China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft
- Thread starter Totoro
- Start date
China's Transport Aircraft
I think Chinese airforce has very limited airlift (Air transport capabilities) aside from the current acquisition of Il-76 aircrafts. most of the remaining planes are relatively small.
I am just wondering why the PLAAF was not considering An-124? How about buying around two dozens of it (24 planes) That would surely boost PLAAF's airlift capabilities...
Just my one cent.
I think Chinese airforce has very limited airlift (Air transport capabilities) aside from the current acquisition of Il-76 aircrafts. most of the remaining planes are relatively small.
I am just wondering why the PLAAF was not considering An-124? How about buying around two dozens of it (24 planes) That would surely boost PLAAF's airlift capabilities...
Just my one cent.
Franticfrank
New Member
Re: China's Transport Aircraft
I think its an essential investment given the rising military expenditure in China. And China is a huge country. If you want to rapidly reposition armoured units, its best to use something like the C-5, C-17 or AN124. Look at how much use NATO are getting out of these aircraft in Afghanistan, which happens to be much less intense than a conventional conflict. , so for rapid re-alignment of forces (not just armour), a large transport aircraft would prove very important.
I think its an essential investment given the rising military expenditure in China. And China is a huge country. If you want to rapidly reposition armoured units, its best to use something like the C-5, C-17 or AN124. Look at how much use NATO are getting out of these aircraft in Afghanistan, which happens to be much less intense than a conventional conflict. , so for rapid re-alignment of forces (not just armour), a large transport aircraft would prove very important.
Re: China's Transport Aircraft
Threads merged.
No need for two threads with basically the same subject matter.
Delbert, next time you want too start a thread be sure you check to see if a similar thread is already open. Thank you!
bd popeye super moderator
Threads merged.
No need for two threads with basically the same subject matter.
Delbert, next time you want too start a thread be sure you check to see if a similar thread is already open. Thank you!
bd popeye super moderator
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Re: China's Transport Aircraft
i think you will find that China has Y-20 under developmet for a reason, its not for fun its cus they need a big tranporters right now!
i think you will find that China has Y-20 under developmet for a reason, its not for fun its cus they need a big tranporters right now!
Re: China's Transport Aircraft
Carrying tanks by air one at a time is not a fast way of repositioning an armored force compared with using a few trains unless there are no convenient railway lines or when you have a huge number of aircraft.
Re: China's Transport Aircraft
yeah but at what speed. in a total time a wing of C-17 may be able to carry more tanks to a spot then a whole train of armour chugging along getting there in a week.
yeah but at what speed. in a total time a wing of C-17 may be able to carry more tanks to a spot then a whole train of armour chugging along getting there in a week.
Re: China's Transport Aircraft
A wing of C-17's is about 20 aircraft? That is more than any operator but the USAF has bought or is buying. That's a huge number.
Franticfrank
New Member
Re: China's Transport Aircraft
This may well be true, but in a combat zone, you must remember that the infrastructure including rail lines and bridges are usually among the first targets. How do you transport your armour when there are no trains? Heavy transport aircraft must also be considered a vitally important backup. And when you think of armour, don't just consider an Abrams or a T-90. Even the C17 can carry three Strykers, quite a useful capability, MBTs aside.
In fact, when the Australians were seeking new transport aircraft, they decided on the C17 because it had the capability to transport the Abrams, a fundamental requirement for them. And the C5 can carry two Abrams, or one Abrams and two Bradleys. Not a bad amount of firepower to reposition at short notice. Transporting tanks abroad over huge distances is a huge strength of these aircraft as the Americans have shown, but they're so useful for troop transportation, disaster relief and a myriad of other things.
This may well be true, but in a combat zone, you must remember that the infrastructure including rail lines and bridges are usually among the first targets. How do you transport your armour when there are no trains? Heavy transport aircraft must also be considered a vitally important backup. And when you think of armour, don't just consider an Abrams or a T-90. Even the C17 can carry three Strykers, quite a useful capability, MBTs aside.
In fact, when the Australians were seeking new transport aircraft, they decided on the C17 because it had the capability to transport the Abrams, a fundamental requirement for them. And the C5 can carry two Abrams, or one Abrams and two Bradleys. Not a bad amount of firepower to reposition at short notice. Transporting tanks abroad over huge distances is a huge strength of these aircraft as the Americans have shown, but they're so useful for troop transportation, disaster relief and a myriad of other things.