. To save time and money on working out design details for the aircraft frame, why not use something already proven to work well. Save the improvements and next generation for when we already have experience using this type of aircraft. Carrier operations and missions are all still in learning phase.

 

[serenity]

With Chinese industry progress, everything which has first one is first copied as much as possible and then slowly learn why and slowly make changes based off first version. Then generations start adding more daring changes and gradually become totally mastered. For example telephone device in 1970s to today's smartphone evolution. Everything we do in industry starts with minimum risk and save most time and money.

Fundamental point in industrial philosophy starts with getting to same level as leader is at then talk about further development. For such aircraft, it is just like J-15 is a copy of Su-33. PLAN will not risk new design when never owned and operated carrier. Walk the path where the other leaders started and if you are daring and good enough after the first steps then proceed a new path is funds available.

Sad thing is everyone who wants to eventually domesticate all these technologies and then one day lead them, requires some sort of copying. For China we want all industries not just special fields. This is too wide to cover in such short time and many just start with these efforts like cars. Now Chinese cars are not copying as much as when started and in electronic vehicles, leading some fields. Everyone will start this journey some time if they want to become industrial. There are some small examples around which not like this but in very specialized fields or the country is already industrialized country and wealthy too. But for country not like this, well look at India, they will not reach 1990s Chinese copy era yet and the path is very long. Same with most developing countries. In fact after Korea, China has been the last one to properly industrialize on large scale. Everyone left is still stuck.

 

[Armchair]

With Chinese industry progress, everything which has first one is first copied as much as possible and then slowly learn why and slowly make changes based off first version. Then generations start adding more daring changes and gradually become totally mastered. For example telephone device in 1970s to today's smartphone evolution. Everything we do in industry starts with minimum risk and save most time and money.

Fundamental point in industrial philosophy starts with getting to same level as leader is at then talk about further development. For such aircraft, it is just like J-15 is a copy of Su-33. PLAN will not risk new design when never owned and operated carrier. Walk the path where the other leaders started and if you are daring and good enough after the first steps then proceed a new path is funds available.

Sad thing is everyone who wants to eventually domesticate all these technologies and then one day lead them, requires some sort of copying. For China we want all industries not just special fields. This is too wide to cover in such short time and many just start with these efforts like cars. Now Chinese cars are not copying as much as when started and in electronic vehicles, leading some fields. Everyone will start this journey some time if they want to become industrial. There are some small examples around which not like this but in very specialized fields or the country is already industrialized country and wealthy too. But for country not like this, well look at India, they will not reach 1990s Chinese copy era yet and the path is very long. Same with most developing countries. In fact after Korea, China has been the last one to properly industrialize on large scale. Everyone left is still stuck.

This is a good post. However, I feel copying the Hawkeye layout is not the best way to go. Perhaps a side array like the Israelis use would be aerodynamically easier to handle for an aircraft carrier design.

 

[Figaro]

What are those consumer products to do with the KJ-600 here ???

China produces almost all the kinds of products.

Can you count how many products are China making?

Will you shop around to accumulate the copycat products to flood this thread?

What's your real intention indeed???

I wish some mod will ban you from here for spamming this thread!

I have tried to explain this to him numerous times. For some reason @Ahmet Pasha has a very difficult time understanding that military weapons do not equate to consumer goods. @Deino can you please take care of this troll?

This is a good post. However, I feel copying the Hawkeye layout is not the best way to go. Perhaps a side array like the Israelis use would be aerodynamically easier to handle for an aircraft carrier design.

We don't even know what the KJ-600 looks like and people are already assuming it is a full on copy of the Hawkeye. Give it some time.

 

[serenity]

This is a good post. However, I feel copying the Hawkeye layout is not the best way to go. Perhaps a side array like the Israelis use would be aerodynamically easier to handle for an aircraft carrier design.

Maybe that is a good suggestion but it depends on details and engineering. I can suggest it will look cooler for Long March rockets to have pointy top and winglets everywhere but the engineering is going to consider many hundreds of factors. The real KJ-600 outside general design will need to pay considerations to the equipment details inside.

