Military Review

Y-20: The First Swallow of Chinese Strategic Transport Aviation

63
According to the Chinese media, the military transport aircraft Y-20 "very soon" will be adopted by the PLA Air Force, "Military Parity" writes about this. In particular, Zhu Chen, the manager of this program, the head of the department for the development of large aviation projects. According to him, China may need more than a thousand Y-20 aircraft. According to Zhu Chen, the plane was created by Chinese specialists taking into account the experience of similar developments in Russia and the United States. At the same time, in China, the aircraft will be actively operated not only by the military, but also by civil air carriers.


China still imports engines for this aircraft from the Russian Federation, but the serial production of its own turbofan engines is only a matter of time, Zhu Chen said. “After the Y-20 military transport aircraft enters the arms of the PLA, China will begin creating its own strategic transport aircraft,” he said. The first flight of the Y-20 aircraft was made in January of the 2013 year, so China became the third country in the world that was able to create an aircraft of a similar class after Russia and the United States. The maximum take-off weight of the aircraft is more than 200 tons, payload - 66 tons. This means that the aircraft will be able to transport by air such a heavy load as the main battle tank Type 99А2, weighing 58 tons. According to the calculated data, the range of an aircraft with a payload of 51 per ton should be 5200 kilometers. With a weight of 66 tons, the plane must fly 3700 kilometers, which will allow it to fly non-stop from Harbin to Tibet. The aircraft is operated by a crew of 3 people.



It is worth noting that in recent years, the Chinese military-political leadership has paid great attention to building up the capabilities of its own aviation industry in the creation and production of military transport aircraft (MTC) and helicopters for various purposes. China is no stranger to start creating something from scratch. In this industry, the Celestial Empire has certain problems and difficulties, which leads to the technological lag of the PRC from the leading countries - aircraft manufacturers, due to the dependence on imports of a number of main components and components. In particular, we are talking about Russian-made engines that were installed on the first prototypes of the Y-20 aircraft.

As is known, in 2009-2011, 55 engines D-30КП-2, produced by Rybinsk NPO Saturn, were supplied to China from Russia. In 2011, another contract was signed between China and Rosoboronexport, this time for the delivery to the PRC of more 184 D-30KP-2 engines. The first batch of turbofan data was transferred to the customer in October 2011 of the year. This turbojet dual engine was developed in the 1960-ies, and its mass production began in the 1972 year. In the future, the engine was repeatedly modified and refined, which ensures its longevity. These engines can be found on IL-76 airplanes and its IL-78 and A-50 modifications. In China, they are working to create a copy of this engine and engines based on it.

D-30KP, photo by NPO Saturn


According to military experts, the new strategic military transport aircraft is much more important for the Chinese Air Force than the development of the fifth-generation promising multi-role fighter J-20, which more reflects the growing military ambitions of the PRC. Most likely, Y-20 military transport aircraft began to be developed back in the 1990-ies, and this project received priority public funding only in the 2006 year. The final design of the new 200-ton military transport aircraft was approved in 2009 year, and in the same year China began building the first prototype. The first flight of this VTS took place on 26 on January 2013 of the year. Video recording of this event was actively broadcast on the air of Chinese television companies, confirmation from the country's Defense Ministry about the first flight of the aircraft was received on January 27 2013 of the year. Ground tests of the Y-20 aircraft were conducted in the Middle Kingdom since December 2012.

To date, at least five prototypes of the Y-20 Chinese military transport aircraft are known. In addition to the already mentioned first sample with the onboard number “781”, which made the first flight of 26 on January 2013, the second prototype is known under the number “783”, which for the first time went up to the sky of 14 on December 2013 of the year. The third prototype aircraft took off on January 31 2015 of the year. In December of the same year, the fourth flight model of a heavy Chinese military transport aircraft with a tail number "784" flew into the sky. And already in January, 2016, the Xian Aircraft Industrial Corporation, launched the fifth flight prototype with the 786 tail number on the airfield; its tests will continue throughout the current year.



