China’s ‘chubby girl’ transport aircraft enters PLA service

File: 122614m331gvf37ui7jxrt.jpg (216KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1280x960px

>>30521697
>The Y-20 makes China only the third nation in the world to design and build its own transport aircraft, along with Russia and the US.

>The Russian-Ukrainian Antonov-124 Ruslan is officially the world’s largest transport aircraft, with a payload nearly twice that of the Y-20 but it is out of production and work on upgrading the existing fleet has been frozen since 2014 due to tensions between Moscow and Kiev, according to press reports.

>The rollout of the Y-20 takes place amid a rethink of military strategy by China, which sees itself gradually taking on missions farther from its borders. In November China announced the establishment of its first foreign military base, in Djibouti, as a hub to resupply the more than 2,000 Chinese troops taking part in African peacekeeping operations as well as Chinese anti-piracy patrols in the Indian Ocean.

>A new counter-terrorism law adopted by Beijing this year allows China to station troops abroad for the first time to participate in counter-terrorism operations.

>Last year China’s defence ministry released a white paper on strategy that emphasised the evolution of the country’s security needs away from simple territorial defence towards an offensive capacity overseas.

File: 122615cbfugg0db5juddgb.jpg (771KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

771KB, 2048x1536px

>>30521700
Some more pics of dat phat girl.

+.50 yuan

Kyuuuute!

File: 68dd416bjw1f5k4noe14cj20hs0bzmxm.jpg (27KB, 640x431px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x431px

>>30521711
Two of them now, with six by the end of the year to be delivered

File: 68dd416bjw1f5k4np4d8lj20hs0cu3zj.jpg (47KB, 640x462px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x462px

>>30521726

File: 125038ofaph25w8zqwicqh.jpg (304KB, 2048x1073px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 2048x1073px

>>30521739
last

>>30521697
>Russian Engines.
>They can't even make Engines with their socialism.

File: MFW.png (315KB, 601x837px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 601x837px

>China rising superpower
>Still can't make own engines

File: 003212kbpcyr222n6c6b6p.jpg (159KB, 1600x1012px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1600x1012px

>>30521752
Interim solution.

Chinese engine is currently testing onboard a testbed. By 2018 they will equip the subsequent Y-20 batches.

>>30521697
THICC

File: j-20 thickest planemusu.png (2MB, 2501x3124px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2501x3124px

Is there already fanart of it?

I know that the Chinese like thicc girls and their J-20 was also drawn to be thicc as well.

>>30521697

>The Y-20 Kunpeng, nicknamed “chubby girl”,
>nicknamed “chubby girl”
>"chubby girl"

Top kek china.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09K6mWkTBts

>>30521752
They can't even make pressure suits for their knock off Soyuz spacecraft, they use Russian surplus ones

>>30521785

>Liking Thick Females

China really is becoming a superpower.

>>30521697
>The aircraft, which is equipped with Russian engines, has a cargo capacity of 66 tonnes, making it the world’s largest military transport currently in production.

Gotta love that spin.

Nowhere near the largest, just the largest "in production". Which is basically meaningless.

>>30521785

That's not thick. That's mildly chubby.

File: commercial-crew-transportation-capability-contract-10.jpg (38KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 700x700px

>>30521752
>Russian spacecraft
>They can't even launch astronauts with their capitalism

>chubby girl

More girth for the berth baby

File: C-17-032-Globemaster-032-III-032-Over-032-Alaska-1920x1080[1].jpg (354KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 1920x1080px

can china not into hi bypass turbofans?

>>30521827
You mean EVA suits? China actually tested their own (thought it was modeled on the Orlan-type) last time they went to space. And their own Soyuz-replacement of reentry capsule was just tested last month after being launched ontop their new Long March 7 rocket.

>>30521871
NASA and FAA are being slow with SpaceX's manned capsule certification.

Chinks are starting to get annoying, someone should do something about those fucks.

>>30521884
Not now, but possibly in 2018, when the WS-20 arrives.

Until then, the D-30 will have to do.

Also; dat blunt nose on the C-17.

>>30521888
china's first space station attempt failed.

they stuck one module up into space, got a guy into it. Then it failed.

File: 3463462.jpg (59KB, 1280x826px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1280x826px

I dont care whether this is shit or not, but this chub girl is really good looking.

>>30521900
>believing in unsubstanciated media hoax

TG-1 didnt 'lose control'. And even if, it was meant to de-orbit anyway.
TG-2 space-station is getting prepped as we speak for nex year's launch.

File: 56464074_p0.png (3MB, 2395x4013px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2395x4013px

>>30521785
Funny, in other fanart, she is drawn slim and black, just like the plane usually looks from the side profile.

>>30521888
no, the suits they wear in the capsule. They used a Russian EVA suit too for their first space walk

>>30521922
50 renminbi yuan have been deposited in your account. along with 5 good citizen points.

