China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

Pardon me as I need to correct my assumptions:

ACuriousPLAFan said:

#3: Y-XX with 2 turbofan engines, possibly WS-20 (comparable to Kawasaki C-2 Embraer C-390)

Click to expand...

Y-XX with two of the current WS-20 engines will fall short of the C-2 significantly in terms of payload capacity and range. Y-XX in that setting will only be somewhat better than the Embraer C-390 (with the V2531-E5 engines) in terms of both capabilities.

Meanwhile, the C-2 uses the same turbofan engines (General Electric CF6-80C2) as the one on the C-5M Super Galaxy.

If China wants to build a twin turbofan engine-powered medium airlifter that is comparable to the capabilities of the C-2, then a turbofan engine that is signifcantly more powerful than the WS-20 and capable of powering the WIP large airlifter (Y-50) must be developed.

(Some months ago, I believe @sunnymaxi mentioned that a more powerful successor to the WS-20 is already in the works, so there's that.)

In the meantime, I struggle to see the benefits and advantages for China to develop the Y-XX (or the Y-30 aswell) that is only marginally better than the Y-9. If a clean-sheet design for a medium airlifter is pursued, then a marginal increase in payload capacity and range would just be as good as useless, don't you think?

Yes. That would require using two engines like the CJ-2000. But then you get an Y-20 replacement. Not an Y-8 replacement.

gelgoog said:

Yes. That would require using two engines like the CJ-2000. But then you get an Y-20 replacement. Not an Y-8 replacement.

Click to expand...

Y-XX with two CJ-2000-like engines will neither supercede the Y-20, nor will it replace the Y-20.

Just like how the C-2 will never come close to and always be inferior by a significant margin to the C-17 in terms of payload capacity and range, despite the individual engines on the C-2 being more powerful than the individual engines on the C-17.

The only class of airlifter that can significantly supercede the Y-20 in payload capacity and (maybe) range is the one that is similar in size as the C-5 and An-124 (of which China is also working on right now with the tentative designation of Y-50). And even so, the WIP Y-50 will never replace the Y-20, just like how the C-5M has never replaced the C-17.

I think the big picture for development of a new transport plane depends on what PLAAF needs. They have Y20 for 60 tons cargo capacity and Y9 for 20 tons cargo capacity. Are they looking for a new class of transport plane for 40 tons cargo capacity to supplement Y9 or are they looking for a new 20-30 tons cargo capacity design to replace Y9 and Y8?

Anyway the proposed Y30 will likely be the new airlifter, may be with some modification as it undergoes development.

Is there even a need for a A400M-class transport in the PLAAF if there is speculation they want to develop a C-5 class of transport? Currently neither the USAF nor the RuAF operates this class and instead went with the super heavy class above the Y-20 whereas almost all A400M operators do not operate the Y-20 class with the sole exception being the RAF.
Personally I would prefer the Y-30/XX be a Y-9 successor while they develop a C-5 class transport but adopting a A400M class while keeping the C-5 class civilian operated and only requisitioned during war time is also an interesting alternative as I fear operating all 4 classes(Y-9, Y-30, Y-20, Y-50) internally might be too costly.

And where are the engines for this C-5 class aircraft? Until CJ-2000 or similar is available there are no such engines.
This is one of the reasons why the Russians have not produced any An-124s despite having complete assembly facilities for those aircraft at Aviastar. The D-18T engines were made at Ukraine. Until they have the PD-35 there is no engine for such an aircraft. China's closest equivalent is CJ-2000 engine.

Hitomi said:

Personally I would prefer the Y-30/XX be a Y-9 successor...

Click to expand...

Hitomi said:

...as I fear operating all 4 classes(Y-9, Y-30, Y-20, Y-50) internally might be too costly.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

To be honest, why bother having both Y-8/9 and Y-30 (or Y-XX) classes? If anything, the eventual goal for introducing Y-30 (or Y-XX) should be to succeed and replace Y-8/9 in terms of role and capability.

The Y-8/9 has a max payload of around 25 tons. Y-20 has a max payload of around 60-66 tons. Introducing a brand new airlifter just to fill the middle 30 ton-payload range niche would be very wasteful, which is why neither the USAF nor the RuAF is pursuing it.

Moreover, 30-35 tons offered by the Y-30 (or Y-XX) isn't really that much of a huge increase from the ~25 tons offered by Y-8/9. So there really is no good reason to justify building Y-8/9s once the Y-30 (or Y-XX) is ready and entering serial production. The max payload range offered by Y-30 (or Y-XX) is more than enough to cover the payload range offered by the Y-8/9.

Therefore, the Y-30 (or Y-XX) should be aiming for max payload capacity of around 30-35 tons, i.e. almost on par with the Kawasaki C-2 and Airbus A400M.