The heavy transport aircraft Y-20 was created according to the scheme of a four-engine high wing with a T-shaped tail unit. The military transport aircraft was equipped with a multi-rack retractable landing gear, as well as a cargo ramp located in its tail section. Externally, the Chinese transporter is somewhat similar to the American military transport aircraft C-17 Globemaster III. At the moment, Y-20 does not have its own modern turbojet engines, it is equipped with Russian-made D-30KP2 turbofan engines, whose characteristics do not reach the PS-90А76 aircraft engine, which is installed on Russian military transport Il-76MD-90А (sometimes called IL-476). At the same time, according to the plans, Y-20 production planes should receive turbojet engines of their own Chinese production - WS-18 with a slightly larger load (122 kN versus 117 kN from D-30КП-2).

Apparently, the process of developing and testing a new Chinese Y-20 military transport aircraft will be completed before the end of 2016. A large aircraft manufacturing corporation Xian plans to immediately transfer the first PLA Air Force aircraft after the completion of the tests. It is assumed that the serial production of Y-20 aircraft will begin at the end of 2016, or at the very beginning of 2017. The Xian Y-20 military-technical cooperation was created for operation from airfields of various types, the aircraft is able to transport most of the combat and auxiliary vehicles used by the People’s Liberation Army of China. He is able to transport cargoes weighing up to 66 tons by air; this is more than IL-76 can transport. The emergence of such an aircraft in China will open up new opportunities not only for the military, but also for civilian cargo carriers, as well as expand the capabilities of a quick response in case of emergency situations and during major humanitarian actions.



According to Chinese military expert Xu Yunlin, the testing period for military aircraft is usually from 3-s to 5-years. Ground tests of the Y-20 aircraft began in December of the 2012 of the year, he made the first flight in January of the 2013 of the year, based on this, it is worth waiting for the completion of the tests of the machine very soon. The first flight of this military transport aircraft allowed to put China on a par with the states that created their transport planes weighing about 200 tons (Russia and the USA). “This military transport aircraft is not only a demonstration of the capabilities of China’s military industry, but also of the growing potential of the Chinese army,” said Xu Yunlin.

Officially, the aircraft already bears the name "Kunpeng" (Kunpeng) - this is the name of an ancient mythical bird that was able to fly thousands of kilometers. Despite this, in the Chinese military industry, this name is more associated with the kind of plump girl that emerges as an association for the large size of a transport worker. According to Chinese military expert Chen Hong, the carrying capacity of the Y-20, the aerodynamic layout of the aircraft and the overall efficiency will surpass the Russian counterparts.

Flight performance Y-20 (estimated):
Overall dimensions: fuselage length - 47 m, height - 15 m, wingspan - 45 m, wing area - 330 square. m
Maximum take-off weight - more than 200 tons.
The maximum payload mass is 66 tons.
The power plant is an X-NUMX engine D-4KP-30 (according to the plan 2 × WS-4), an 18 × 4 kN (according to the plan 117 × 4 kN).
The maximum flight speed is 830 km / h.
Practical ceiling - 13 000 m.
Ferry range - 7800 km.
Crew - 3 person.

Information sources:
http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/344/y-20-kitayskiy-voenno-transportniy-samolet
http://forum.militaryparitet.com/viewtopic.php?pid=155808#p155808
http://vpk.name
http://nevskii-bastion.ru
Open source materials
Author:
63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nick888
    Nick888 7 June 2016 06: 13
    +15
    Something this plane reminds me of, something already seen ...
    For China, it’s not used to starting to create something from scratch.