>>30521785
drawfags get on this ASAP pls

>>30521937

>Drawing a big transport plane as petite thin

No. Just no. Humanized transport planes should be big girls.

>>30521937
>J-20
>Slim

>>30521697
T H I C C

>>30522009

Just make sure she's the right size.

"The biggest transport plane in production right now" is not going to be the size of Kate Moss or a first-year college woman.

She needs to be big.

File: 1452824909620s[1].jpg (3KB, 125x71px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x71px

>>30521697

>>30521700
>The Y-20 makes China only the third nation in the world to design and build its own transport aircraft, along with Russia and the US.

As I know, the countries that did it before China :
US, Russia, Ukraine, Japan, Brazil

File: d39689cb39dbb6fd3ea433700a24ab18962b37b1.jpg (226KB, 1043x2000px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1043x2000px

>>30521785
search in baidu for 运-20娘

Not many new pics; Chinese weebs are hard at work tho.

File: 012738v6y62gyf0x6yptp6.jpg (72KB, 1390x941px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1390x941px

>>30522015
Like real grills, there are angles where she appears slim.

File: J-20vsF-22.jpg (245KB, 1521x2130px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1521x2130px

>>30522015

>>30522032
What FT probably meant is "heavy" transport aircraft.

Those with MTOW of 200+ tons

>>30522052
Yeah, so facebook angles where it can hide its chubbyness.

>>30522058
All 5th gens aren't slim. They're flat. Compare to 4th gens.

File: 96552ff79c16e25e50e067210220445c.jpg (493KB, 1060x1500px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 1060x1500px

>>30522038
>运-20娘

Not too thicc, but acceptable breasts.

With the new engines, she will grow fatter at the right places for sure.

>>30521697
Lets compare...

C-17

>Introduction: 1995
>Payload: 170,000 pounds
>Current Engine:4x 40,440 lbf
>Range: 4500 km
>Self Service: Yes
>Dirt runway: Yes

Y-20

>Introduction: 2016
>Payload: 145,000 pounds
>Current Engine: 4x 23,150 lbf each
>Possible Future Engine: 4x 26,000–31,000 lbf
>Range: 4,500 miles
>Self Service: Unknown
>Dirt runway: Unknown

Over 20 years late for a worse air frame. Chubby indeed.

>>30522032
and the UK, Spain, Italy and Canada.

>>30521700
>Y-20 makes China only the third nation in the world to design and build its own transport aircraft

This is nonsense. I don't understand why informative pieces feel the need to make sweeping claims that are more often than not, wrong.

>>30522120
Excuse me, the range for the Y-20 should be in kilometers.

>>30522142
>It has a maximum range of 7,800km partially loaded — roughly the distance between Beijing and Cairo.

It should be miles. Just like the C-17

>>30522065
Kawasaki C-2

Antonov An-225

>>30522124

It's just sloppy writing, mainly in the research area.

>>30522154
I was useing max load.

The C-17ER (that comprises the vast majority of them) Can go 5,200km at 160,000 lb.

>>30522178
C-2 has only 141ton MTOW

And AN-225 is "Russian/Soviet"

>>30522203
MTOW matters dick.

>>30522230
wut?

Of course it matters. It isnt the general classification for transport planes without reason.

MTOW is everything, including payload and fuel.

File: J-20 2016 vs. F-22 cockpit + front.jpg (177KB, 1268x1136px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1268x1136px

>>30522058
J-20 is actually bigger everything

>>30522024
agreed.

>>30522117
unf

>>30522124
And poland, brazil, japan, france and germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_transport_aircraft#Lists_of_fixed-wing_transport_aircraft

You could even include the large number of civilian aircraft re purposed for military transport and other roles. Bristol Britannia being a personal favourite.

>>30522253
Payload, fuel, and dead airframe weight.

>>30522117

She's pretty tiny.

>>30522265
no, the pilot is just smaller.

>>30521697

Pretty shitty transport plane to be honest.

I mean, they are competing against a 20 year old airframe, and failing miserably. Hell, even when it gets its new engines (if ever) it STILL wont be better than the C-17.

>>30522299

Out of curiosity, how is it bad and failing?

>>30522299
If you're never planning to fight the US, having a plane that is good enough is sufficient.

>>30522321
Same class as the C-17, but far, far worse payload, along with alot of important unknowns (austere runways, unprepared airfields, etc).

Then a bunch of other more minor stuff, like less efficient thrust reverses, etc.

File: 1-QKaAM059W4HyaOUFt-cMFQ.jpg (345KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1920x1280px

Guess we will see more KJ-2000 AWACS in the near future.

Those existing IL-76s would be converted to AWACS and Tankers, now, that the Y-20 arrived. China didnt have many of those anyway.

>>30522334
Failing to meet a 20 year old standard is pretty shitty.

