Y-20 heavy transport aircraft News & Discussions

[Deino]

I think at this point, the WS-18's primary target is the H-6K or future variants, not the Y-20. A modernized low bypass engine would suit the H-6 quite well.

Agreed ... but to admit besides Beast's constant claims I did not read anything stating it is in production and even more fitted to the Y-20 or H-6K.

 

[Beast]

Sorry to nit-pick ... there is so for proof for this even more to the contrary other reports I know say, that the WS-18 was indeed initiated as a fall-back option in case the WS-20 fails or encounters technical issues, but since it is fine it has been downgraded to a technical project only with no further serial production at least not for the Y-20.

Engine is a secret spec for all PLAAF aircraft. You will not get a clear cut answer from PLA official media. But from official PLA documentary and news. You can combine the jigsaw puzzle and get the good estimate answer for the engine. Deino, you are a long time PLA follower. I think I do not need to repeat this aspect about the secrecy of PLAAF aircraft engine. Tell me which official aircraft in service of PLAAF/PLANAF will have a full breakdown of all the spec of the engine in service? Tell me?

If I go by your theory. Basically there is no engine installed on any of PLAAF aircraft becos you cannot get any accurate engine spec, right? To simply outright deny a highly credible aspect is clearly a lack of understanding of China military progress.

 

[Deino]

Thanks for your answer and I have to contradict - at least a bit - ... it is not that I expect (even if I dare) for specifications but at least get an info on what specific type.

And to admit for the Y-20 I know no reliable report stating it is powered by indigenous engines, aka the WS-18.

Best,
Deino

 

[Beast]

Thanks for your answer and I have to contradict - at least a bit - ... it is not that I expect (even if I dare) for specifications but at least get an info on what specific type.

And to admit for the Y-20 I know no reliable report stating it is powered by indigenous engines, aka the WS-18.

Best,
Deino

Is there any reliable source or from Xinhua or PLAAF official statement that claim the engines used on Y-20 is DK30Kp2 Russia import version?

 

[帅的一匹]

I think at this point, the WS-18's primary target is the H-6K or future variants, not the Y-20. A modernized low bypass engine would suit the H-6 quite well.

Is there any reliable source or from Xinhua or PLAAF official statement that claim the engines used on Y-20 is DK30Kp2 Russia import version?

WS18 for H6K and WS20 for Y20.

 

[Beast]

WS18 for H6K and WS20 for Y20.

That means it’s only hearsay? It’s funny some ask me to produce reliable proof of WS-18 used on Y-20 while himself can’t proved the engine used on Y-20 is Russian imported D30kp2.

WS-20 will definitely used on Y-20 but not in near future. It’s not that urgent and critical. Current engine fulfill PLAAF need.

 

[帅的一匹]

That means it’s only hearsay? It’s funny some ask me to produce reliable proof of WS-18 used on Y-20 while himself can’t proved the engine used on Y-20 is Russian imported D30kp2.

WS-20 will definitely used on Y-20 but not in near future. It’s not that urgent and critical. Current engine fulfill PLAAF need.

No one can deny that China has all the know-how to produce WS18, I think WS20 is a better choice for Y20.

High by-pass ratio means longer range.

Fuel efficient is very important for a tanker.

When we have 50 units of Y20 tanker, PLAAF will be an attacking force. It's more important than strategic bomber. My definition for strategic airforce in the sequence of priority:
1: tanker in numbers
2. Strategic bomber
3. Dual engine stealthy fighter

The good day just begin, wait and see.

we will be a peaceful super power, so just aim high and stay patient.

Sometimes I will loose patient when trolls claim BLK52 is superior thanJ10c.

 

[Beast]

No one can deny that China has all the know-how to produce WS18, I think WS20 is a better choice for Y20.

Low by-pass ratio means longer range.

Fuel efficient is very important for a tanker.

When we have 50 units of Y20 tanker, PLAAF will be an attacking force. It's more important than strategic bomber. My definition for strategic airforce in the sequence of priority:
1: tanker in numbers
2. Strategic bomber
3. Dual engine stealthy fighter

The good day just begin, wait and see.

There is mention that the improved WS-18 has better thrust and fuel consumption. Definitely WS-20 will be better but may at the expense of higher cost procurement. Remember, PLA is still very prudent when comes to spending. Given that PLAAF has a huge number of H6K to maintain. It will be wise to continue produced WS-18 to satisfy Y-20 and H-6K.

Be reminded, if you introduced WS-20 to Y-20. PLAAF needs to maintain 2 overhaul plant of WS-20 and WS-18 as H-6K bomber cannot used WS-20.

