Y-20 heavy transport aircraft News & Discussions

[Han Patriot]

To be honest I thought back in 2014 all new build Y-20s from say 2018 will be equipped with the WS-20 engine which is only 1990s level US tech but without the lifetime and reliability of the US engine that is on the C-17.

The fact that it is still not ready again highlights just how far behind China is compared to the US in engine tech.

Saying this the US/UK are in a class of their own when it comes to engine tech. Others like the French and the Russians are 1-2 decades behind them. China is a little behind than even the Russians now, although I think that sometime towards the latter part of this decade the Chinese should reach Russian levels of engine tech.

Hopefully this specific example should drill some realism into pdf Chinese posters that China is still many decades behind the West in some aspects of critical technology.

I wouldn't say many decades, I would say 20 years at most. Anyway, the first step is always the hardest. Better try than nothing right, India is a good example of not trying and failing to take off they might be a 100 years behind. Lol

 

[lcloo]

The strategic importance of putting Y20 into service in large number far out weight the use of 1990 style engines. If China will to wait for a 2020 era modern engine and delay production of Y20, there will be a large gap in strategic lifting capability of PLAAF.

Y20 is of paramount important in fast deployment of soldiers and heavy equipment like armour vehicles, war materials and other logistics, as well as helicopters like Z20, Z10 & Z19 to battle front, an example of which is potential flash points at the border with India..

I am looking toward 2025 for new engine deployment.

 

[Beast]

Still testing I guess. Most of the new ones are using WS18, aka cloned D30s

No, its not. Mostly to do with logistic issue than testing.

Why introduced 2 types of engine when one type can do both job and fulfil its need? Can WS-20 fill in this bomber?

With WS-18 engine, Y-20 can still carries 56tons of payload. While logistic issue is simplier ,operating cost is cheaper. China type99A mbt weights only 54tons.

There are estimate 100 new H-6K, H-6H. They are not going to retired in just few years time. They will still play an important role for PLAAF for many years. The production line of WS-18 is going to keep open for sometimes. Ask yourself, if you are PLAAF commander and with a large AF need modernized and trying all attempt to keep cost low.
Will you introduced 2 types of engine with not much benefit while adding up operating cost?

 

[UKBengali]

No, its not. Mostly to do with logistic issue than testing.

Why introduced 2 types of engine when one type can do both job and fulfil its need? Can WS-20 fill in this bomber?

With WS-18 engine, Y-20 can still carries 56tons of payload. While logistic issue is simplier ,operating cost is cheaper. China type99A mbt weights only 54tons.

There are estimate 100 new H-6K, H-6H. They are not going to retired in just few years time. They will still play an important role for PLAAF for many years. The production line of WS-18 is going to keep open for sometimes. Ask yourself, if you are PLAAF commander and with a large AF need modernized and trying all attempt to keep cost low.
Will you introduced 2 types of engine with not much benefit while adding up operating cost?

Using a newer engines saves on fuel costs. Having more weight capacity saves on flights(pack in more vehicles) which again reduces cost.

Also China is determined to build up it's engine tech as soon as possible and would use WS-20 if it was ready.

 

[UKBengali]

I wouldn't say many decades, I would say 20 years at most. Anyway, the first step is always the hardest. Better try than nothing right, India is a good example of not trying and failing to take off they might be a 100 years behind. Lol

Well around 10 years ago, I read an article by a Chinese engine expert who said that the Chinese then were 30 years behind the US/UK in engine tech and he thought that it would take China till 2040 to catch-up.

China will more than likely catch up with the leaders in engine tech within a generation(25 years), but it is still quite some decades(2-3) behind.

I think when the next decade starts China will be completely free of dependence on anyone in either military or civilian engine tech. This is so important for China that they would even subsidise their airlines to use less efficient Chinese engines.

 

[Han Patriot]

Well around 10 years ago, I read an article by a Chinese engine expert who said that the Chinese then were 30 years behind the US/UK in engine tech and he thought that it would take China till 2040 to catch-up.

China will more than likely catch up with the leaders in engine tech within a generation(25 years), but it is still quite some decades(2-3) behind.