>>30522299
>they are competing against a 20 year old airframe, and failing miserably.

No they aren't.

The only planes they are competing against are the ones they are using / producing.

This isn't a game of top trumps, they are developing domestic aircraft to replace foreign bought aircraft and clones.

So what if it has 80% of the payload of a western plane? you can bet it will be less than 80% of the price.

>>30522372
Most information is still unknown. Landing-gear wise, the Chinese actually had the requirement for unpaved runways when they designed the Y-20. For that, they even used a landing gear system of the A400M.

And the C-17 is MTOW 260+ tons. Not in the Y-20's class anymore.

The Y-20 is to the C-17 as the C-2 is to the Y-20. About 50 tons difference in MTOW.

Every country has their own requirements. For China, they just need something that can marginally carry more than their existing fleet of IL-76, and transport a Type 99 tank.

Russia served on with the IL-76 for decades, so it will be sufficient for China as well.

File: 2016-07-06 12.32.33.jpg (11KB, 110x92px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 110x92px

>>30521739
Top fuckong kek

>>30522405
>No they aren't. The only planes they are competing against are the ones they are using / producing.

Well fuck, if we are setting the bar that fucking low...

> they are developing domestic aircraft

That does not come close to matching a 20 year old airframe.

>you can bet it will be less than 80% of the price.

With the average wage in china being 7,500 dollers A YEAR, no shit.

>>30522423
>Most information is still unknown

But the most important info is not.

>>30522423
> Not in the Y-20's class anymore.

Just becuase the Y-20 fails to carry the same amount as a 20 year old airframe, does not mean its not in the same clase.

4 engine turbine cargo airframe of a roughly similar size. Its in the same class. Anything other than acknowledgement of this is pure damage control.

>>30522497

The Y-20 will be improved down the line, and it isnt too bad already to have something that is superior to the IL-76s they had before.

But whatever, you can take yoru BTFO-achievement back home if you want. You sure showed them chinks.

Whatever you want so you calm yourself at night, m8.

>>30522400
Not having a plane with strategic airlift capability is even shittier m8.

>>30522520
>The Y-20 will be improved down the line,

Only to 66 tons. The C-17 does 76 tons right now.

>But whatever, you can take yoru BTFO-achievement back home if you want.

It has nothing to do with BTFO anything. Its objectively an inferior aircraft. It could be french, British, uk, us, wouldnt matter.

TFW you have a transport plane fetish, even though it's a completely pointless and futile attraction to have.

>>30522497
>a 20 year old airframe.

You keep saying that like it means anything. F35 Is slower than aircraft from 60 years ago.

You think china was trying to build the absolute heaviest aircraft they could? Or do you think they were trying to design a step up in performance that could be procured in large amounts with versatility in mind.

You're clearly some kind of child who thinks if something isn't the best then its bad.

>>30522553
Maybe the Chinese didnt want a C-17?

Also, engines and payload and range will definitely be improved down the line. It was like this with the Y-8 series, then turned into the Y-9 with 10 tons more playload etc.

For the Y-20, there will not only be the WS-20 as an option, but also the SF-A engine. Or even Western options as the LEAP-1 series that the Chinese already use for their C919.

>>30522536
I agree, but its not like they completely lacked it.

They could have designed a better plane.

So what would have been a better transport plane design?

>>30522578
>You keep saying that like it means anything.

Well, for comparisons sake it is.

>F35 Is slower than aircraft from 60 years ago.

Apples to oranges. The C-17 can do everything the Y-20 can (most likely more, because fuck transparency when it comes to the PLAAF), and carry a fuckton more.

>You think china was trying to build the absolute heaviest aircraft they could?

Nope, nor is the C-17 the heaviest aircraft the US operates.

> Or do you think they were trying to design a step up in performance that could be procured in large amounts with versatility in mind.

I ASSUME they were trying to design the best plane in its class that they could. Their best does not match the C-17.

>You're clearly some kind of child who thinks if something isn't the best then its bad.

Its childish to call inferior things, inferior?

>>30522610
>Maybe the Chinese didnt want a C-17?

They clearly did, it has the same mission and the same general specifications.

> SF-A

Is worse than the WS-20, i didn't mention it because i felt it was not fair.

>>30522553
Nations are going to design and build military hardware based on their present circumstances that best suit their needs.

China just wants an 100% indigenous designed and manufactured plane that can into strategic airlift at an affordable price. Yeah its no where as good as the C-17 and their high by-pass turbofan engines aren't mature enough, but they're still working towards it.

You got to understand that the C-17 is a mature design continuously refined and improved from the early 90s. While the Y-20 is a completely new platform, its full potential has yet to be realized yet.

>>30522642

Much better engines, much better payload.

ITT a retard who cant understand why nations don't use An-225 for all cargo duties.

