China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft - esp. Y-20/YY-20

Gloire_bb said:

Payload class, but KC-390 is a jet, and not a STOL one(reasonable, but nothing outstanding in this regard). Completely different set of properties. Here we have a straight wing with well developed control surfaces(low speed lift and control),
I.e. C-130J is indeed the by far the most relevant barometer.

Click to expand...

The reason why C-130J is not a useful barometer, is because Y-9 already exists.

C-130J and Y-9 already exist in the same broad category in terms of weight, payload, configuration. One may as well compare Y-15 to Y-9 in that case (i.e. mostly redundant).

KC-390 OTOH is likely closer in weight class and payload, not to mention configuration, to Y-15, except it is turbofan powered.

"Y-15 is a 4x turbopropped KC-390" imo is a far more valuable comparison, while also being a bit more educational by forcing people to discover the world of medium airlifters outside of the world of Hercules and Atlas.

Blitzo said:

The reason why C-130J is not a useful barometer, is because Y-9 already exists.

Click to expand...

Y-9 is hardly a proper counterpart to C-130J though (same class, not level) , and it for now absolutely appears Y-15 is the airlift replacement here.
Also, let's make a step back and look at Y-9 itself. Y-9 is a Y-8 stretch, i.e. new pressurized, streamlined fuselage to improve range/payload at expense of take off/landing and rough field performance. It's a side grade, driven in part by a desperate need to have any somehow suitable payloads carrier.
Compared to that, what we see here is a proper airlifter. I.e. we're replacing Y-8 in it's basic vanilla military role here above all else.

Blitzo said:

KC-390 OTOH is likely closer in weight class and payload, not to mention configuration, to Y-15, except it is turbofan powered.

Click to expand...

I'd personally not judge weight class without either performance metrics, or reverse engineering tasks from PLA payloads (including very likely paradrop).

What we can judge now is turboprops, new straight wing with huge lifting devices, etc, and new rather wide cargo hull, likely able to fit light AFVs, ground launchers and maybe light helicopters.
It's evidently far from from what (K)C-390 is: one size fits all, fast/high (high)pressurized lifter without significant VTOL enhancement.

Blitzo said:

"Y-15 is a 4x turbopropped KC-390" imo is a far more valuable comparison, while also being a bit more educational by forcing people to discover the world of medium airlifters outside of the world of Hercules and Atlas.

Click to expand...

It's good, but we're ultimately not discovery channel here.
Comparison should fit the purpose rather than inspire kids to do off class reading on their own...

Mekconyov said:

Time would tell whose information turns to be true. PLAAF is eager to develop twin engine WS-20 based Airlifter to be used as AWACs, special purpose aircraft and medium size cargo aircraft. It is Y-15 version or Y-30 whatever PLAAF designates it.

Click to expand...

Is there any evidence to prove the existence of this project? Developing a platform specifically for this purpose—especially when other transport aircraft of comparable size already exist—seems rather implausible.

Gloire_bb said:

Y-9 is hardly a proper counterpart to C-130J though (same class, not level) , and it for now absolutely appears Y-15 is the airlift replacement here.
Also, let's make a step back and look at Y-9 itself. Y-9 is a Y-8 stretch, i.e. new fuselage to improve range/payload at expense of take off/landing and rough field performance. It's a side grade, driven in part by a desperate need to have any somehow suitable payloads carrier.
Compared to that, what we see here is a proper airlifter. I.e. we're replacing Y-8 in it's basic vanilla role here above all else.

Click to expand...

Y-9 is not that physically longer than Y-8, but rather it is a modernization of Y-8 in the same way C-130J is to legacy C-130s.

Of course, the Y-8/Y-9 and C-130/C-130J are not perfect analogues to each other but are much closer than any other mainline tactical airlifters are of their eras.
That is where the matter of "how best to compare Y-15" comes in.

Gloire_bb said:

I'd personally not judge weight class without either performance metrics, or reverse engineering tasks from PLA payloads (including very likely paradrop).

What we can judge now is turboprops, new straight wing with huge lifting devices, etc, and new rather wide cargo hull, likely able to fit light AFVs, ground launchers and maybe light helicopters. it's very far from from what KC-390 is(one size fits all, fast/high lifter without significant VTOL enhancement).

Click to expand...

If we are unable to agree on what the weight class of this thing is in then the discussion is moot.

My view is this thing likely has a 25-50% increase in payload relative to Y-9/C-130J, which among other differences makes comparisons with C-130J more misleading than useful.

Gloire_bb said:

It's good, but we're ultimately not discovery channel here.
Comparison should fit the purpose rather than inspire kids to do off class reading on their own...

Click to expand...

It also happens to be the most accurate comparison, the fact that it helps to open up other people's eyes is an additional benefit.

Blitzo said:

If we are unable to agree on what the weight class of this thing is in then the discussion is moot.

My view is this thing likely has a 25-50% increase in payload relative to Y-9/C-130J, which among other differences makes comparisons with C-130J more misleading than useful.

Click to expand...

I don't know how numbers play, too early to tell(and, again, from my knowledge on how airlifter design goes, we'd better go from payloads/distances rather than throw in arbitrary percentage increases).

For now we can mostly judge the externals, which is (likely) 4 ws-6c, straight wing with huge lifting devices, winglets, straight high tail.
None of that is c-390...

Gloire_bb said:

I don't know how numbers play, too early to tell(and, again, from my knowledge on how airlifter design goes, we'd better go from payloads/distances rather than throw in arbitrary percentage increases).

For now we can mostly judge the externals, which is (likely) 4 ws-6c, straight wing with huge lifting devices, winglets, straight high tail.
None of that is c-390...

Click to expand...

If we can't agree on the target numbers of this thing then this conversation has run its course.

Other than rough field capabilities, the Y-15’s long straight wings are probably designed with convertibility into a helicopter refueling tanker in mind.

Tomboy said:

It's a C-130J counterpart not a A400M

Click to expand...

Blitzo said:

It's a shame that A400M and C-130J are the only barometer relevant transports most people are aware of.

Personally I suspect when all the details come out, that KC-390 will be closest to this aircraft in payload close.

Click to expand...

I agree - IMO it is clearly not an A400M equivalent but better fits into the size of a C-130J with a slightly wider fuselage and indeed most internet comparisons seem to omit the KC-390. However overall the Y-15 reminds me a lot to an turboprop-powered YC-15!

didn't china buy the rights to produce AN-225's back in 2016? what are the chances something actually comes from it?

Antares545 said:

didn't china buy the rights to produce AN-225's back in 2016? what are the chances something actually comes from it?

Click to expand...

None, because it was a deal to get the unfinished airframe flying. IIRC, that deal never went through fully and the second airframe is still with Ukraine and considering the current condition of relationship between China and Ukraine. It's unlikely anything will come of that.