    Ага.
    1. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 7 June 2016 06: 25
      +3
      I’m even guessing what kind of plane he reminds you of ...
      1. godofwar6699
        godofwar6699 7 June 2016 07: 11
        +5
        looks like a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III only with Russian engines hi

        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 7 June 2016 09: 52
          +11
          C-17, he recalls only the tail unit and the chassis gondolas. The Chinese tore off the fuselage and wings from the IL-76.
          1. godofwar6699
            godofwar6699 7 June 2016 10: 30
            +2
            Y-20 near the Boeing C-17 UAE Air Force,

          2. Lt. Air Force stock
            Lt. Air Force stock 7 June 2016 10: 44
            +1
            Quote: spravochnik
            C-17, he recalls only the tail unit and the chassis gondolas. The Chinese tore off the fuselage and wings from the IL-76.

            The S-17 has a carrying capacity of 77 tons, and if we take the latest modification of the IL-76MD-90A, then its carrying capacity is 60 tons.
            1. kot11180
              kot11180 7 June 2016 12: 33
              +3
              Regarding the carrying capacity, it is doubtful whether the IL-76 with such engines has 45 tons and 60 Chinese, due to what?
          3. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 7 June 2016 12: 07
            +6
            Quote: spravochnik
            C-17, he recalls only the tail unit and the chassis gondolas. The Chinese tore off the fuselage and wings from the IL-76.

            Yeah ... the hump of the center section is very characteristic - the S-17 doesn’t.
            Eh "Ilya" - a heavenly plowman,
            The hump on the back of the labor.
            If somewhere that gets banged,
            Our battle truck -

            On take-off ...
            The “Ilya” workaholic goes up
            Turbine rattling quartet,
            Sings ...
            Flies "Ilyusha" hard worker, tramp, our transport,
            Humped over the sky for so many years.
            © Nikolay Anisimov
          4. Skifotavr
            Skifotavr 7 June 2016 12: 32
            +4
            Quote: spravochnik
            C-17, he recalls only the tail unit and the chassis gondolas. The Chinese tore off the fuselage and wings from the IL-76.

            And the bow is very similar to the An-70.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 7 June 2016 12: 41
              +10
              Quote: Skifotavr
              And the bow is very similar to the An-70.

              With the world on a string - bare shirt the Chinese plane. laughing
              1. Lens
                Lens 7 June 2016 18: 37
                +1
                With the world on a string - the beggar is a rope! laughing
        2. Lex.
          Lex. 7 June 2016 18: 04
          +2
          looks like a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III only with Russian engines
          It looks like IL-76 and on s-17 and drunk you can’t confuse it with him
    2. Leto
      Leto 7 June 2016 06: 33
      +5
      Quote: Nick888
      Something this plane reminds me of, something already seen ...

      Well Duc etoge China ... Licked the S-17 with the help of Ukrainians and Russians.
    3. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 7 June 2016 08: 56
      +5
      Hi !!. It reminds me of something! Of course. Whose school. It reminds you that the laws of aerodynamics are the same. They simply found this form later on. But this is what the capabilities of the aircraft industry really resemble. For us, such opportunities are already in the distant past. . See what speed from rhenium took to the first flight. What do you say well done. You are not surprised by the order for the number of units. Well done! They really develop high-tech production. And a few dozen ILOVs are presented as a crazy achievement. Of course, they also have no measured problems. Unlike us, they don’t complain to the whole world but simply solve them. That's the whole comparison in approaches to solving difficulties.
    4. Bayonet
      Bayonet 7 June 2016 19: 28
      0
      Quote: Nick888
      Something this plane reminds me of, something already seen ..

      So after all, the article says about this: "Outwardly, the Chinese transport aircraft is somewhat similar to the American military transport aircraft C-17 Globemaster III." hi
    5. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 10 June 2016 05: 55
      0
      Quote: Nick888
      Something this plane reminds me of, something already seen ...
      For China, it’s not used to starting to create something from scratch.

      Ага.

      Yes! The main thing is the first one. And the order itself
  2. Leto
    Leto 7 June 2016 06: 30
    +2
    Thus, China became the third country in the world that was able to create a plane of this class after Russia and the United States.

    the aircraft will be able to transport such heavy cargo as the Type99A2 main battle tank, weighing 58 tons.

