Recent images give weight to rumours that Y-20B may be a MRTT (so called Multi Role Tanker Transport) -- that is, all Y-20B airframes may be capable of conversion to a tanker role through wing pods. This could prove rather meaningful. (1/16)
As of late 2023, the PLA's tanker fleet includes (from oldest to newest): 20+ HY-6s (turbojet engines, old, small), 3 Il-78s (some converted to a transport role), and 8+ YY-20As... so, 20+ obsolete small tankers, with 12+ large-ish tankers that still use old D-30 engines. (2/16)
Relative to the PLA's air fleet size (PLAAF + PLANAF), especially their fighter fleet, the current tanker fleet size very small. Compared to the USAF, the difference is even more stark, even if one accounts for a lack of an expeditionary mission for the PLA. (3/16)
The YY-20A (all which entered service in last couple of years) is a domestic large tanker aircraft, based off the Y-20A strategic transport. YY-20A can be viewed as a more modern Il-78, and is a major PRC industry and capability milestone. (4/16)
YY-20A has 2 wingpods for probe/drogue refueling (for fighters) + 1 central drogue station with slightly greater transfer rate (for bigger aircraft like H-6N, KJ-500A). It can operate as a transport by removing its cargo fuel tank. (5/16)
But YY-20A competes with Y-20A transports for production slots, and Y-20 production rate is finite even with growth in factory capacity, and the PLA also requires Y-20 transporters. So YY-20A would remain a "low density" asset: limited in number, vulnerable to attrition. (6/16)
Y-20B - if it is a MRTT - offers a partial remedy. Y-20B replaces old D-30/WS-18 engines on Y-20A with the higher bypass WS-20, improving thrust and fuel efficiency, and is the "intended powerplant" for the aircraft. It is likely to be the new "basic standard" for Y-20. (7/16)
All Y-20B airframes would have plumbing, wiring built in as standard to enable accommodating 2 wing refueling pods that can be fitted (along with a cargo fuel tank) for a tanker role, and removed for the transport role. Not dissimilar to A400M or KC-390. (8/16)
Given the PLA has a massive need for Y-20 strategic transports as a baseline (150+, 200+ or more) -- if most of those are Y-20B, and if all Y-20B are MRTT capable, then the no. of "potential tanker airframes" is much larger than separating Y-20B to only a transport role. (9/16)
Of course a Y-20B MRTT means an airframe can realistically only fulfill transport OR tanker role at a given time. Thus, role conversion will be mission/task dependent. Training, basing, fitout would need to accommodate this, and some units may prioritize one vs the other. (10/16)
But the benefits of a much larger pool of airframe that can easily be converted to a credible tanker capability is undeniable -- tanker aircraft in the PLA will become less of a "low density" asset, be more resilient to attrition, and more flexible as well. (11/16)
More importantly, Y-20B as a MRTT doesn't mean a dedicated YY-20B cannot be procured. There have been rumours a dedicated YY-20B may be pursued to introduce a refueling boom on the fuselage -- new for the PLA, but naturally able to offer much greater fuel transfer rates. (12/16)
A hypothetical future Y-20B strategic enabler fleet could see the bulk be Y-20B MRTT (role convertible as transport or tanker per airframe), with an adjacent core fleet of YY-20B dedicated as tankers (non-convertible), even if the latter still uses a fuselage drogue. (13/16)
Of course, in the even longer term, it is likely the PLA would prefer a commercial widebody airframe as a tanker instead (see A330 MRTT, KC-46, KC-10 etc), but currently they do not have a domestic, sanction proof airframe that can be converted for that. (14/16)
Widebody commercial airframes are preferred to a military transport airframe like Y-20 or Il-76 for the tanker role. Military transports have some minor benefits like theoretical ability to operate from more austere runways, but isn't worth the tradeoffs for a tanker. (15/16)
Until then, the Y-20B airframe will be basis of the PLA's mainstay tanker fleet -- and if all Y-20B as standard are built as MRTT capable, then Y-20B may rival the scale and significance that PLA introduction of AEW&C, ARH BVR, or fighter AESAs had in their eras. (16/16)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Actual CCP advanced aircraft" is a rather bizarre name to go with for it.
