China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

AeroEngineer · May 10, 2013

Engineer said:
None of the articles has anything to do with the stealth shaping on PAKFA to which you replied to. But back to the Y-20...

You are incorrectly assuming China, Russia and Ukraine come together to work on the Y-20 like European nations do with Airbus. Russian engines are merely temporary solution here to speed up the development process, not a permanent solution. Antonov provided initial inputs that may or may not used by China on the Y-20. The three countries are not working toward a common set of objectives. What's more, all three countries are trying to benefit themselves, not trying to benefit one another.

You are misrepresenting companies as countries. An aircraft requiring contributions from multiple companies does not mean it requires contributions from multiple nations. As an example, the F-22 is designed by Lockheed but uses an engine made by Pratt and Whittle. Both companies are American. Multinational cooperation is not a prerequisite for aircraft development.

You are also misrepresenting commercial aircraft as military aircraft. Airbus and Boeing produce aircraft for international customers who have their own requirements as well as political considerations. Naturally, that requires providing choices, including engines from a customer's own country. The same cannot be said for military aircraft such as the Y-20, J-20 and J-10 that are really meant for one customer.

The very fact that China spends money in developing domestic engines shows China is not trying to save money. Likewise, instead of investing money into IL-478 to save development costs, China spent its own money on designing a completely new transport that is the Y-20. Not only is China not trying to cut its R&D costs, China shows a trend of raising them. Your argument about costs and profits does not apply to China.

China's objective is to be completely independent in aerospace sector, not trying to be beneficial to Russian and Ukraine. Ukraine wants to use its Soviet technologies to exchange as much money as possible before those technologies become outdated. Out of the three countries, the only country that wants to cut R&D costs is Russia because the country still has financial trouble.

You are 110% right.

Just look at Russia's transport program. IL-476 is merely an IL-76 with a new engine (PS-90A).

Su-35, Su-33, Su-30, Su-34, Su-37 are all Su-27 with different roles.

S-400 is just S-300 upgrade with longer range.

AL-31FM, AL-31FN, 117S, and AL-31FM2 are all AL-31F with upgrade.

________________________________________

All the above evidences support that it is Russia who merely change names of its weapon systems in order to lure customer to think that they are new stuffs. In reality they are NOT. It is Russia that try to cut cost and reduce RnD.

China is the exact oppsite. It now has military budget twice that of Russia and still increasing it at 12% each year. !

AeroEngineer · May 10, 2013

MiG-29 said:
I disagree because in globalization suppliers mean also customers, when France buys Tiger Helicopter is buying german but also french, same is England with Eurofighter, it is buying italian, german and spanish products buy also british.
Airbus also reflects that philosophy since the begining, it was an pan European product.
C-309 is a brazilian lead project that has suppliers from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, whom will also buy C-309 for their respective air forces.

If China builds Y-20 only for her air force the price is all paid by China alone, it limits its exportability.

To give you a simple exmaple. Y-20 has limited Chances of being exported in the CIS simple because Russia will want to export Il-476, Europe is out of the question, since they have A-400M, North america too out of the question, India? out of the question too since they have MTA and they probably will buy Il-476 just by alliance with Russia or A-400Ms with alliance with France.

South america too is out of the question since Brazil already has market there for the C-309 and most south american air forces do not have needs beyond C-309.
Japan? out of the question.

So when you end up you find it hs exportability only to very few nations in Africa or Asia.

In few words, globalization means you make alliances so your products are bought by your friends or allies.

Wrong !!!!

These are all WHITE EUROPEAN countries. They are all NATO countries.

China is NOT, this is why China must be completely military independent, and China is doing just that right now !

flateric · May 11, 2013

AeroEngineer said:
You are 110% right.
Just look at Russia's transport program. IL-476 is merely an IL-76 with a new engine (PS-90A).

oh yeah. and C-5M is 'merely' re-engined C-5, C-130J 'merely' is re-engined C-130...

AeroEngineer said:
Su-35, Su-33, Su-30, Su-34, Su-37 are all Su-27 with different roles.

S-400 is just S-300 upgrade with longer range.

AL-31FM, AL-31FN, 117S, and AL-31FM2 are all AL-31F with upgrade.

and F-16 Block 60 is 'merely F-16A', AIM-9X is 'merely' AIM-9A, SM-3 Block IIA 'looks like' old good SM-3, F135 is based on F119 core, Pentium i7 looks almost like that square black thing called Pentium 60...does it mean they are 'the same'?

AeroEngineer said:
All the above evidences support that it is Russia who merely change names of its weapon systems in order to lure customer to think that they are new stuffs. In reality they are NOT.

I likely think that you are not an 'engineer' in reality, but another politruk.

AeroEngineer said:
It is Russia that try to cut cost and reduce RnD.

Tell me what country's MoD doesn't try to reduce weapons cost? Or you think that opposite is 'good'?
And what do you know of R&D 'reducing' in Russia? Have read GPV 2020 recently?

Lion · May 11, 2013

flateric said:
oh yeah. and C-5M is 'merely' re-engined C-5, C-130J 'merely' is re-engined C-130...

Why did you leave out C-17? While only mention cold war product of C-5 and C-130?

flateric said:
and F-16 Block 60 is 'merely F-16A', AIM-9X is 'merely' AIM-9A, SM-3 Block IIA 'looks like' old good SM-3, F135 is based on F119 core, Pentium i7 looks almost like that square black thing called Pentium 60...does it mean they are 'the same'?

The few you mention is mere worth consider as evolving and not revolution new product. But American still have plenty of brand new projects after Cold War like F-22 is a totally new product and is operational. Same as F-35 but F-35 is still not operational but soon. PLus UAV and AB destroyer. Which Russia do not correspond with but I fault that due to Russian budget issue... Still Aeroengineer did prove the point.

flateric said:
Tell me what country's MoD doesn't try to reduce weapons cost? Or you think that opposite is 'good'?
And what do you know of R&D 'reducing' in Russia? Have read GPV 2020 recently?