 

[Armchair]

Maybe that is a good suggestion but it depends on details and engineering. I can suggest it will look cooler for Long March rockets to have pointy top and winglets everywhere but the engineering is going to consider many hundreds of factors. The real KJ-600 outside general design will need to pay considerations to the equipment details inside.

Remember that the Hawkeyes were designed with Mechanical pulse doppler arrays. Tech has moved along since then. Take a look at the Israeli AWACs designs. Pointy looks cool, but more than cool is at play - aerodynamic simplicity which can be beneficial particularly for cross winds on carrier landings and takeoff.

 

[Deino]

Bro IP has a big part especially in defence products. Sanctions can happen over stuff like this.

Why is Russia mad at China. If IP doesn't apply to defence goods??

Oh come on! We don't even know how it looks like - these are all fan-made artworks - and you call it a copy? Is the A320 a copy of the B737 or the MS21 and C919 of the A320 only since they share similar dimensions at exactly the same configuration?

Let's wait how it looks like and then discuss ... but now STOP with this BS.

 

[Nasr]

To the ones crying copy cat, tell me how many countries can actually copy an aircraft and manage to achieve the same or superior quality than the original? China has done it!!

What about america taking German designs and creating B-2 bombers?

 

[juj06750]

Hopefully true

https://twitter.com/x/status/1278320502851985409

Note that our first shipborne AWACS JZY01 already maiden flight at Yanliang in 2010;
if true, KJ600 would be the second AWACS

 

[Deino]

View attachment 647822Note that our first shipborne AWACS JZY01 already maiden flight at Yanliang in 2010;
if true, KJ600 would be the second AWACS

I must admit I'm still very sceptic if these images are real. We haven't seen any clear image of the JZY01 testbed in the air and it was anyway never a "shipborne AWACS" since it was never able to be launched off the Liaoning carrier.

 

[vi-va]

Bro it actually really is a copy so what else should I say.

Just look at it.

Sure, sure. BMW copy Benz, Benz copy VW, VW copy Toyota, Toyota copy Honda, Honda copy BMW.
Just look at how similar they are. 4 wheels.

Airbus 320 copy Boeing 737.
Just look at how similar they are. Two wings.

 

[juj06750]

I must admit I'm still very sceptic if these images are real. We haven't seen any clear image of the JZY01 testbed in the air and it was anyway never a "shipborne AWACS" since it was never able to be launched off the Liaoning carrier.

Note that prop aircrafts take off only from catapult-based carrier; I also believe that JZY01 never took off from carrier, but there is NO doubt that it performed flight tests a long time ago (still many photo on internet)
deino, I know you are only-image hogger; but again, DON'T say that there's no such thing because you don't see the image; our chinese government officially NEVER release any image of weapons-in-deveopment; so what you've seen on internet is mostly ONLY unofficial or spy cam; thus you and your western foreigners NEVER know inside-the-contents in detail, which are more important than just viewing and understanding the image

 

[obj 705A]

thus you and your western foreigners NEVER know inside-the-contents in detail, which are more important than just viewing and understanding the image

You do realize that Deino is a pro China westerner on the forum right? I'm just asking because you continously say "western this , western that" (I checked some of your previous posts) so I thought maybe there is a misunderstanding here.
I'm not saying that you should change your opinion , after all I myself am probably the most anti-west member on the forum, all I'm saying is that you should keep hostility away from the China defence section, because we have a good number of western viewers here who have a favorable view of China and we wouldn't want to ruin the good relationship they have with the other Chinese members.

 

[juj06750]

You do realize that Deino is a pro China westerner on the forum right? I'm just asking because you continously say "western this , western that" (I checked some of your previous posts) so I thought maybe there is a misunderstanding here.
I'm not saying that you should change your opinion , after all I myself am probably the most anti-west member on the forum, all I'm saying is that you should keep hostility away from the China defence section, because we have a good number of western viewers here who have a favorable view of China and we wouldn't want to ruin the good relationship they have with the other Chinese members.

No pro-china foreigners on this forum; they just all foreigners who don't belong to each other; again, note that the important value of this forum is NOT to discuss pros-and-cons of chinese arms with political bias among foreigners against each other BUT to exchange of solid evidence on certain claims; and I come here for it and wish everyone do so