China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

sunnymaxi said:

very bad chart..

they are heavily under-estimating Y-20 production from 2024 onward. just like they did with J-20. WS-20 finalized, Xian is planning for full scale production.

Click to expand...

Given what we've seen elsewhere in Naval and Air Force procurement, I'd expect a minimum of 24 per year for a Y-20 MRTT.

So 10 years time, there would be 240 tankers in total.

But my guess is that the modern Chinese Air Force combat fleet will grow to at least 2400 aircraft. That would imply a requirement for 600 tankers. Then you have at least another 100 airlifters required as well.

kentchang said:

It is customary to close the year with pictures, recaps, and predictions. Here are a few from Aviation Week. I haven't seen these posted. See if you agree with their numbers and projections.

View attachment 123255

View attachment 123257

Click to expand...

They way underestimate the incoming production. Almost feels like the past opinions about the surface fleet, IRBMs, the J-20, and nuclear warheads. Time has shown again and again that extrapolating future production rates from past production rates is wrong if the topic is China and the focused category of systems just became technologically competitive. I expect a J-20-like production rate. A lot of things would change if China had 500 Y-20 MRTT aircraft by 2030-2031. Looking at the airlifter chart they practically expect no increase in military airlift capacity in the coming 10 years. Increases in jet airlifters are fully negated by the decreases in propeller airlifters on those graphs. Not gonna happen.

AndrewS said:

Given what we've seen elsewhere in Naval and Air Force procurement, I'd expect a minimum of 24 per year for a Y-20 MRTT.

So 10 years time, there would be 240 tankers in total.

But my guess is that the modern Chinese Air Force combat fleet will grow to at least 2400 aircraft. That would imply a requirement for 600 tankers. Then you have at least another 100 airlifters required as well.

Click to expand...

although the need for tanker in PLAAF is huge I dont think majority of the aerial fuelling tankers will be all based on the Y-20 platform

Y20 is first and foremost a airlifter for long range cargo operations so the number of cargos will be higher maybe 200-300 x Y20 cargo

asif iqbal said:

although the need for tanker in PLAAF is huge I dont think majority of the aerial fuelling tankers will be all based on the Y-20 platform

Click to expand...

If not Y-20, what else?

China has no aircraft other than the Y-20 which is suitable as a platform for refueling tankers. And this will remain the case until the late-2030s, at the earliest.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

If not Y-20, what else?

China has no aircraft other than the Y-20 which is suitable as a platform for refueling tankers. And this will remain the case until the late-2030s, at the earliest.

Click to expand...

Surely the threat of very long range AAM goes both ways so China must have plans for stealthy tankers already. Why not a YH-20?

kentchang said:

Surely the threat of very long range AAM goes both ways so China must have plans for stealthy tankers already. Why not a YH-20?

Click to expand...

At that point you might as well just manufacture a stealthy refueling UAV like the US mq-25 stingray. Making a strategic bomber sized stealthy tanker seems like a huge waste of resources.

kentchang said:

Surely the threat of very long range AAM goes both ways so China must have plans for stealthy tankers already. Why not a YH-20?

Click to expand...

Absolutely it does. The difference is that, in theory, PLAAF losses of strategic enablers (tankers, AEW&C, etc) will be less damaging than equivalent USAF losses. Because the PLAAF is fighting closer to its own airbases with larger fighters which have more internal fuel capacity. Losing power projection assets will still hurt, but it will hurt the side trying to project power farther much more. It's also worth noting that while the USAF is doubtless interested in targeting enemy enablers, it is not (yet) a major focus for them the same way it is for the PLAAF.

USAF is already known to be looking at LO refueling assets, which will of course be more expensive and less capable—but more survivable. Whether the same tradeoff is necessary for the PLAAF remains to be seen.

The other thing to add is that because PLAAF fighters can carry significantly more internal fuel and have more range, they can be refueled by tankers safely in the rear.

---

For example, suppose PLAAF tankers never leave the safety of airspace over Mainland China.
After the J-20 and Flanker airframes have refueled, they should have another 4 hours (4000km) of cruise endurance in an air-to-air configuration.

In comparison, if the F-35 and F-22 want to contest air superiority next to the Chinese coast, they would have to refuel at distances of <1500km from Mainland China.

At this distance, you can see that the J-20 has more than enough range to hunt USAF tankers, whilst the F-22/F-35 don't have the range nor numbers to hunt PLAAF tankers which are safely over Mainland China airspace.

---

And one other point.

I have a figure of $10K for a drop tank. So for the cost of a single Y-20 tanker ($150 Mn), you could buy 15000 drop tanks for example, which would be enough for 7500 J-20 sorties. So theoretically, these J-20 missions would never need a tanker at all on their outbound trip, with the drop tank jettisoned just after they leave the Chinese coast. However, they may need a tanker on their return journey depending on the mission and how far they want to push into the Pacific.

Wrought said:

Absolutely it does. The difference is that, in theory, PLAAF losses of strategic enablers (tankers, AEW&C, etc) will be less damaging than equivalent USAF losses. Because the PLAAF is fighting closer to its own airbases with larger fighters which have more internal fuel capacity. Losing power projection assets will still hurt, but it will hurt the side trying to project power farther much more. It's also worth noting that while the USAF is doubtless interested in targeting enemy enablers, it is not (yet) a major focus for them the same way it is for the PLAAF.

USAF is already known to be looking at LO refueling assets, which will of course be more expensive and less capable—but more survivable. Whether the same tradeoff is necessary for the PLAAF remains to be seen.

Click to expand...

This is when so discounted numerical superiority in the number of aircraft and ships comes into discussion. In a West Pacific conflict, China is much more capable of protecting its non-fighter aircraft. And as you said proximity of the mainland and available numbers mean losses will be less meaningful.

Some images of the RDC-1 refueling pod (H-6U tanker) from its development days.