What airplanes should China get/have?

ahho said:

Well transport copter is pretty useful for aids in natural disaster, but china recently sign a deal with france for a six ton chopper.

As for attack helo, i am pretty sure that a cobra like attack helo is pretty much enough since we all know how easily chopper can be shot down in modern combat.

Click to expand...

Remember, attack helicopters are only there to lend support to the ground troops, a task that the WZ-10 should be able to cover. This might be the second highest priority for China. I would say China needs to improve their mid air refuling technology and also gain long range bombers, a task that may be completed by purchasing them from russia.

bd popeye said:

Since all of us only know what we read about the PLAAF I will post what I think they need based on my best guess.

An state of the art attack helo.

Transport helos.

Heavy transports & medium transport like a C-130.

AWACS and AEW.

Tankers that can actually re-fuel their present aircraft. It is my understanding that the PLAAF is poor at in flight re-fueling.

More flight hours for training.

Click to expand...

more flight hours? how many do they get anyways? ive hear that su-27/j-11 pilots get over 200 hours a year sometimes, which is quite stressful for them.

well chinas going to get 8 il-78s for a2a refueling

we all know about the y-8 aew and hj-200 awacs

and the y-9 transport. so popeye, your requirement seem to match the plaafs!!

Most of the AWACS in PLAAF are recent development. China needs a lot more work on the "high new" Y-8 series before it can match plaaf's criteria. The helicopter industry whether civilian or military is quite weak. The recent cooperation with Eurocopter in EC120, EC175 as well as CMH and Z-10 are definitely the right way to go. I'm thinking helicopters are more useful to replacing Q-5 in ground attack role and placing on carriers and DDGs. We need something domestically produced that is the equivalent of Ka-28 and Ka-31. Again, I think that can be achieved by cooperation with Agusta and Eurocopter. Transport situation is still a little meak. We need more IL-76 than we have right now. The reason is that we need it for KJ-2000. If say 10 to 20 gets converted to KJ-2000, that will not be enough left for transport. That's where the rumoured An-125 and An-224 comes in. As for Y-9 and Y-8X, my hope is that if we can get the A320 assembley line, that will improve the quality of domestic airline development. Then, projects like ARJ and Y-8X would also be able to advance more. Heavy bomber is definitely needed, but plaaf doesn't seem to be as interested in the backfire and the bear as previously thought. Another important part is to get JH-7B developed to the level of su-34. If that can't be accomplished, buy su-32FN.

typhuang my friend, surely you have heard of the deal china recently signed with russia, for 30 il-76s?


the an-125 and an-224 are some of the alrgest aircraft build, and i dont know if china has many runways that can operate them.

i think the plaaf should order several y-8f600's as a stepping stone towards the y-9.

I am curious why China cannot build something that is equivalent to Tu-22M3 or even Tu-160. These are all late 70's technologies. Shouldn't it be easy for China to do at this point?

China has no requirements for such bombers. Also remember the PLAAF always lived in a tight budget and does not have as much political power as the PLA. The PLA found a much more cost effective means of delivering its bombs through the 2nd Artillery's SSMs.

In hindsight it was probably better. Big supersonic bombers were Cold War relics invented by arms services threatened by budget cuts when the strategic priority of deterrance and MAD is commuted to SSMs.

the peoples liberation army air force was created to defend Chinese cities incase of an attack from a foreign country, so in a sense, China is working harder on developing fighter jets and quick ground strike aircraft instead of heavy bombers, but these bombers are requried if China wants to retaileat with a airstrike of its own.

crobato said:

In hindsight it was probably better. Big supersonic bombers were Cold War relics invented by arms services threatened by budget cuts when the strategic priority of deterrance and MAD is commuted to SSMs.

Click to expand...

They may have been cold war relics, but I think the fact that the US has upgraded all its stratiegic bomber force (B-1, B-2, B-52) to be able to deliver precision guided conventional muntions has proven that such bombers still have value in modern air forces. The B-1 especially proved its worth by being able to deliver precision muntions to time sensitive targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think PLAAF wants and will eventually get a large supersonic bomber with tactical abilties, comparible to the B-1.

Roger604 said:

I am curious why China cannot build something that is equivalent to Tu-22M3 or even Tu-160. These are all late 70's technologies. Shouldn't it be easy for China to do at this point?

Click to expand...

someday, these things are going to be just as outdated as the battleship. best not to start them. modern sams such as the arrow 2 would make quick work out of such aircraft. they arnt even stealthy

walter said:

They may have been cold war relics, but I think the fact that the US has upgraded all its stratiegic bomber force (B-1, B-2, B-52) to be able to deliver precision guided conventional muntions has proven that such bombers still have value in modern air forces. The B-1 especially proved its worth by being able to deliver precision muntions to time sensitive targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think PLAAF wants and will eventually get a large supersonic bomber with tactical abilties, comparible to the B-1.

Click to expand...

You can update a B747 to deliver PGMs if you want to. But the facts remains that much of the bombing jobs can be done by smaller, less costly and more efficient aircraft like multirole fighters. The Air Force will do everything to justify their expensive budgets and will send B-2s to bomb camel tents in order to do so, that is, after or before the Navy will send some a one million dollar Tomahawk fired from a sub at the same camel tents. It's a game of upmanship between the branches always trying to justify their budgets to the Congress by using sledgehammers against ants examples.

The fact that they can still does not justify because of better, more efficient and less costly alternatives, such as strike fighters. An army has more to fear from a support aircraft like an A-10 rather than a B-2. Just because one country has followed a wasteful example, does not mean you should.