Keep in mind that some aspects of the C929’s structural design is pretty ambitious and will involve their own body of technical risks (I’m referring to the extensive use of composites in the airframe here), and the C929’s initial production will prioritize commercial orders, so you’d be waiting for that supply chain to scale first before you get spare capacity for a military use version. The aerospace industry is no longer talent constrained like a decade ago, so it might make more sense to just build a military dedicated plane from scratch and take a conservative approach to the design and engineering to facilitate faster development time. There are options today for the approaches you can take with aerospace product development that simply weren’t available in the 2010s that we should be considering imo.
Rumoured Projects & Likelihood Thereof
- Thread starter Maikeru
- Start date
That *was* the argument/discussion prior to significant rumours of this new dedicated airframe platform emerging.
With emergence of this new rumour, it seems this dedicated platform will be a different weight class to C919 and C929 and also may well arrive on a meaningfully earlier timeline than a fully domestic variant of either emerging... which also will then need to be militarized which will also take time.
So I wouldn't necessarily call it a waste of time and money -- it really does depend on how much time is spent on it, and also depends on what its actual weight class and characteristics are.
And if the applications of such an aircraft exist for AEWC, EW, ESM, ELINT/SIGINT, VIP, maybe MPA, and especially tanker roles, then that may well also be many hundreds of airframes they'll end up with, which will offer some economies of scale.
I.e. there are more than a few realistic permutations where the aircraft program itself could be preferable, even if it suffers from the "loss" of not sharing the same logistics chain as a domestic C919 or C929 (especially if the latter two just take way too long to emerge).
If such a program is actually in development then chances are it means the PLA have done their calculations and have made their decision for what is likely.
I know one of the most prominent voice against this new common platform aircraft on Weibo is @老王RR涡扇花动机. He velhelmly rejected the notion of such aircraft, with one of his main arguments being that nobody is modifying 757s and 767s to be used as MPA/ASW, EW and AEW&C aircraft today, and that there won't be enough demand for such non-civilian common platform aircraft to justify and cover the costs incured during development and production, in lieu of the C919 and the upcoming C929 (which he apparently believes that domestic companies/suppliers will step up WRT the components for both aircraft "soon enough"). He also floated the notion that the CXF project (which is supposed to be China's all-indigenous variant of the C919) would be coming out sometime within these next few years (though he did mention 2027 for some reason), hence negating the need to develop such an aircraft.
Of course, this certainly doesn't mean that I agree with his points. @latenlazy, @Blitzo and others have already explained the reasons pretty well.
As for the demand issue - China already has 70-80+ KJ-500 today (and likely still increasing), alongside the KJ-700s and the aging KJ-200s. Sooner or later, they will need to be replaced - Of which, should this new common platform aircraft be a real thing and be introduced in the 2030s, then it would be about the right time to have the next-gen AEW&C aircraft (based on said platform aircraft) to replace them on a 1-to-1 basis by then.
Yes, ~20 years may be rather short for an aircraft, but given that tactical airlifter architectures aren't exactly the best airframe type for conducting high-frequency, extended duration missions (which is typical for special mission aircrafts as per one of the Adorable Whale's video back then), alongside the very real possibility of the designers and engineers assigned to the KJ-500 project didn't manage to fully take the possibility and potential of how the aerial warfare domain would develop and progress in the late-202s, 2030s and beyond into account when they worked on the KJ-500 back then (remember that KJ-500 actually took its first flight in the early-2010s) - I think that swapping these current AEW&C aircraft out for a much more powerful, much more capable aircraft with much greater potential for accommodating future upgrades by then would be the better/preferable option.
(I would deem this to be independent of whether the CXF or this new common platform aircraft can be made available to the PLA first.)
Hence, it is reasonable to expect a need for ~80-100 airframes for AEW&C roles, to begin with - Which, frankly, isn't that small of a number. Then, there's also most of the Gaoxin aircraft types (ELINT/EW, SIGINT, etc) and tankers/MRTTs which would demand such common platform aircraft as well, meaning that the aircraft's production run certainly won't be low.
