Talk:Xi'an KJ-600

January 2022
So concerning this edit:


 * Item 1:

The change from

"... and a large dorsal radome suspected to be fitted with an AESA-type system."

to

"... and a large dorsal radome to be fitted with an AESA-type system"

The intention of the edit is to say that the radome is fitted with an AESA-type system. First, given the flow of the sentence, the words to be should also have been removed. Second, the H I Sutton's article used to support this change does not, in fact, support this strong claim.

Where the AESA is concerned, Sutton is talking to Rick Joe. Sutton notes:

"Joe believes that the radar itself will be of the latest AESA (Active Electronically scanned array) type."

So Sutton's article supports the claim that the radome may carry an AESA radar which, via the concept of synonyms, concurs with the initial revision. Therefore, this is reverted.


 * Item 2:

The change from

"The mock-up has a striking external resemblance to the aftward-folding Grumman E-2 Hawkeye. The design is likely to be a case of form following function, as the cancelled Soviet Yak-44 shared the same layout."

to

"The mock-up has a striking external resemblance to the aftward-folding Grumman E-2 Hawkeye. The design has similar lay out as the cancelled Soviet Yak-44 and American Grumman E-2 Hawkeye; however, the similarities should not be overstated. It is likely to be a case of form following function."

So for clarity, this is talking about the general physical configuration/appearance of the aircraft/mock-up. The edit is just a wordier way of saying the same thing as the initial revision. The difference is that the initial revision is succinct; it paraphrases and gets to the point. By comparison, the edit is borderline plagiarism; compare it to this excerpt from Sutton's article:

"The similarities between the Hawkeye and the KJ-600 should not be overstated. It is likely to be a case of form following function. Even the Soviet Union’s now-cancelled design, the Yak-44, used the same layout."

There also seem to be grammar issues with the edit.

Given the above, the edit does - at best - no better than the initial revision. Therefore, reverted.


 * Item 3:

The addition of

"The aircraft features advanced electronics and radars system such as the latest AESA radar. According to Forbes: "the KJ-600 will field the most capable radar and data linking technology that the current Chinese aerospace industry are able to develop." This makes the KJ-600 the closest technological contemporary to the American E-2D, advanced Hawkeye."

This looks like it's derived from these paragraphs from Sutton's article:

"Satellite images of the new plane suggest that the KJ-600 will have a single-faced radar which rotates in a ‘rotodome’ above the fuselage. Joe believes that the radar itself will be of the latest AESA (Active Electronically scanned array) type."

"This makes the KJ-600 similar to the E-2D variant of the Hawkeye currently in service with the U.S. Navy. Joe told me that the KJ-600 will “field the most capable radar and datalinking technology that the current Chinese aerospace industry are able to develop. This is not dissimilar to E-2D's level of advancement for its current time." He adds that “Chinese aerospace and military industry has certainly shown its ability to develop quite modern and capable AEW&C systems for other air, naval and ground applications.” Having said that, the Hawkeye may have capabilities which the the public are not aware of. Despite this, Joe concludes that the “closest technological contemporary to KJ-600 would probably be the E-2D.”"

The edit's first sentence looks like it includes a significant dose of original research/editor commentary. The electronics mentioned are specifically the radar and the datalink, not electronics in general. Furthermore, the "latest AESA radar" is a misreading of Joe's quotation. Joe does not say the aircraft will have the latest AESA radar; Joe says that the radar will likely be of the latest type (i.e. AESA) as opposed to, say, the older type (presumably PESA.)

The quotation itself is not an accurate reproduction, as a quotation should be. It's also a case where paraphrasing would eliminate the need to indicate who is being quoted; it's not Forbes, it's Sutton quoting Joe.

The above issues aside, the first sentence and the quotation seem unnecessary; it's reasonable to expect the aircraft to include the latest Chinese developments. Therefore, reverted.

The last sentence making a comparison to the E-2D may have something to it, near plagiarism and grammar issues aside. I don't feel strongly about it one way or another, so I've reverted it and will leave it to someone else to make that call. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 06:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)