    Some inaccuracy. Russia does not produce transport aircraft capable of transporting main battle tanks. One does not believe in Ukraine’s ability to produce An-124, so China will be the second country in the world producing such a military-technical cooperation.
    1. code54
      code54 7 June 2016 06: 53
      +1
      But IL-76 seems to be carrying around 70 tons !? Or can tanks not fit into it?
      1. Leto
        Leto 7 June 2016 07: 31
        -1
        Quote: code54
        Or can tanks not fit into it?

        Exactly.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 7 June 2016 12: 08
          +6
          Quote: Leto
          Exactly.

          Well, the Indians still shoved the T-72 into the IL-76.
          Masters of the technical Kama Sutra ... smile
          1. Leto
            Leto 7 June 2016 13: 12
            -4
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Well, the Indians still shoved the T-72 into the IL-76.
            Masters of the technical Kama Sutra ...

            Looks did not work, 10 C-17 bought and still requested.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 7 June 2016 10: 45
        +3
        Quote: code54
        But IL-76 seems to be carrying around 70 tons !? Or can tanks not fit into it?

        60 tons of IL-76MD90A, the old IL-76 47 tons.
    2. fleks
      fleks 7 June 2016 07: 22
      +3
      Again, an inaccuracy --- il76 was created just for transporting one tank
      1. Leto
        Leto 7 June 2016 07: 31
        -2
        Quote: fleks
        Again, an inaccuracy --- il76 was created just for transporting one tank

        Well, if BMD is called a tank, then yes.
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 7 June 2016 07: 37
          +5
          Quote: Leto
          Well, if BMD is called a tank, then yes.

          T-72 with side screens removed. Easy.
          1. Leto
            Leto 7 June 2016 08: 05
            +6
            Quote: Alex_59
            T-72 with side screens removed. Easy.

            Do you call this easy? It’s not even easy and requires highly qualified driver mechanics.

            Compare with Ruslan
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 7 June 2016 08: 32
              +5
              Quote: Leto
              Do you call this easy?

              But all the same, it breaks in, but you say no. laughing

              In general, the transportation of MBT by aviation is so relevant and necessary that in a combat situation the need for this arose very rarely. Rarely. Almost never. Why say anything - not once. smile So all these disputes fit / not fit in the field of theory. An-124 if it carries tanks, then for big money in the interests of a foreign customer. And in other cases, there are no people who want to spend tons of money for the transport of piece tanks. And in a combat situation, when people do not take into account the costs, it is also very difficult to imagine a situation where you don’t have to live and you need to urgently deliver tanks to the front sector precisely by aviation.
              1. Leto
                Leto 7 June 2016 09: 03
                -1
                Quote: Alex_59
                Rarely. Almost never.

                Well, this is how to look. For example, it is necessary to urgently deliver the T-72 to Syria, it is required to make up for the loss of crippled, out of order, etc. You can’t stop the offensive by giving Black time to regroup and pull up reserves in dangerous directions. How to deliver the required quantity? By the sea for a long time, and in the straits, the Turks can slow down by inventing some reason. And the air is a matter of a couple of days, Ruslana is well alive, but how will everything get up, then?
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 7 June 2016 09: 47
                  +7
                  Quote: Leto
                  And air is a matter of a couple of days,

                  You’ll stay without pants, so carry tanks.

                  In general, in the described situation, the blunder of the headquarters of the group is immediately visible, which did not provide advance storage of reserves at the theater of operations.
                  And the problems are only just beginning. One departure of the IL-76 regiment allows you to deliver to Syria two tank companies (20-25 tanks, 60-75 people), or two paratrooper battalions (60-65 armored vehicles, about 600-700 people). Moreover, tanks need to be brought to the airport from the nearest part (2 of the day), prepared for transportation, loaded (1 of the day), and unloaded in Syria, prepared for battle and driven from the airfield to the front (2 of the day). In a circle - a week. Basmachi will already defeat everyone they want for this period.
                  But PDB does not even need an airfield, landing is possible in the rear of its troops on non-equipped sites and into battle in a matter of minutes. The loading for paratroopers is also debugged and will not take much time, and they are based, unlike tankers at airfields (maybe with the exception of the New Russian ones).
                  1. Leto
                    Leto 7 June 2016 11: 30
                    0
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    Moreover, the tanks need to be brought to the airport from the nearest part (2 days), prepared for transportation, loaded (1 day), and unloaded in Syria, prepared for battle and driven from the airfield to the front (2 days). In a circle - a week.

