China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft
- Thread starter Totoro
- Start date
There hasn't been any new build Y-8 airframes for the PLA for years.
There are some special mission aircraft based on Y-8 which seem "new" but that's just because they're reasonably well maintained.
But all new build special mission airframes have been based on Y-9 going back nearly the last decade.
Y-30 would be larger and more capable than the y-9. It would have a wider cargo bay and be able to carry cargo too large or too heavy for the y-9.
Well you know this is really hard to optimize. If you go too big for a tactical transport then it becomes too expensive and it loses its workhorse title.. You need to consider all equipment and strategic/tactical contingencies. It is a tough project to come up with optimal size of various transports' size of an air force.
I've heard the Y-30 will feature a wider body and AEP500 engines to carry a 30 ton payload, and also improvements to STOL performance, making it a better tactical transport but I wonder what this means for the future of special purpose aircraft like ASW, recon
A wider body and better STOL performance would mean reducing endurance and top cruise speed, which is bad for special purpose aircraft. Will they also switch over to Y-30 or is it possible to see a re-engined Y-9 instead?
A wider body and better STOL performance would mean reducing endurance and top cruise speed, which is bad for special purpose aircraft. Will they also switch over to Y-30 or is it possible to see a re-engined Y-9 instead?
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
As time as progressed in the post 1980s “light armored” and utility vehicles have gained weight and size, these vehicles were doctrinally supposed to be transported by aircraft like C130 and AN12/Y8/Y9. Today though even a L-ATV and Mengshin are starting to tax those transports.
Does this mean the end of the tactical class? Not likely, it’s just that aircraft in this class would likely be reduced in numbers as the Air Forces shift around duties to where the airframes are best suited. The Y9 is still very well suited to a number of functions. Scrapping the existing fleets of Y9 just because something bigger has come along is fairly stupid and expensive. Y9 would take some missions where it’s payload would be suitable transporting cargo and lighter vehicles SF teams a Y30 would move up between the Y9 and Y20.
Range will vary based on cargo load and can be augmented. Load a light payload in and get more fuel. Max payload and tank up.
Does this mean the end of the tactical class? Not likely, it’s just that aircraft in this class would likely be reduced in numbers as the Air Forces shift around duties to where the airframes are best suited. The Y9 is still very well suited to a number of functions. Scrapping the existing fleets of Y9 just because something bigger has come along is fairly stupid and expensive. Y9 would take some missions where it’s payload would be suitable transporting cargo and lighter vehicles SF teams a Y30 would move up between the Y9 and Y20.
Range will vary based on cargo load and can be augmented. Load a light payload in and get more fuel. Max payload and tank up.
Y-30 will not remove the need for a Y-9 size aircraft but maybe will remove some underweight Y-20 missions taxing these airframes. Better to have something flying instead for waiting for the grahal, it's why the Y-9 have been designed and still going strong.
broadsword
Brigadier
Any info about the current status of AEP500?