I think when the next decade starts China will be completely free of dependence on anyone in either military or civilian engine tech. This is so important for China that they would even subsidise their airlines to use less efficient Chinese engines.

The thing is the best engine in F22 is still the best 20 years later. So there is a latecomers advantage here. Engine manufacturers need time to recoup investments typically 20 years.

I think we would use less efficient engines for domestic market and bar US engine in retaliation, you don't really need to subsidized it, it will still make money in absence of competition. Just les

 

[obj 705A]

No, its not. Mostly to do with logistic issue than testing.

Why introduced 2 types of engine when one type can do both job and fulfil its need? Can WS-20 fill in this bomber?

With WS-18 engine, Y-20 can still carries 56tons of payload. While logistic issue is simplier ,operating cost is cheaper. China type99A mbt weights only 54tons.

There are estimate 100 new H-6K, H-6H. They are not going to retired in just few years time. They will still play an important role for PLAAF for many years. The production line of WS-18 is going to keep open for sometimes. Ask yourself, if you are PLAAF commander and with a large AF need modernized and trying all attempt to keep cost low.
Will you introduced 2 types of engine with not much benefit while adding up operating cost?

frankly I highly doubt that the reason why China is not mass producing WS-20 is that they thought "hey WS-18 is good enough for our needs", no the WS-18 is not good enough for China, if it was then why even bother developing the WS-20?

it's always like this with Chinese & Russian netizens, whenever they talk about a weapon that they still can't mass produce or haven't finished developing, they say "we don't have it not because we can't produce it yet, but because we don't need it", but then once they produce it they say "oh we actually do need it".
take for example the aircraft carrier, before China started building the type 002 the Chinese used to say "naaah we don't need aircraft carriers that is why we are not building them" but then once the Chinese began building them, they made fun of the Russians when the Russians said "aircraft carriers are not needed".

now to this day I still see some Chinese netizens saying "hey we don't need to mass produce nuclear submarines, conventional submarines are enough", they don't want to admit they can't mass produce them (the type 095) yet, but I assure you, once China does start mass producing the type 095, those commentators will begin saying "having SSNs is of utmost importance".

same thing goes for the WS-20, you say the reason why China isn't mass producing it yet is not because it's not ready, but because they don't need it since WS-18 powers both the H-6k & Y-20 to save money on logistics (as if China is some dirt poor nation that can't afford to spend money on logestics for an engine, and not the second biggest economy), but I assure you, once China does mass produce the WS-20 while the H-6 would still be in service, you will change your statement.

 

[UKBengali]

The thing is the best engine in F22 is still the best 20 years later. So there is a latecomers advantage here. Engine manufacturers need time to recoup investments typically 20 years.

I think we would use less efficient engines for domestic market and bar US engine in retaliation, you don't really need to subsidized it, it will still make money in absence of competition. Just les

Well if it is not the Chinese government subsidising the less efficient Chinese engines, then the Chinese consumer will. Either way China will be prepared to pay more to gain engine independence.

 

[Han Patriot]

Well if it is not the Chinese government subsidising the less efficient Chinese engines, then the Chinese consumer will. Either way China will be prepared to pay more to gain engine independence.

Consumers will pay more. Its the same with 5G equipment, by barring Huawei, US consumers will pay a 20% premium in absence of competition. But i would agree Trump doing it if I was an American.

 

[Beast]

frankly I highly doubt that the reason why China is not mass producing WS-20 is that they thought "hey WS-18 is good enough for our needs", no the WS-18 is not good enough for China, if it was then why even bother developing the WS-20?

it's always like this with Chinese & Russian netizens, whenever they talk about a weapon that they still can't mass produce or haven't finished developing, they say "we don't have it not because we can't produce it yet, but because we don't need it", but then once they produce it they say "oh we actually do need it".
take for example the aircraft carrier, before China started building the type 002 the Chinese used to say "naaah we don't need aircraft carriers that is why we are not building them" but then once the Chinese began building them, they made fun of the Russians when the Russians said "aircraft carriers are not needed".