                    On the one hand, it’s true, there’s only an alternative way only by sea, there is still more delivery time.
                    Now with regards to delivery to the place of loading. The number of seaports in Russia is much smaller than the aerodromes capable of receiving An-124 class military transport vehicles, therefore delivering equipment to the nearest airfield is much faster than to the nearest seaport.
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    You’ll stay without pants, so carry tanks.

                    No money, do not fight, what else can I say ...
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    But PDB is not even necessary for an airfield, landing is possible in the rear of its troops on non-equipped sites and in battle

                    You have a somewhat misconception about the tasks of the Airborne Forces. The Airborne Forces carry out the tasks of capturing important targets behind enemy lines, where there are no enemy combat units, equipped positions, long-term structures, heavy equipment and anti-tank weapons. Their task is to capture the object and hold until the main forces approach. You can’t use the Airborne Forces at the forefront!
                    1. Alex_59
                      Alex_59 7 June 2016 12: 14
                      +3
                      Quote: Leto
                      The number of seaports in Russia is much smaller than the aerodromes capable of receiving An-124 class military-technical cooperation

                      Undoubtedly. The question is whether there will be airfields capable of receiving An-124 at the place of delivery of the tanks. Well, I'm not saying that you can’t carry tanks with airplanes - you can.
                      Quote: Leto
                      You have a somewhat misconception about the tasks of the airborne forces.

                      Perhaps far from the landing, close to aviation. But in my understanding, first of all, is not the specialization of the Airborne Forces too narrow? Their landing essence does not preclude the use of airborne forces. Landing behind the shaken orders of his infantry for her temporary gain in defense - why not? Until the same tanks arrive. Of course this is not the best use of the Airborne Forces, but when your defense collapses and the speed and speed are important, the paratroopers can save the situation for some time. Acting not in the forehead, but from ambushes. Just one of the tactics that make them up is visible - to hold the object until the main forces approach. Only the object is its own defense, not a bridge behind enemy lines. You, as the commander of a falling front, what do you prefer to gain in reinforcement - a tank company in a week, or a battalion of paratroopers in less than a day?
                      1. Leto
                        Leto 7 June 2016 13: 31
                        -2
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        Is the specialization of the Airborne Forces too narrow?

                        Very narrow and specific. Incredibly dangerous with a low probability of completing a task because it depends on many factors.
                  2. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 7 June 2016 12: 38
                    +2
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    But PDB does not even need an airfield, landing is possible in the rear of its troops on non-equipped sites and into battle in a matter of minutes.

                    Yeah ... on light armor, without tanks and normal artillery. Such reinforcement itself needs reinforcement.

                    And do not talk about the fact that the landing will tear the bearded man with one left. Let me remind you that exactly the same bearded men in Afghanistan forced the command of the Airborne Forces to rearm 345th Guards Airborne Forces almost completely on army equipment, and even change its OShs, making it close to ordinary SMEs.
                    1. Alex_59
                      Alex_59 7 June 2016 13: 24
                      +3
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      Yeah ... on light armor, without tanks and normal artillery.

