China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

H

Hitomi

Junior Member
Registered Member
That is why I advocate that a C-5 class should still be developed but should only be operated commercially in peacetime to offset the massive maintenance and operational costs while allowing the aviation industry to build experience in developing a complex heavy lifter.

There are concerns that the planes might be all chartered out during a war scenario but nothing an agreement between the operator and PLAAF can't solve that mandates the retention of a minimum number of aircraft within China in exchange of a loss of commercial profits that will be restituted by the PLAAF in order to maintain the heavy lift capability.
 
Helius

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
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.

[snip]
Click to expand...
Well the C-2 is born out of a specific need of the JSDF to have a long range medium lifter capable of short take-off and landing which neither the C-130 (too small) nor the C-17 (too big) could fulfill. It's not meant to be a replacement for one or the other but more of a bespoke design unique to the JSDF's own requirements.

From what I can discern the Y-8/9 seem to perform just fine when it comes to hopping around the island bases in the SCS in their logistical roles, and the distance between, say, the Spratlys and Hainan is some 1,200km which is well within the coverage of the Y-8, and a much shorter distance than if it were to encompass the entire Japanese archipelago, hence the need for the C-2 in the first place.

So I don't really see much point in the PLA having a C-2-equivalent unless they see themselves requiring the same capabilities (for what exact purpose?) as the JSDF does in their C-2, which by the way isn't without its own plethora of technical issues and delays spanning years.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Hitomi said:
That is why I advocate that a C-5 class should still be developed but should only be operated commercially in peacetime to offset the massive maintenance and operational costs while allowing the aviation industry to build experience in developing a complex heavy lifter.

There are concerns that the planes might be all chartered out during a war scenario but nothing an agreement between the operator and PLAAF can't solve that mandates the retention of a minimum number of aircraft within China in exchange of a loss of commercial profits that will be restituted by the PLAAF in order to maintain the heavy lift capability.
Click to expand...
I doubt a C5 equivalent will emerge again. The Economic and resources investment were outsized and with little benefit. Ukraine is talking about rebuilding an AN225 hull saved in Germany but that’s about it.
The C5 was developed out of Vietnam war lessons and C17 was also militarily only base ( though a civilian model was conceptual it never was built).
There is nothing a C17 can’t do that a C5 can.
For Civilian applications Xi’an shows civilian livery models of the Y20 every air show. In combination with 747-8F, A350F, 777-XF the civilian role is pretty much covered. The Roll on roll off capability only really benefits were in cases of military and government functions or luxury car shows. Outside of those it was heavily used in Humanitarian missions which can still be done by freighter aircraft. Just with more infrastructure.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
The C5 used all brand new engines developed specifically for it. A new aircraft would use existing engines and be much cheaper to develop.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The original engines on the C5 were brand new from scratch types TF39. The Boeing 747 then in development took a modified form for its power plant the CF6 which became the family of engine options for the 767, A300 and A310, DC10 and MD11 liners. It’s also under the wings of C2. The CF6 with farther development became the CF6-80 which was militarized into the F138.
Military to civil to Military again.
another derivative powers some A330s including MRTT versions.
Because Airliners buy engines separately from Airframes and the Aircraft manufacturer offer versions to accommodate different elections of engines all the civilian aircraft listed above also typically have alternatives available from other makers. Farther the aircraft in later iterations may change engines entirely the 747 for example in the 747-8 series used GE90s well A330 NEO uses Rolls Royce Trent’s. It’s still possible if the USAF wanted to potentially reengine the C5M at a later date. But it’s not cheap.
 
by78

by78

General
Self-explanatory.

52887283507_22f94b2578_k.jpg
52887283472_c01ef768e2_k.jpg

52888305498_cd4d8ebc11_k.jpg
52887857016_3b57a60496_k.jpg
52887857001_9a07c3b79b_k.jpg
 
LawLeadsToPeace

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
Helius said:
Interesting. These look to be the Ground Force airborne corps. I don't think I've seen these units in action that often, if at all.
Click to expand...
From what I recall, PLAGF doesn't have paratroopers. Only the Air Force does. Those soldiers in the pictures are SOF since typically SOF and recon personal wear the high cut versions of the new helmet.
 
lcloo

lcloo

Captain
PLA Ground Force do have their own paratroopers. Most of the time they practised with their own helicopters since they lack fixed wing aircraft. Joint operation with PLAAF fixed wing transport plane have been carried out from time to time.

Since the parachuting qualification is uncommon in PLAGF, it is correct to say that they are special forces. However, several photos from the past years showed that they also used regular helmets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top