By using only one of Type of engine of WS-18, it will simplify PLAAF production and maintainenance issue. H-6K is produced in large number. There is estimated near 100 over H-6K made. It is not a interim bomber but part of PLAAF long term deployment. It will stay at least a decades and more. WS-18 needs to continue produced to maintain these fleet of bomber. If I am PLAAF today level brass, I too will opt for WS-18 for both Y-20 and H-6K. WS-20 maybe introduced for the stretch version of Y-20 given that higher payload is needed.

 

[帅的一匹]

There is mention that the improved WS-18 has better thrust and fuel consumption. Definitely WS-20 will be better but may at the expense of higher cost procurement. Remember, PLA is still very prudent when comes to spending. Given that PLAAF has a huge number of H6K to maintain. It will be wise to continue produced WS-18 to satisfy Y-20 and H-6K.

Be reminded, if you introduced WS-20 to Y-20. PLAAF needs to maintain 2 overhaul plant of WS-20 and WS-18 as H-6K bomber cannot used WS-20.

By using only one of Type of engine of WS-18, it will simplify PLAAF production and maintainenance issue. H-6K is produced in large number. There is estimated near 100 over H-6K made. It is not a interim bomber but part of PLAAF long term deployment. It will stay at least a decades and more. WS-18 needs to continue produced to maintain these fleet of bomber. If I am PLAAF today level brass, I too will opt for WS-18 for both Y-20 and H-6K. WS-20 maybe introduced for the stretch version of Y-20 given that higher payload is needed.

Point taken

Any way, WS20 is the future.

As you mentioned, it maybe installed on a enlarged Y20 for longer range and higher payload.

It's good to see PLAAF never give up improving their platform.

 

[Figaro]

There is mention that the improved WS-18 has better thrust and fuel consumption. Definitely WS-20 will be better but may at the expense of higher cost procurement. Remember, PLA is still very prudent when comes to spending. Given that PLAAF has a huge number of H6K to maintain. It will be wise to continue produced WS-18 to satisfy Y-20 and H-6K.

Be reminded, if you introduced WS-20 to Y-20. PLAAF needs to maintain 2 overhaul plant of WS-20 and WS-18 as H-6K bomber cannot used WS-20.

By using only one of Type of engine of WS-18, it will simplify PLAAF production and maintainenance issue. H-6K is produced in large number. There is estimated near 100 over H-6K made. It is not a interim bomber but part of PLAAF long term deployment. It will stay at least a decades and more. WS-18 needs to continue produced to maintain these fleet of bomber. If I am PLAAF today level brass, I too will opt for WS-18 for both Y-20 and H-6K. WS-20 maybe introduced for the stretch version of Y-20 given that higher payload is needed.

The WS-20 is definitely more preferable that the WS-18. No doubt. First, the WS-18 is a low bypass engine based on a nearly 40 year old design. The WS-20 is a modern high bypass engine, which is based on the WS-10 core, and thus much better regardless of cost procurement. The PLAAF would never sacrifice transport capacity and range (ws-18) over some increased costs ... if so, why did they even design the WS-20 in the first place?

Point taken

Any way, WS20 is the future.

As you mentioned, it maybe installed on a enlarged Y20 for longer range and higher payload.

It's good to see PLAAF never give up improving their platform.

The Y-20 designer already confirmed that the WS-20 Is going to be installed in the latter half of this year. A WS-18 Is basically completely unsuitable for a regular Y-20, let alone an enlarged variant

 

[Beast]

The WS-20 is definitely more preferable that the WS-18. No doubt. First, the WS-18 is a low bypass engine based on a nearly 40 year old design. The WS-20 is a modern high bypass engine, which is based on the WS-10 core, and thus much better regardless of cost procurement.

Hi, I think you still don’t understand the basic of simplify logistic and Maintain low cost. Keep on ranting the good performance while ignoring the cost and logistic of maintaining 2 types engine.

Sure USAF F-22 raptor is world beater and you shall ask pentagon why they keep F-22 number at 187? You really think US can print money at will?
Same applied to PLAAF.

 

[Figaro]

Hi, I think you still don’t understand the basic of simplify logistic and Maintain low cost. Keep on ranting the good performance while ignoring the cost and logistic of maintaining 2 types engine.

Sure USAF F-22 raptor is world beater and you shall ask pentagon why they keep F-22 number at 187? You really think US can print money at will?
Same applied to PLAAF.

But this has nothing to do with logistic simplification and costs. With China having a nearly 200 billion dollar military budget, I highly doubt they would sacrifice important transport capabilities for negligible benefits. Without the WS-20, the Y-20 transport capacity will be lowered by at least 10 tonnes ... in addition to range and fuel consumption issues. Moreover, why would China even develop the WS-20 if the WS-18 was satisfactory? The WS-18 is a low-bypass engine, unsuitable/highly not preferable for transport aircraft

 

[Beast]

The WS-20 is definitely more preferable that the WS-18. No doubt. First, the WS-18 is a low bypass engine based on a nearly 40 year old design. The WS-20 is a modern high bypass engine, which is based on the WS-10 core, and thus much better regardless of cost procurement. The PLAAF would never sacrifice transport capacity and range (ws-18) over some increased costs ... if so, why did they even design the WS-20 in the first place?