In addition, should the PLA decide to procure such platform aircraft for special mission roles in the future - I think it can be argued that the PLA would be having different ideas on what kind of performance of the platform aircraft which they would prefer than their Western counterparts based on the operating conditions faced by the PLA being taken into account (desired capabilities, anticipated future upgrades, endurance, range, lack of overseas allied bases, etc.). This means that what the West is currently doing cannot be 100% copied-&-pasted onto China.
Though, one thing - Should the CXF be actually based on the C919, be in the same size/MTOW-category as the C919, and be actually rolled out in time for PLA service entry - Then I think we may have found a more suitable platform for China's next-gen MPA/ASW aircraft. Of course, this doesn't contradict with the need for the new common platform aircraft for many other special mission roles (if such aircraft does exist).
Last edited:
Wouldn't the existence of the Y-20B-based KJ-3000 negate the need for a 757/767-based AEW/C?
COMAC is unlikely to participate in military projects, which is a drawback of international supply chains; you still have to rely on others to some extent.
From this perspective, the PLAAF is not undertaking redundant projects, but rather has no other choice.
From this perspective, the PLAAF is not undertaking redundant projects, but rather has no other choice.
There's also the potential factor that the PLAAF (and the PLAN as well) don't have infinite patience to wait for the C919 (let alone C929) that aren't just fully indigenous, but also completely risk-free from international sanctions and export bans to become reality, and that the current available platforms (i.e. Y-9 and Y-15) are not deemed to sufficiently meet the requirements for their future/next-gen special mission aircraft.
very well written massage bro. i just want to give my opinion only on this portion.
CFX is basically fully localized C919 variant for national security.
Airbus planning to produce 75 single body aircrafts per month by 2027 and Boeing has 42 per month capacity. now you can understand what is the demand of single body aircraft in today's world. so even with CFX come on the time COMAC will not be able to fulfil military demand as they have four digits confirmed order of C919. COMAC is now solely focus on civil aviation development and choose not do any military partnership so far.
i believe this is reason why they decided to build a general purpose aircraft with more powerful Engines without any COMAC participation. you know that, XAC is a primary supplier of C919 in wings and fuselage parts.
so looks like decision has been made regarding this new special purpose aircraft which will eventually solve all the shortcomings.
Last edited:
The idea is to have a common airframe for all future special mission type aircraft that will have superior characteristics to the current Y-9. The Y-20 is just a bit too chunky to fulfill that purpose.
Agreed.
Speaking of which, which company/organization/institute is responsible for the development of the CFX?
For reference
Clearly, something is missing in the 100-200 ton class range.
Now, it's worth noting that tankers outnumber the other variants by an order of magnitude. We're talking about several hundred airframes here. Even if China doesn't have the same level of demand for tankers as the US does, we're still probably looking at somewhere from the high double digits to the low triple digits, as a baseline.
Imo, the tanker role alone would already go quite far in justifying such a plane.
| Plane | MTOW (t) | Notable Variants |
| C919 | ~80 | |
| C929 | ~250 | |
| Y-9 | ~65 | |
| Y-20 | ~220 | |
| Boeing 737 | ~90 | C-40, P-8, E-7 |
| Boeing 757 | ~120 | C-32 |
| Boeing 707 | ~150 | E-3, E-6, KC-135/C-135/RC-135* |
| Boeing 767(-200ER) | ~180 | KC-46 |
Clearly, something is missing in the 100-200 ton class range.
Now, it's worth noting that tankers outnumber the other variants by an order of magnitude. We're talking about several hundred airframes here. Even if China doesn't have the same level of demand for tankers as the US does, we're still probably looking at somewhere from the high double digits to the low triple digits, as a baseline.
Imo, the tanker role alone would already go quite far in justifying such a plane.