now to this day I still see some Chinese netizens saying "hey we don't need to mass produce nuclear submarines, conventional submarines are enough", they don't want to admit they can't mass produce them (the type 095) yet, but I assure you, once China does start mass producing the type 095, those commentators will begin saying "having SSNs is of utmost importance".

same thing goes for the WS-20, you say the reason why China isn't mass producing it yet is not because it's not ready, but because they don't need it since WS-18 powers both the H-6k & Y-20 to save money on logistics (as if China is some dirt poor nation that can't afford to spend money on logestics for an engine, and not the second biggest economy), but I assure you, once China does mass produce the WS-20 while the H-6 would still be in service, you will change your statement.

WS-20 is for enlarged version of Y-20F

The Y-20F-100 will be longer than the Y-20 and can carry 28 airfreight containers, or 65 metric tons of cargo, as well as supersized engineering equipment. It has a maximum range of 8,000 km, AVIC said.

WS-20 also for militarise C919 which will convert to MPA,AEW or new AWACS. Militarise version will be full localise with no foreign import parts.

WS-20 will arrived eventually but not now. There is no need for it currently. The day C919 is mature in around 2024, you will see WS-20 used and production line setup for it.

Well around 10 years ago, I read an article by a Chinese engine expert who said that the Chinese then were 30 years behind the US/UK in engine tech and he thought that it would take China till 2040 to catch-up.

China will more than likely catch up with the leaders in engine tech within a generation(25 years), but it is still quite some decades(2-3) behind.

I think when the next decade starts China will be completely free of dependence on anyone in either military or civilian engine tech. This is so important for China that they would even subsidise their airlines to use less efficient Chinese engines.

Those engineers are just being modest, dont take their words too seriously.

Using a newer engines saves on fuel costs. Having more weight capacity saves on flights(pack in more vehicles) which again reduces cost.

Also China is determined to build up it's engine tech as soon as possible and would use WS-20 if it was ready.

Yes, it saves fuel but at the expense of additional mechanics, tools, machine and another totally different production line which makes it more expensive in terms of logistics and support. The additonal payload can ferry another Type99A mbt under one Y-20? No.

Now, you just need one WS-18 production line, standardise all your mechanics training, all the same tools to maintain the same type of engine. All the same spare to maintain one type of engine.

The same WS-18 can be used on IL-76, H-6K and Y-20. I dont think we need rocket scientist to explain that.

 

[UKBengali]

WS-20 is for enlarged version of Y-20F



Those engineers are just being modest, dont take their words too seriously.

No it looks like China may not even meet the 2040 target now to catch up with US.

The WS-15 is not likely to be installed on J-20 before 2025 and so the same T/W ratio but without the reliability or the lifespan of the 20 year older US engine in F-22.

Yes, it saves fuel but at the expense of additional mechanics, tools, machine and another totally different production line which makes it more expensive in terms of logistics and support. The additonal payload can ferry another Type99A mbt under one Y-20? No.

Now, you just need one WS-18 production line, standardise all your mechanics training, all the same tools to maintain the same type of engine. All the same spare to maintain one type of engine.

The same WS-18 can be used on IL-76, H-6K and Y-20. I dont think we need rocket scientist to explain that.

I meant pack a tank and also another lighter vehicle into the WS-20 Y-20.

It would be cheaper to be able to pack two vehicles like a tank and another vehicle into a WS-20 Y-20 than a single tank into the current Y-20.

The extra cost of maintaining two engines would be made up with the need for less fuel and packing more vehicles into one Y-20.

Anyway, China does not care about cost of engines as it is desperate for independence as soon as possible.

 

[Beast]

I meant pack a tank and also another lighter vehicle into the WS-20 Y-20.

It would be cheaper to be able to pack two vehicles like a tank and another vehicle into a WS-20 Y-20 than a single tank into the current Y-20.

The extra cost of maintaining two engines would be made up with the need for less fuel and packing more vehicles into one Y-20

Anyway, China does not care about cost of engines as it is desperate for independence as soon as possible.

Y-20 with WS-18(Payload 56tons) --- One Type99A mbt 54 tons.

