China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

Atomicfrog said:

Y-20 have two third of the capacity of AN-22, fly faster and is up to date...

An-22 have retractable landing gear... don't know why would you put fixed undercarriage?

Click to expand...

crash8pilot said:

Large mobility aircraft such as the An-22, An-225, and the C-5 Galaxy serve a niche mission where it's almost impractical+uneconomical to use multiple airframes (Il-76s, C-17s, or C-130s) to support the logistics/transport of a large amount of troops and equipment across long distances to a remote area in a timely manner (i.e. North America to the Middle East, or how large the continent of Russia is as well as how far the Soviet Eastern Block spanned). To put things into perspective, the Russian Air Force only has 11 operational An-22s and the USAF has 52 operational Galaxies as compared to the hundreds of Il-76s and C-17s that operate globally on a daily basis - if this doesn't say niche, I don't know what does.

Between the Y-20 and the Y-9, I just can't see why the PLA would require a larger airlift aircraft. As far as we know, the PLA are only interested in defending the Motherland as well as to project power into the South China Sea, and perhaps all the way out to the Second Island Chain or the Gulf of Aden - that's almost peanuts compared to the airlift requirements of the US DoD or even the British MOD. As such the PLA's mobility needs can be met by the Y-20 and the Y-9 (especially given Xi's recent military reforms to restructure the PLA Joint Logistics Support Force to effectively and efficiently respond to logistics and air mobility) to supply troops+logistics+heavy weaponry, and why I can't see the PLA requiring a mobility plane along the lines of a C-5 or An-225 to serve such a niche mission.

It also wouldn't make economical sense to devote a large amount of resources to produce a handful of planes to serve a specific niche mission, I just can't see the tactical advantage it would give. Building a plane that massive would also require new or retrofitted hangars to provide maintenance, runways lengthened and taxiways reinforced, managing completely new maintenance parts and spare logistics, readjustment of PLA operational doctrine... It'd almost be more cost effective sending a Transport Regiment of Y-20s! Its capacity might not be as large, but it provides so much more tactical and mobility flexibility to the front lines.

The role the Y-20 played in the COVID pandemic response both domestically and internationally is clear evidence that the PLA have their air mobility formula right, and why there isn't a need to develop something bigger.

Click to expand...

CMFDan said:

Reduce overall weight of the aircraft.

Click to expand...

CMFDan said:

You're correct and right. I should've specified that it's primarily a civilian gov't aircraft. For domestic and international emergencies and/or Humanitarian mission.

Click to expand...

crash8pilot said:

Yes it might reduce weight, but it'll also produce a lot more aerodynamic drag. Additional thrust will have to be produced to overcome said drag, which increases fuel burn and as a result drastically cut into an aircraft's range. Case and point according to the Airbus Quick Reference Handbook, an A320 burns ~80% more fuel with its landing gear extended, and it also can't fly higher (and therefore faster).


In that case we'll be talking about producing an even smaller amount of niche aircraft, which will increase production and operational cost. While responding to emergencies and humanitarian crisis ought be a non-profit operation, sustainability must be taken into account... and quite frankly the aircraft you're suggesting isn't sustainable at all.

Between BRI infrastructure (ports, airports, high speed rails.. etc) that will be built in the coming decades, Y-20s+Y9s+AG600 and other airlift resources, 075 LHDs and 003 aircraft carrier(s), as well as advancements in AI+5G+BeiDou satellite technology, China has multiple means to effectively provide aid to global humanitarian crisis and emergencies in a timely manner.

Click to expand...

CMFDan said:

Reduce overall weight of the aircraft.

Click to expand...

supersnoop said:

Not to mention, you can charter An-124 or even An-225 if you need it.
Even NATO did!

Click to expand...

crash8pilot said:

Yes it might reduce weight, but it'll also produce a lot more aerodynamic drag. Additional thrust will have to be produced to overcome said drag, which increases fuel burn and as a result drastically cut into an aircraft's range. Case and point according to the Airbus Quick Reference Handbook, an A320 burns ~80% more fuel with its landing gear extended, and it also can't fly higher (and therefore faster).


In that case we'll be talking about producing an even smaller amount of niche aircraft, which will increase production and operational cost. While responding to emergencies and humanitarian crisis ought be a non-profit operation, sustainability must be taken into account... and quite frankly the aircraft you're suggesting isn't sustainable at all.

Between BRI infrastructure (ports, airports, high speed rails.. etc) that will be built in the coming decades, Y-20s+Y9s+AG600 and other airlift resources, 075 LHDs and 003 aircraft carrier(s), as well as advancements in AI+5G+BeiDou satellite technology, China has multiple means to effectively provide aid to global humanitarian crisis and emergencies in a timely manner.

Click to expand...

CMFDan said:

Why charter when you have the tech, expertise plus capital to build one yourself.

Click to expand...

by78 said:

More Y-20U tankers being manufactured.

Click to expand...