The Y-20 designer already confirmed that the WS-20 Is going to be installed in the latter half of this year. A WS-18 Is basically completely unsuitable for a regular Y-20, let alone an enlarged variant


What do you mean??? Flight testing is already over and I believe the units have already been delivered ...

The designer in fact claim its early of the year and we yet to see WS-20 install onboard Y-20. May I know when will enlarge Y-20 debut? Currently WS-18 fits the bill of PLAAF for Y-20. It will continue serves Y-20 for 3-4 years before WS-20 comes into the picture.

 

[Beast]

But this has nothing to do with logistic simplification and costs. With China having a nearly 200 billion dollar military budget, I highly doubt they would sacrifice important transport capabilities for negligible benefits. Without the WS-20, the Y-20 transport capacity will be lowered by at least 10 tonnes ... in addition to range and fuel consumption issues. Moreover, why would China even develop the WS-20 if the WS-18 was satisfactory? The WS-18 is a low-bypass engine, unsuitable/highly not preferable for transport aircraft

Let me ask you one simple question. Can the current Y-20 with WS-18 or D30kp2 engine haul a 54 tons Type99A2 MBT? If you replaced with WS-20. Can the Y-20 haul 2 MBT? The additional 10tons advantage is useless at the expense of more logistic problem, more cost.

Even the current Y-20 with WS-18 payload is more than Europe A400M. I don’t see how inferior or as bad as u claim. Unless you tell me Y-20 decide to haul NATO leopard 2 or Merkava MBT. But do you think that is a possible?
Y-20 is designed to fulfill PLA needs and is not to tailor for NATO weaponery.

Why do you think that there will be an enlarged variant??? The current Y-20s equipped with D-30/WS-18 engines are already at a considerable disadvantage ... the WS-20 is aimed at rectifying the engine issue of standard Y-20s, not an enlarged variant. Until the Y-20 is inducted in meaningful numbers, I see no reason for a debut of an even larger variant. Just a couple Y-20s will mean a significant boost to the PLAAF transport fleet. The WS-18 definietely does not fit the bill for the Y-20 ... just like the AL-31 does not fit the bill for the J-20.

Is not what I think, is what AVIC think. Do not ask me, please go and ask AVIC why they want an enlarged version of Y-20.

https://www.popsci.com/mega-planes-...-next-generation-air-cargo-and-transportation

I am not making assumption. This mode is showed what the future and direction of Y-20. WS-20 will be required for this bigger baby. But currently, WS-18 fulfil PLAAF needs

 

[Figaro]

Let me ask you one simple question. Can the current Y-20 with WS-18 or D30kp2 engine haul a 54 tons Type99A2 MBT? If you replaced with WS-20. Can the Y-20 haul 2 MBT? The additional 10tons advantage is useless at the expense of more logistic problem, more cost.

Even the current Y-20 with WS-18 payload is more than Europe A400M. I don’t see how inferior or as bad as u claim. Unless you tell me Y-20 decide to haul NATO leopard 2 or Merkava MBT. But do you think that is a possible?
Y-20 is designed to fulfill PLA needs and is not to tailor for NATO weaponery.

I really don't see your point here. The extra ten tonnes could be used for extra supplies ... not just a heavy MBT. But more importantly, I cannot understand your refusal to believe that a low bypass, 40 year old WS-18 design is sufficient for a transport aircraft. I'm sure you understand that the WS-20 is a high bypass engine tailored to transport planes, while the WS-18 is more suitable for H-6 variants. If logistics and costs were really an issue, why would AVIC go through the pain of developing the WS-20? Why would are they starting to incorporate WS-10X into the J-20 or testing the TVC on the J-10? According to your reasoning, all this amounts to expensive logistical problems.

https://www.popsci.com/mega-planes-...-next-generation-air-cargo-and-transportation

I am not making assumption. This mode is showed what the future and direction of Y-20. WS-20 will be required for this bigger baby. But currently, WS-18 fulfil PLAAF needs

I am not discounting the possibility of a larger Y-20 variant. I just don't believe it is necessary currently and am doubtful it will show up in the short to mid term. For now, the PLAAF's goal is to get as many Y-20s inducted as possible and incorporate the WS-20. And once again, the WS-18 does not fulfill the PLAAF's needs. Having a mediocre low-bypass engine is definitely not ideal or even satisfactory for the Y-20 ... it is more of a necessity due to the lack of a domestic substitute hitherto.