Y-20 with WS-20(Payload 65- 66 tons) --- One Type99A mbt 54tons and left with additional 12tons.

What kind of additional armour vehicle do you want to ferry of 12tons payload?

I dont see much strategic value with such small upgrade at expense of increase logistic, training, production line and cost.

No it looks like China may not even meet the 2040 target now to catch up with US.

We are not far away by too much.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chinese-aero-engine-information-thread.300409/page-71

 

[UKBengali]

Y-20 with WS-18(Payload 56tons) --- One Type99A mbt 54 tons.

Y-20 with WS-20(Payload 65- 66 tons) --- One Type99A mbt 54tons and left with additional 12tons.

What kind of additional armour vehicle do you want to ferry of 12tons payload?

I dont see much strategic value with such small upgrade at expense of increase logistic, training, production line and cost.



We are not far away by too much.

A truck of some tons can be put in to save costs.

You also forget that China would be wasting valuable time by not using the WS-20 if it is ready.

There is no way that China would not use the WS-20 if available as it can only get better at engine tech by actually putting them into real planes. Any savings, which wont exist anyway, would be wasted by holding back Chinese engine tech progress.

None of the leading engine nations do what you suggest that China is doing with WS-20 as it would hamper their advance in this critical technology.

We are not far away by too much.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chinese-aero-engine-information-thread.300409/page-71

Getting the T/W ratio is not the only characteristic about engine tech.

Try getting to the reliability and lifespan of US/UK engines. Russia never came close during the cold war even though it matched the T/W ratio by 1990.

 

[Beast]

A truck of some tons can be put in to save costs.

You also forget that China would be wasting valuable time by not using the WS-20 if it is ready.

There is no way that China would not use the WS-20 if available as it can only get better at engine tech by actually putting them into real planes. Any savings, which wont exist anyway, would be wasted by holding back Chinese engine tech progress.

None of the leading engine nations do what you suggest that China is doing with WS-20 as it would hamper their advance in this critical technology.

How do you know they are not keep testing it? It is not put into PLAAF used doesnt mean its idle around. The test bed IL-76 so far is not to be seen,I am sure its testing out the lifespan of WS-20 even until now. It will be ready when needed and extensive reliability and full aspect will be tested out.

A truck of some tons can be put in to save costs.

You also forget that China would be wasting valuable time by not using the WS-20 if it is ready.

There is no way that China would not use the WS-20 if available as it can only get better at engine tech by actually putting them into real planes. Any savings, which wont exist anyway, would be wasted by holding back Chinese engine tech progress.

None of the leading engine nations do what you suggest that China is doing with WS-20 as it would hamper their advance in this critical technology.




Getting the T/W ratio is not the only characteristic about engine tech.

Try getting to the reliability and lifespan of US/UK engines. Russia never came close during the cold war even though it matched the T/W ratio by 1990.

I dont see lifespan too much of a issue. If we sell the engine at less than half the price of western counterparts but with half the lifespan of western one. Its still a commercial feasible. Same as for military.

Look at the American space shuttle. Reusable but very expensive to maintain. Soyuz is disposable but is even cheaper, reliable to use compare to longer lifespan of US Columbia space shuttle.

 

[UKBengali]

How do you know they are not keep testing it? It is not put into PLAAF used doesnt mean its idle around. The test bed IL-76 so far is not to be seen,I am sure its testing out the lifespan of WS-20 even until now. It will be ready when needed and extensive reliability and full aspect will be tested out.



I dont see lifespan too much of a issue. If we sell the engine at less than half the price of western counterparts but with half the lifespan of western one. Its still a commercial feasible. Same as for military.

Look at the American space shuttle. Reusable but very expensive to maintain. Soyuz is disposable but is even cheaper, reliable to use compare to longer lifespan of US Columbia space shuttle.

1. Not the same. You cannot make anywhere near the same progress by testing than having the engine in service.

2. Why do you think that Russians airlines flopped? Hint the engines were nowhere near as good as western ones.


OK, you are entitled to your view but logically I do not see the sense in it.