What airplanes should China get/have?

tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
MIGleader said:
typhuang my friend, surely you have heard of the deal china recently signed with russia, for 30 il-76s?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


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.
Click to expand...
of course, but do you really think 30 is enough? Let's just say we had 20 IL-76 before, then we will have 50 IL-76 now. If we produce say 15 KJ-2000, that would only leave 36 IL-76 left (using the assumption that we buy no more A-50 platform). Sure, we can produce more Y-8 Balance beam AWACS, but there are just things you can do with bigger platforms that you can't do with smaller ones. I'm sure you can put better command and processing equipment on a larger platform.

The issue of the backfire really puzzles me. It was clear that China wanted backfire a few years back, but it seems to have very little interest these days. Considering that we are still using H-6, buying some backfires and bears do not seem to be such a bad idea. People complain about backfire being 70s tech, but H-6 is 50s tech. The payload and range on these things can't really be matched by anything else in plaaf service.
 
crobato

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
The issue of the backfire really puzzles me. It was clear that China wanted backfire a few years back, but it seems to have very little interest these days.
Click to expand...

Maybe because Chinese politicians and generals just got a lot more smarter, instead of buying the next big "branded" product that comes along.
 
MIGleader

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
tphuang said:
of course, but do you really think 30 is enough? Let's just say we had 20 IL-76 before, then we will have 50 IL-76 now. If we produce say 15 KJ-2000, that would only leave 36 IL-76 left (using the assumption that we buy no more A-50 platform). Sure, we can produce more Y-8 Balance beam AWACS, but there are just things you can do with bigger platforms that you can't do with smaller ones. I'm sure you can put better command and processing equipment on a larger platform.

The issue of the backfire really puzzles me. It was clear that China wanted backfire a few years back, but it seems to have very little interest these days. Considering that we are still using H-6, buying some backfires and bears do not seem to be such a bad idea. People complain about backfire being 70s tech, but H-6 is 50s tech. The payload and range on these things can't really be matched by anything else in plaaf service.
Click to expand...

china purchased exactly 14 il-76s in the 90s. one was converted to a kj-2000. so after this deal, china will have 43. not bad at all. i think another one may be converted to a kj-2000, but the y-9 should be out by then. besides, chians paratroop forces are relatively small now.

both the il-76 and the y-8 can alternate as platforms for aew and transport. the il-76 is obviously better, but i dotn see china operating 15 of them. russia only has 25 a-50.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
crobato said:
They can always buy more IL-76 later if they need to make more KJ-2000s.
Click to expand...
To Miggy, I know that some sources including sinodefence list that plaaf had 14 il-76 previously. There are also sources that stated we had as many as 30 IL-76 previously. I like using huitong's source,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

He said that China imported at least 20 IL-76 in the early 90s. Also, we have converted 2 IL-76 to KJ-2000 so far (4040 and 4043). Anyhow, I do believe that we can't really measure ourselves against Russia. Just because Russia only had 25 A-50, that does not mean we can't have more AWACS than them.

To Crobato, I'm just saying we need more large transports, if we intend to convert more to KJ-2000. (which I think China will). Especially in a possible conflict with Taiwan, China needs as many large transports as it can get its hands on. Let's see if the An-124 deal ever goes down.
 
MIGleader

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
im not sure the an-124 will be obtained easily. although there are some reports china expressed interest in it,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
old news), no deal has come throug. there would be the question of how chian would operate such large aircraft on existing runways, and more technicla difficulties i see. i wouldnt be surprised if one of these behemoths crashed.

besides, ukraine is more eu concious than russia. it will need skillful bargaining to ensure these planes dont tip any power balance.

so we know china has 40-50 il-76 in the future. not bad. the y-9 cna soon fill the heavy lift role, and perhaps a joint venture with boeing or airbus may pat off by then.
 
Roger604

Roger604

Senior Member
renmin said:
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.
Click to expand...


I thought a supersonic strategic bomber would be useful against any attempt to interdict oil shipments from the middle east. E.g.) strike against CVBG in indian ocean. That is why the Tu-22M3 would have "tipped the balance".

Can LACM do this job just as well? Aren't they slower?
 
renmin

renmin

Junior Member
Roger604 said:
I thought a supersonic strategic bomber would be useful against any attempt to interdict oil shipments from the middle east. E.g.) strike against CVBG in indian ocean. That is why the Tu-22M3 would have "tipped the balance".

Can LACM do this job just as well? Aren't they slower?
Click to expand...
Generally speeking, LACMs are much faster yet they are quite inacurate, cruise missiles are used against staionary targets, not moving targets since the missile is given a cordinate and only flies to that cordinate.
 
MIGleader

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
dont most lacms hit within three meters of their target? thats pretty accurate.

lacms are usually .9 mach, which is the harpoons speed. not too bad, but supersonic varients are being made.
 
Gollevainen

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I thought a supersonic strategic bomber would be useful against any attempt to interdict oil shipments from the middle east. E.g.) strike against CVBG in indian ocean. That is why the Tu-22M3 would have "tipped the balance".

Can LACM do this job just as well? Aren't they slower?
Click to expand...

Well, not to be anyway patronaising but what do you think those supersonic bombers will drop over the enemy?? Freefall iron bombs?? The PRIMARY weapons used by Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 are actually cruise missiles, only called "Stand-off missiles". The KH-55 and its shortenrange little brother are both cruisemissiles desingded to fire from either subs, ships, land or as i said from airoplanes....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top