                      I even specially marked the word "temporarily" in bold. To forestall such reproaches. There was a protracted anti-guerrilla conflict in Afghanistan, and I do not propose to use the Airborne Forces in it for a long time on standard airborne equipment as infantry.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      And do not talk about the fact that the landing will tear the bearded man with one left
                      Do not tear. Duck and there is no such purpose. In the given example - quickly (with lightning speed!) To strengthen the weakened section of the front (on which infantrymen and tankers seem to be sitting, but are defeated) before the arrival of heavy equipment reinforcements. With her arrival, immediately withdraw the Airborne Forces to the rear. No frontal attacks from the airborne forces are required.
                  3. Lekov L
                    Lekov L 7 June 2016 15: 54
                    +2
                    Loading for paratroopers is also debugged and does not take much time, and they are based, unlike tankers, at airfields (perhaps with the exception of Novorossiysk).


                    For Alex_59
                    Glad you're wrong smile
                    From PPD to Vityazevo Airport near Anapa exactly 42 km. (Yandex map, however)
                    Prepare the guys what you need.
                    Every time the food goes by - they drive around on the BMD shkakh along the landfill already worth the dust.
                    Therefore, 3 hours from the moment of "readiness times" and everything and everything near the planes at takeoff.
                    There is very close. Therefore, it is located. wink
                    And this is on "paved roads", through the fields you can cut even more.

                    Sincerely.
                2. Jackking
                  Jackking 8 June 2016 23: 13
                  0
                  There is such a science - logistics is called. And in Syria - everything was calculated in advance, and therefore the tanks carried the stream in the sea. Carry 1 tank by plane - this means that you need to disperse the whole MTO service with a filthy broom. :)))
            2. igor.borov775
              igor.borov775 7 June 2016 17: 27
              0
              [quote = Leto] [quote = Alex_59] T-72 with the side screens removed. Easy. [/ Quote]
              Do you call this easy? It’s not even easy and requires highly qualified driver mechanics.
              [












              [quote = Leto] [quote = Alex_59] T-72 with the side screens removed. Easy. [/ Quote]
              Do you call this easy? It’s not even easy and requires highly qualified driver mechanics.
              What are you speaking about. Then write .i What tanks. The main problem is the quick delivery of missile launchers. Therefore, the military's requirements were tough. Landing on an unpaved airfield. But there was no talk of tanks. Then there were completely different priorities. And only when we saw a rocket launcher roaring engines from an airplane ramp they took it into production. How quickly we forget what else this beautiful car should deliver. How time flies quickly and how everything is forgotten.


























              About seeing a rocket beast that roared engines tore off the ramp of the aircraft, the car was put into production.

              Compare with Ruslan
              [/ Quote




















              e]
            3. yehat
              yehat 8 June 2016 13: 52
              0
              no problem making the fuselage wider
              if the IL-76 does not carry tanks, then this is not very necessary.
            4. Stas157
              Stas157 10 June 2016 09: 16
              +2
              Quote: Leto
              Do you call this easy? It’s not even easy and requires highly qualified driver mechanics.

              But, after all, intermeddle! Here, you yourself brought the evidence! Most importantly, there is such an opportunity! Which, by the way, might not be needed!
        2. fleks
          fleks 8 June 2016 12: 54
          +3
          You shouldn’t ernish so much. SUMMER ---- I personally drove, one T72 enters, the only question is that the BMD is landing, and the T72 must be delivered to the airport
    3. baudolino
      baudolino 7 June 2016 08: 45
      +3
      Until China learns to make at least some adequate aircraft engines, it can be considered a full stretch of the aircraft manufacturer.
    4. cast iron
      cast iron 7 June 2016 20: 24
      +1
      An-22 and An-124 may well carry in themselves MBT.
    5. Stas157
      Stas157 10 June 2016 08: 52
      +2
      Quote: Leto
      Some inaccuracy. Russia does not produce transport aircraft capable of transporting main battle tanks.

      Firstly, in the 76th it interferes with the 72nd, and secondly, and it, is it necessary? How many tanks do you import on planes? And who carries tanks on planes?
  3. ovod84
    ovod84 7 June 2016 07: 04
    +4
    Ruslan can take tanks, if that.
    1. Leto
      Leto 7 June 2016 07: 32
      0
      Quote: ovod84
      Ruslan can take tanks, if that.