Being a bit more normal about the PRC, CPC, and PLA overall may be helpful for anyone wanting to do PLA watching. This ain't it.
2/
Awkward connotations -- confidence needs rather up to date knowledge of both PRC and US industries in these domains.
There's also insinuation that PLA mil tech advances are "dependent" on espionage which... is actually not an unhelpful impression for all parties involved.
I will do a piece for @Diplomat_APAC in time, but for now -- preliminary thoughts on the role of CAC's new generation combat aircraft ("J-36").
We've had rumours of this for a while now, via the same sourcing and methods that predicted J-20 14 years ago and many PLA projects. 1/
This grapevine gave us characteristics of this "J-36" (I called "J-XD"), including its rough size, engine configuration, and yes its role and its descriptor as "6th generation".
I view numerical generations as neither here nor there, so I will refer it as "new generation". 2/
Role discussion is less fluid: this CAC aircraft is spoken of as A2A oriented (though as with all modern tactical aircraft, a degree of multirole capability is expected).
I observe many have made arguments that this may be a fighter-bomber/striker, or an outright bomber. 3/
First, I think the blogpost and FP article titles could be something more like "PRC views science and technology as central to economic growth and geopolitical competitiveness". Less snazzy, but more accurate. 1/
The articles do not argue why science and technological advancement are not central to economic growth or national competitiveness -- i.e.: there's no convincing argument as to why science/tech/industry are *not* worth state led advancements... 2/
Comparisons with the USSR are sensible on the surface but lacks comparison of the vast differences -- geopol circumstance, economic model, domestic and foreign markets, ideological flexibility and rigor.
After all the USSR had many flaws that led to its demise... 3/
Thread: the Ru-Ukr war has shown many lessons, one of being the importance of A2G ISR+PGMs.
For PLA, most of their combat aviation development in last 20 years was prioritised for air control systems, with precision A2G being mostly ALCMs.
Only one type of 500kg LGB as PGM.
1/n
Priority on air control (BVR, AEWC, EW/EA, air superiority) makes sense, and short range PGMs needs air control to employ them anyhow.
But with some 40 and counting AEWC, 700 new modern fighters in last decade (still growing), very mature BVR, widespread AESA use...
2/n
... a growing stealth fighter fleet (~100 J-20s in service as of early this yr), a varied EA/EW capability (SOJs on Y-8/9 types, tacjammers/wild weasel in J-16D+JH-7A) - it may be sensible to finally embark on modernizing A2G the same way they did for A2A in the last 20 yrs.
An awaited video for me, and I hold both @MilAvHistory and @Justin_Br0nk in high regard; the video is worth watching.
However, also a few observations/caveats, based on my base of knowledge... /1
Re - buying Su-35s to RE the engines, IMO is very dubious.
While 117S is a capable engine, by the time they bought the Su-35s, work on uprated WS-10 iterations and WS-15 would've been sufficiently ahead that RE-ing 117S is almost certainly not worthwhile.
/2
Re - canards and LO vs VLO, while arguments about J-20's all aspect stealth or VLO can be made WRT rear aspect (interim engine nozzles currently), the idea of canards being categorically "non-stealthy" goes against many designs pursued by likes of LM, NG etc (JAST, NATF)...
/3
1. At Falcon Strike 2015, they sent vintage J-11As, equipped w/ R-27 or early R-77 at best. Up vs Gripen Cs w/ superior radar and AIM-120Cs, obviously J-11As would've been destroyed in BVR domain. nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/one-…
1/5
2. The big margin of victory in WVR being so lopsided for the J-11As is somewhat surprising given Gripens are far from sluggish.
3. Context for the J-11A -- in terms of avionics and weapons, the closest peer would be an F-15A but with Russian avionics and cockpit of the era. 2/5
4. Situational awareness + BVR is highly dependent on: avionics, BVR capability, and pilot workload (cockpit design). In all those domains, the J-11A is leagues behind Gripen C.
5. J-11A is easily the oldest + least capable 4th gen fighter in PLA arsenal, for above reasons. 3/5