TL; DR - 3 tiers of strategic airlifters should do for the PLAAF:
1. Y-30 (or Y-XX) will succeed Y-8/9 and covers payload up to 30-35 tons;
2. Y-20 covers payload from 30-35 tons to 60-66 tons; and
3. Y-50 covers payload bigger than 60-66 tons.

Hitomi said:

... while they develop a C-5 class transport but adopting a A400M class while keeping the C-5 class civilian operated and only requisitioned during war time is also an interesting alternative...

Click to expand...

Have to disagree with the bolded part.

China certainly can offer a civilian variant of the (tentative) Y-50, but the PLAAF must operate sufficient numbers of Y-50s of their own in order to guarantee PLAAF's capability of conducting large payload transportation missions at anytime, 24-7-365.

Civilian-operated Y-50s (and Y-20s, for that matter) can only ever be supplimentary to the PLA's main airlifting effort, es.

If the PLAAF does not own any Y-50s - What if the China suddenly needs Y-50s for urgent airlifting missions (due to war mobilization, disaster relief, etc), and most of the civilian Y-50s that the PLAAF could charter are stuck overseas?

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Agreed.

To be honest, why bother having both Y-8/9 and Y-30 (or Y-XX) classes? If anything, the eventual goal for introducing Y-30 (or Y-XX) should be to succeed and replace Y-8/9 in terms of role and capability.

The Y-8/9 has a max payload of around 25 tons. Y-20 has a max payload of around 60-66 tons. Introducing a brand new airlifter just to fill the middle 30 ton-payload range niche would be very wasteful, which is why neither the USAF nor the RuAF is pursuing it.

Moreover, 30-35 tons offered by the Y-30 (or Y-XX) isn't really that much of a huge increase from the ~25 tons offered by Y-8/9. So there really is no good reason to justify building Y-8/9s once the Y-30 (or Y-XX) is ready and entering serial production. The max payload range offered by Y-30 (or Y-XX) is more than enough to cover the payload range offered by the Y-8/9.

Therefore, the Y-30 (or Y-XX) should be aiming for max payload capacity of around 30-35 tons, i.e. almost on par with the Kawasaki C-2 and Airbus A400M.

TL; DR - 3 tiers of strategic airlifters should do for the PLAAF:
1. Y-30 (or Y-XX) will succeed Y-8/9 and covers payload up to 30-35 tons;
2. Y-20 covers payload from 30-35 tons to 60-66 tons; and
3. Y-50 covers payload bigger than 60-66 tons.


Have to disagree with the bolded part.

China certainly can offer a civilian variant of the (tentative) Y-50, but the PLAAF must operate sufficient numbers of Y-50s of their own in order to guarantee PLAAF's capability of conducting large payload transportation missions at anytime, 24-7-365.

Civilian-operated Y-50s (and Y-20s, for that matter) can only ever be supplimentary to the PLA's main airlifting effort, es.

If the PLAAF does not own any Y-50s - What if the China suddenly needs Y-50s for urgent airlifting missions (due to war mobilization, disaster relief, etc), and most of the civilian Y-50s that the PLAAF could charter are stuck overseas?

Click to expand...

Thq question is do PLAAF need C-5M class transporter? And how often would they use the aircraft to justify its development cost, unit cost and maintenance costs?

C-5M is a nice to have for trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific expectionary deployments. For the normal operation in China, large oversize equipment can be moved via China's huge railway system. Y20 is large enough and adequte to move area defense missiles launch vehicles and radar vehicle as shown by their airlift mission to Serbia.

The economy of scale is not favourable for China to develop a C-5M equuivalent.

gelgoog said:

And where are the engines for this C-5 class aircraft? Until CJ-2000 or similar is available there are no such engines.
This is one of the reasons why the Russians have not produced any An-124s despite having complete assembly facilities for those aircraft at Aviastar. The D-18T engines were made at Ukraine. Until they have the PD-35 there is no engine for such an aircraft. China's closest equivalent is CJ-2000 engine.

Click to expand...

Another more feasible option compared to CJ-2000 is to develop a new generation of military high bypass ratio engines using WS-15 core engine.

lcloo said:

Thq question is do PLAAF need C-5M class transporter? And how often would they use the aircraft to justify its development cost, unit cost and maintenance costs?

C-5M is a nice to have for trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific expectionary deployments. For the normal operation in China, large oversize equipment can be moved via China's huge railway system. Y20 is large enough and adequte to move area defense missiles launch vehicles and radar vehicle as shown by their airlift mission to Serbia.

The economy of scale is not favourable for China to develop a C-5M equuivalent.

Click to expand...

Commercially there is definitely a market for large scale lifters, ala the now destroyed AN-225 which was booked out far in advance. I struggle to see where would China need such an aircraft as you have mentioned multiple Y-20s can fulfill the same role. The heaviest single airlifted object is probably a MBT and Y-20 should be able to handle it, two trips is probably cheaper than developing an new aircraft with an entire new engine.