      Maybe, but who produces it?
  4. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 7 June 2016 07: 44
    +4
    Correct - it looks like a mixture of IL-76 and Boeing C-17. And there is no one else to copy, there are only two cargo planes in this size. As, in fact, in a larger size. But the car looks like a little bigger than the IL-76. She needs engines like PS-90.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 7 June 2016 08: 03
      +4
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Correct - looks like a mixture of IL-76 and Boeing C-17

      It seems to me that even from An-70 there is something in the glazing and layout of the cabin. Plumage, keel, gondola of the chassis from C-17, wing and engines from IL-76.
      Quote: Zaurbek
      She needs engines like PS-90.
      Already passed stage. PD-14 on the way. But not for the Chinese.
      1. Leto
        Leto 7 June 2016 08: 25
        +5
        Quote: Alex_59
        It seems to me that even from the An-70 there is something in the glazing and layout of the cabin.

        Antonov Design Bureau took part in the design of the Xian Y-20, that's for sure.
        1. exo
          exo 7 June 2016 11: 24
          +5
          But Antonov’s design bureau did not hide this. Especially, the rear ramp of the fuselage.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 7 June 2016 12: 54
        +1
        PD-14 we have and will hopefully be on our transporters. I'm talking about the Chinese, they still designed for our engine, why under the old? PS -90 is a generation younger.
  5. ruspilot1
    ruspilot1 7 June 2016 09: 24
    +1
    Well, I think, despite the external gloss, quality issues will still arise, as with any Chinese equipment. In general, at the moment only 2 countries have a large fleet of BTA, third-country aircraft of the type Il-76 / S-17 a couple dozen forces, mostly less, China is still catching up.
  6. Berkut24
    Berkut24 7 June 2016 11: 01
    +1
    Well, if it’s a swallow, then it’s very gluttonous.
    Plus in the size of the cargo compartment.
    As a minus - an attempt to sketch Russian engines, which are already being replaced with PS-90A-76, and in the future will be installed on even more advanced solutions based on PD-14.
    I think that the Chinese have yet to suffer with its fine-tuning. Still, the first such development, a sort of average copy of everything at once. And even in this hybrid, not everything is copied yet. There is an airplane, but I still don’t see a worked-out design school.
  7. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 7 June 2016 11: 43
    -1
    "China may need more than a thousand Y-20 aircraft." ////

    Well, they have a scope! Immediately throw a thousand tanks through the air ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 June 2016 12: 43
      +7
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Well, they have a scope! Immediately throw a thousand tanks through the air ...

      Duc ... standard Chinese tactics - seepage in small groups, one million people. smile
    2. Leto
      Leto 7 June 2016 12: 45
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Well, they have a scope! Immediately throw a thousand tanks through the air ...

      Well, the Chinese are quite cheerfully developing the direction of "global transportation", I would take their plans more seriously ... the people are stubborn.
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 7 June 2016 12: 56
      +4
      This is the case when the quantity goes into quality.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. yehat
      yehat 8 June 2016 13: 55
      0
      why tanks? they have enough of their trash!
      China forms a network of bases - in the south, Kazakhstan, Africa and something needs to be thrown between them
  8. realist
    realist 7 June 2016 14: 45
    +1
    It also seems to me that it looks like IL-76, and I know for sure that the same tasks have the same solutions, it’s a bad thing - can the Chinese quickly build their fleet and why do they need it? where are they going to airborne tanks? I want to know the answer to this question!
  9. Denis Skiff
    Denis Skiff 7 June 2016 17: 28
    +1
    Quote: godofwar6699
    Y-20 near the Boeing C-17 UAE Air Force,