If you are going for new concept, new product or expanding the arm forces. It is unavoidable to spend and increase R&D plus weapon cost.

flateric · May 11, 2013

Lion said:
Why did you leave out C-17? While only mention cold war product of C-5 and C-130?

Please don't start it, if you don't see his 'logic' of 'look alike'.
Or I will go to An-124 or An-70...

*And from the what moment (C-X RFP issued October 1980) C-17 became not a product of Cold War?

flateric · May 11, 2013

Lion said:
If you are going for new concept, new product or expanding the arm forces. It is unavoidable to spend and increase R&D plus weapon cost.

a). Both you and him do know nothing about military R&D spending dynamics here as it's classified data. Second, amount of spendings never directly correlates to its effectiveness. Just remember why AVIC was reunited back in 2008.
b). If you think that expanding armed forces = increasing weapon costs, than you should do something with your knowledge base.

Lion · May 11, 2013

flateric said:
a). Both you and him do know nothing about military R&D spending dynamics here as it's classified data. Second, amount of spendings never directly correlates to its effectiveness. Just remember why AVIC was reunited back in 2008.
b). If you think that expanding armed forces = increasing weapon costs, than you should do something with your knowledge base.

Probably increase weapon cost is the wrong word to use. Expanding armed forces equal increase in Military expenditures like R&D, procure more amount of units.

Lion · May 11, 2013

flateric said:
Please don't start it, if you don't see his 'logic' of 'look alike'.
Or I will go to An-124 or An-70...

*And from the what moment (C-X RFP issued October 1980) C-17 became not a product of Cold War?

Is MQ-1_Predator,RQ-4 Global Hawk an cold war product? Do Russian has equivalent?

I think the main point is Russian weaponry is not able come up with new weapon concept or radical new design after Cold war. If you wants continue argue it and prove a point. So be it.

flateric · May 12, 2013

Lion said:
Is MQ-1_Predator,RQ-4 Global Hawk an cold war product? Do Russian has equivalent?

Tranzas is progressing good with its Predatorski (Dozor-600), Sokol is making Altius-M MALE, Sukhoi and MiG - Okhotnik-B UCAV. Several HALE projects were extensively studied in late 00s but MoD don't see need for them in its military doctrine. Where would we use them? What for?

Lion said:
I think the main point is Russian weaponry is not able come up with new weapon concept or radical new design after Cold war. If you wants continue argue it and prove a point. So be it.

I know about of dozen projects that in EMD stage or already in service and fit your description, from CAVski (that performs _much_ better than HTV-2 did) and bus-less ICBMs to PGS elements and filling of Project 20120 sub, but ICTYBTIHTKY.

AeroEngineer · May 12, 2013

flateric said:
oh yeah. and C-5M is 'merely' re-engined C-5, C-130J 'merely' is re-engined C-130...

and F-16 Block 60 is 'merely F-16A', AIM-9X is 'merely' AIM-9A, SM-3 Block IIA 'looks like' old good SM-3, F135 is based on F119 core, Pentium i7 looks almost like that square black thing called Pentium 60...does it mean they are 'the same'?

I likely think that you are not an 'engineer' in reality, but another politruk.

Tell me what country's MoD doesn't try to reduce weapons cost? Or you think that opposite is 'good'?
And what do you know of R&D 'reducing' in Russia? Have read GPV 2020 recently?

______________________________________________________

America developed the C-17 after the cold war and it is a brand new plane. China is developing the Y-20 which is a brand new plane. Russia however, is "developing" the IL-476 which is just a IL-76 with new engine, the PS-90A.

China is developing two steath fighters J-20 and J-31, plus J-10, JH-7A, and JF-17. All of them brand new designs. America developed the F-35 and F-22. Russia is only developing one fighter the PAK-FA.

China developed countless other advance military projects such as 052C, 052D, 054A, 094 SSBN, 093 SSK, 095 SSk, Yuan class, many advance UAVs, advanced missiles such as: DF-21D, DF-31A, DF-41A, JL-2, PL-21, PL-10, PL-12, CJ-10A, YJ-83, FD-2000, HQ-9A. Want more ? China also developed 071 LPD, and brought Varyag carrier back to life.

What's more ? China is developing the COMPASS system which is on par with GOLONASS, and GPS. China also dveloped many new rockets such as CZ-5, , CZ-6, and CZ-7 and is developing the CZ-9 to match the American Saturn V.

Wait there is more. China also developed many brand new choopers such as WZ-10, WZ-19, Z-20, plus Z-18. Brand new tanks: Type-96, Type-99, and new Howizer. Pluse brand new rifles for infantry: Type-95, Type-88, Type-95 SAW.

There are still more. China developed and is developing many new advanced engines such as: WS-10A, WS-15, WS-20, WS-13, WZ-9, WZ-16, pluse many more new engines for UAVs.

China also developed brand new bombers: H-6K and is developing a stealth bomber to match the B-2 and X-47B you have seen it.

And at last you may call: J-15 and J-16 copy. But what else ??

China is the only country demostrated this type of inovation yet you Russians and the west say that China "copy" and "steal". Mind to look at yourself ? How many new systems have you design?

Russia has only done 1/5 of what China has done in the past 20 years. America only 1/2.

This is not increased RnD ?

_____________________

Peace out.

China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

AeroEngineer

Junior Member

AeroEngineer

Junior Member

flateric

Junior Member

Lion

Senior Member

flateric

Junior Member

flateric

Junior Member

Lion

Senior Member

Lion

Senior Member

flateric

Junior Member

AeroEngineer

Junior Member