China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft - esp. Y-20/YY-20

So it seems the decade long rumord Y30 program didn't get canceled and it did produce a flying plane in the end .
An C-130J Plus version for the PLAAF, a resonable ask from the PLAAF honestly.
Solving the hanger queens problems with Y-8/Y-9 ,and adding a transport for the frontline dirt road airport.
Honestly the logistics guys should be the one most happy about this transport, adding a 20t,1500km,point to point,realiable logistic solution is much needed.

wssth0306 said:

So it seems the decade long rumord Y30 program didn't get canceled and it did produce a flying plane in the end .
An C-130J Plus version for the PLAAF, a resonable ask from the PLAAF honestly.
Solving the hanger queens problems with Y-8/Y-9 ,and adding a transport for the frontline dirt road airport.
Honestly the logistics guys should be the one most happy about this transport, adding a 20t,1500km,point to point,realiable logistic solution is much needed.

Click to expand...

Since when are the Y-9 „hangar Queens“?

ACuriousPLAFan said:

That aircraft with twin WS-20 engines will not be called Y-15 anymore - It will be an entirely different aircraft model.

Also, with the Y-15 already flying right now, there are no good reasons for the PLAAF to pursue C-2-equivalent airlifters, especially when any cargo that couldn't be ferried by the Y-15 can be ferried by the readily-available Y-20 instead.

Click to expand...

Y-20 would move to 100 ton load capacity with in 2020-27. And twin engine WS-20 (or it's derivative) Y-15 would have higher speed than Y-20. It would be better suited for 40-45 ton capacity. It all depends upon the dynamics of circumstances in defense environment.

Mekconyov said:

Watch for the surprises in airlifters. China want to exceed from Japan's C-2 and they would do it. Y-15 would be larger thab C-2 ie A400M《C-2《Y-15. More over Y-20B elongated one would reach 100 ton where as Y-40 would be in 125-50 tons category.

Definitely Y-15 would be able to carry 45 tons and mostly between 30-45 tons in its final iterations. Reason for 2 WS-20 engines of Y-15 is engines are available, but WJ-10 are in development. Turboprop version would take more time to mature due to development of 8 blade propellers and WJ-10 turboprop engines.

PLAAF is not going to ignore C-2 competition. It is PLAAF VS JSDAF. It all depends upon engines and subsystem assemblies' progress,

Click to expand...

Nobody cared about Japanese equipment, let alone competition, literally.

The C-2 is a compromise borne out by japanese limitations, limitations China doesnt have so it doesnt make sense to try to go into that niche, not even as export, let alone with the fact China's current developments are not export focused in the first place.

That market is extremely limited where even a smaller successful design like C390 meant to be a C-130 replacement is not really selling like hotcakes nor are C-130 operators tripping over themselves to order them.

Deino said:

Since when are the Y-9 „hangar Queens“?

Click to expand...

Fair , hanger queen is a bit of exaggeration ,
But Y-9 maintenance down time should much higher then it's equivalents ,an left over problem with A-12.
A-12 requiring about 30 hours maintaince man hour per hour flight, in context the C130 need about 15 MMH/FH .
Sure I don't know Y-9 figures , and it is a problem that can be solved by putting more manpower and planning, but bringing down the maintaince hours to flight hour down is a major upgrade in a planes operational uptime.

*Linked C130J,lockheed claims a 50% reduction from C130H which had 20 MMH/FH.

*An US army estimate of Y-8 improvment over the A12 based of the change of engine , my fair guess would be 20-ish MMH/FH

So under the assumption of Y15 will be10 MMH/FH , that would affectivly add 50% more avaliable planes over the same number of Y-9s

wssth0306 said:

Fair , hanger queen is a bit of exaggeration ,
But Y-9 maintenance down time should much higher then it's equivalents ,an left over problem with A-12.
A-12 requiring about 30 hours maintaince man hour per hour flight, in context the C130 need about 15 MMH/FH .
Sure I don't know Y-9 figures , and it is a problem that can be solved by putting more manpower and planning, but bringing down the maintaince hours to flight hour down is a major upgrade in a planes operational uptime.

*Linked C130J,lockheed claims a 50% reduction from C130H which had 20 MMH/FH.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

*An US army estimate of Y-8 improvment over the A12 based of the change of engine , my fair guess would be 20-ish MMH/FH

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So under the assumption of Y15 will be10 MMH/FH , that would affectivly add 50% more avaliable planes over the same number of Y-9s

Click to expand...

May I ask if there's any evidence to support this claim? Or is it simply assumed that because it's the successor to the An-12, it inevitably inherits the same issues?

sheogorath said:

The C-2 is a compromise borne out by japanese limitations, limitations China doesnt have so it doesnt make sense to try to go into that niche, not even as export, let alone with the fact China's current developments are not export focused in the first place.

That market is extremely limited where even a smaller successful design like C390 meant to be a C-130 replacement is not really selling like hotcakes nor are C-130 operators tripping over themselves to order them.