    will lower stabilizers and IL-76. Well, the keel is a bit different and the little things are different. but not like a globe
  10. behemot
    behemot 7 June 2016 18: 01
    0
    the Chinese sketch and do under their own names, and only we are shy.
  11. andrewkor
    andrewkor 7 June 2016 18: 20
    +1
    Kitayozov strongly pushed the failure of the contract signed in 2006 for the supply of 38 ILs for 1 lard of greenery. The price was reduced by 1,5 times at least. The Rybinskians were the first to raise the high, then the rest of the suppliers. The last to show their application were the Tashkent residents (TAPOiCH), so they made them extreme. The Chinese have ratified the contract, they are waiting for a response from Russia, and then the showdown is underway. The moon-faced people asked to curtail the military-technical cooperation for several. lards until they are given a firm answer. By the way, before signing the contract and after they several times visited TAPOiCH with inspection and were satisfied. The plant lived, were in the IL-76 case for Silk Way, India (A50), Jordan (IL76MF), IL114 As they joked, it was only necessary to fix the roofs! I think so: there were some awesome kickbacks to Rosoboronexport for such a cheap price!
  12. Lens
    Lens 7 June 2016 18: 42
    +1
    Only it seemed to me that the cabin is clearly an "Antonov" school? However, like the hump. Too much like "the bloated An-70 looks like ... If we take into account the old ties, the Kievites obviously had a hand.
    1. behemot
      behemot 8 June 2016 19: 39
      0
      very similar
  13. Rhino
    Rhino 7 June 2016 20: 01
    0
    Explain to the fool how it turns out that a Chinese man with the same engines (thrust of about 11 t) takes more than ours by almost 20 tons and even more than Il-76MD-90A with thrust engines of 14.5 t?
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 7 June 2016 20: 35
      +3
      Quote: Nosorog
      Explain to the fool how it turns out that a Chinese man with the same engines (thrust of about 11 t) takes more than ours by almost 20 tons and even more than Il-76MD-90A with thrust engines of 14.5 t?

      This is a very complex question, to which there may be several correct answers at once. Firstly, our IL-76 can load 66 tons if the deck strength allows, but the maximum take-off weight is unchanged - so that extra tons of cargo can be taken to reduce fuel mass and reduce flight range. Secondly, engine thrust is not directly related to carrying capacity. The dependency is not linear. In flight, the aircraft is supported by a wing, the bearing properties of which depend on its area and on the angle of attack of the wing in the incoming air flow. The greater the flight weight of the aircraft - the more it needs speed, or at the same speed - a larger angle of attack. And the extra angle of attack creates additional air resistance and, accordingly, requires more cruising traction. Apparently, the Chinese have a nominal mode of D-30KP enough to maintain their aircraft in the air at a load of 66 tons. But physics cannot be fooled - it is given to them only by increased fuel consumption or lower cruising speed. Therefore, they dream of a better engine, but for lack of it - they put what they have, the benefit of the D-30KP is debugged like a clock over the years of production. In addition, the Chinese could save on the weight of the structure of the aircraft itself, making it easier and getting a big payload. For example, they may have a less powerful chassis than the Il-Xnumx (which sits on the ground, but the Chinese may not), they have an 76 crew member, and not an 3 like ours (here is a gain in 7-600 kg !), most likely there is no hoist on board, etc.
  14. Kluwert
    Kluwert 10 June 2016 17: 23
    0
    I remember when, after the well-known events, the Kremlin started talking about import substitution in various media outlets from various journalists, "experts" and even some "production commanders" a wild howl arose about "we cannot ...", "this is not real .. . "," yes, not one country in the world ... ", etc. etc. I want to shove this article under their noses! Here is China, but not quickly, but with effort, but they do it. And the auto industry has appeared, and now the aircraft industry is almost at the level and they fly into space and aircraft engines will learn (will not go anywhere) to do it. That is, it turns out that it is still real and possible?
  15. ROMANO
    ROMANO 13 June 2016 13: 51
    0
    Quote: kot11180
    Regarding the carrying capacity, it is doubtful whether the IL-76 with such engines has 45 tons and 60 Chinese, due to what?


    Due to the wing area: the IL-76 has 300 square meters, the Chinese clone 330.