Click to expand...

C-1 was compromised and restricted by USA. C-2 is not that much compromised. C-2 and C-390 are not allowed in US and European markets, so numbers R smaller. Chinese response to C-2 would be much better in terms of load/speed/range and that would be there in time frame of 2026-27.

Mekconyov said:

Y-20 would move to 100 ton load capacity with in 2020-27.

Click to expand...

No, it won't.

Even by stretching the Y-20 like how the C-141A was stretched into C-141B back in the 1980s - Adding a whole 30+ tons of payload capacity would mean that the entire aircraft will need much more modifications than just plugging new fuselage sections into the original aircraft.

The effort would be better spent towards developing a super-large airlifter that are in the C-5/An-124 category instead.

And mind you - That C-141A to C-141B stretch only increased its payload capacity by 10 tons at most - And the stretch was done because the C-141A was getting "bulked out" (i.e. not enough volume capacity), not because it was getting "grossed out" (i.e. not enough weight capacity).

So, no - Kindly temper your excitement.

Mekconyov said:

And twin engine WS-20 (or it's derivative) Y-15 would have higher speed than Y-20.

Click to expand...

Again, as I've explained before - A twin-turbofan engine-powered medium airlifter wouldn't be Y-15 anymore, but a brand new airlifter of its own accord.

Such airlifter wouldn't even be a derivative of the Y-15, as too many things on the Y-15 would need to be changed, such that the designers and engineers at Shaanxi and Xi'an might as well just work on a brand new design from scratch.

Besides, there are no rules defining how a twin-engine aircraft is going to fly faster than a quad-engine aircraft. There are a multitude of other factors at play which determines how fast any aircraft can fly, not just the number of engines.

Mekconyov said:

It would be better suited for 40-45 ton capacity. It all depends upon the dynamics of circumstances in defense environment.

Click to expand...

No, it won't.

The WS-20 engine has about 140-160 kN of thrust each, which is only marginally higher than the IAE V2500 engine that is powering the C-390. That means two WS-20s can never power aircrafts the size of the C-2, as the latter is powered by two GE CF6-80C engines with a thrust of 266kN each.

And as a matter of fact - The C-2 has a maximum payload capacity of 37.6 tons. And if there's a need for 40-45 tons of payload-carrying capability (which is almost equ to that of the Il-76), there's the Y-20.

So, once again - Kindly tone down your excitement.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

No, it won't.

Even by stretching the Y-20 like how the C-141A was stretched into C-141B back in the 1980s - Adding a whole 30+ tons of payload capacity would mean that the entire aircraft will need much more modifications than just plugging new fuselage sections into the original aircraft.

The effort would be better spent towards developing a super-large airlifter that are in the C-5/An-124 category instead.

And mind you - That C-141A to C-141B stretch only increased its payload capacity by 10 tons at most - And the stretch was done because the C-141A was getting "bulked out" (i.e. not enough volume capacity), not because it was getting "grossed out" (i.e. not enough weight capacity).

So, no - Kindly temper your excitement.



Again, as I've explained before - A twin-turbofan engine-powered medium airlifter wouldn't be Y-15 anymore, but a brand new airlifter of its own accord.

Such airlifter wouldn't even be a derivative of the Y-15, as too many things on the Y-15 would need to be changed, such that the designers and engineers at Shaanxi and Xi'an might as well just work on a brand new design from scratch.

Besides, there are no rules defining how a twin-engine aircraft is going to fly faster than a quad-engine aircraft. There are a multitude of other factors at play which determines how fast any aircraft can fly, not just the number of engines.



No, it won't.

The WS-20 engine has about 140-160 kN of thrust each, which is only marginally higher than the IAE V2500 engine that is powering the C-390. That means two WS-20s can never power aircrafts the size of the C-2, as the latter is powered by two GE CF6-80C engines with a thrust of 266kN each.

And as a matter of fact - The C-2 has a maximum payload capacity of 37.6 tons. And if there's a need for 40-45 tons of payload-carrying capability (which is almost equ to that of the Il-76), there's the Y-20.

So, once again - Kindly tone down your excitement.

Click to expand...

Y-20B1 would be a redesigned central fuselage that would be able to accommodate more than 100 tons. But to make minimum changes it would be be limited to 100 tons. It is the reason that Y -20B is not manufactured in numbers.

Y-40 comparable to C-5 would be able LIFT more than 150 ton. Engines used would be a derivative of WS-20 with higher thrust.

Medium capacity cargo airlifter would use a derivative of WS-20 with higher thrust and may be named as Y-30 instead of Y-15. Y-15 is a designation which came out since 9Dec2025. In case of necessity it can use 2 more engines in rear of fuselage to provide more thrust and more APU for radars and avionics( 2 engines in wings). It is being contemplated to be used as awards also. Temptation to use 2 engines is much desirable.

It all depends upon available aero engines and their maximum thrust. It is the requirements of PLAAF and it is being demonstrated in their schematic planning. Theese R not calculations or guesses.