>>30522703
Sick non sequitur, brosef

>>30522667
>Nations are going to design and build military hardware based on their present circumstances that best suit their needs.

Presently, the best design they had was worse than a 20 year old design of similar nature.

> Yeah its no where as good as the C-17

Yeah, thats my entire point.

>You got to understand that the C-17 is a mature design continuously refined and improved from the early 90s.

It got ONE upgrade, the C-17A that added an extra fuel tank. Thats it.

>>30522703
It's an apple to apple comparison. C-17 is worse in class.

>>30522729
better*

>>30522614
That's the point; they indeed lacked it.

Only 20 IL-76 for an army of 2 million men. Even Lybia had a bigger IL-76 fleet.
And China was buying second-hand IL-76 from the Ukraine and some central asian states for years as stopgap.

The Y-20 is a compromise product and a result of China's technological level. They never had the suitable F117 180kn class engines of the C-17, not even the PS-90 engines of the Russians, and most western options arent so they had to design something that can perform well with the existing D-30KPs that they could freely import.

The result is a transport airplane that can be mass-produced after 3 and a half years of tests. Which is quite fast.

China usually settles with 80% solutions, because they grant them fast initial capability boost, which is what they really need. Not some pie in the sky that needs a decade to come out, but something that can be used ASAP.

>>30522729
Wew lad, damage control is off the chart.

>>30522714

>I mean, they are competing against a 20 year old airframe, and failing miserably.

It's the best performing and came from the 80's. So by your logic everything that came after is a failure.

Do you see how stupid you're being yet?

>>30522727
China cant wait for the technologies to mature for their own C-17 equivalent. They need the engines, mainly, which is China's weak-point.

But of course, China could be like India and demand super-specs for their first indigenous everything. But the price is to wait for a decade with significant cost-overruns and still lacking technological base.

Chinese are engineers. They want results as fast as possible, and not waiting for a decade for some super plane.

This is the difference.

Now, with the Y-20 in production and flying, they can actually work out the troubles and gain experience in producing 200ton MTOW class transport aircrafts. This is far better for their future developments than to start off by aiming for the top at the bat.

>>30522750
Uwotm8

>>30522743
>That's the point; they indeed lacked it.

If you are going to go the "MUH 2 MILLION" route, then they lack a hell of a lot more than transport planes. AFV's is a big one.

>The result is a transport airplane that can be mass-produced after 3 and a half years of tests.

The C-17 had 4 years, hardly a huge difference. The C-17 also never had to deal with interm engines.

>China usually settles with 80% solutions

Dont tell them that.

> Not some pie in the sky that needs a decade to come out

Again, a true C-17 analogue should not take a decade to come out. America managed 4 years in the 90's.

What i am getting at is it seems Chinese aviation is worse off than America 20 years ago.

>>30522690

Are "green" engines possible for transport planes? Seems we could get a lot more done with them if we didn't have to worry so much about fuel efficiency.

>>30522766
>It's the best performing and came from the 80's. So by your logic everything that came after is a failure.

Correct, if they were trying to fill the same role.

>>30522766
>It's the best performing and came from the 80's

The Y-20 and C-17 can do alot of shit the 225 cant, like take off from a runway thats not 3 miles long.

However, the C-17 can pretty much do whatever the Y-20 can do.

Nobody expects a pickup to haul what a semi does. Its in two different classes.

>>30522794
The way you made it sound is that the C-17 was in the same class as the 224. Which is just top tier crazy.

>>30522796
What did you expect? China isnt a technological leader and noone expected them to be superior to the US or even Russia. China's a catching up power at the moment and the Y-20 is a product of compromise.

And it is already good that China's just 20 years behind the US. Not 40 years, as they were merely ten years ago.

File: Screenshot 2016-07-06 at 19.09.14.png (182KB, 1572x742px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1572x742px

>>30522800
>if they were trying to fill the same role.


But they are doing the same role you fucking retarded cock womble.

>>30522819
But anon, the C-17 is both a tactical and a strategic airlifter.

>>30522796
>lower payload means you are worse off compared to the US

I guess this means that Europe and Japan are also worse off compared to the US, amirtite?

>>30522819
..Exactly, so failing to achieve the same performance means its an inferior design.

If they weren't made to "compete" or fill the same role as the C-17, then it would be excusable.

Got it, chum?

>>30522845

Well, NATO uses the C-17, i dont know how broad your definition of "Europe" is.

But yes, Japan specifically is worse off strategic airlift wise than the US, airframe to airframe (or lack therof)

File: 28130618405_bf4aac11b1_o.jpg (2MB, 4925x3283px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4925x3283px

I really like the paint-scheme.

>>30522438
pls explain

>>30522858
so you're admitting the C-17 is a failure because it came after An-225 and does not carry as much?

File: 28130614925_b35ff6a884_o.jpg (1MB, 4896x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4896x3264px

>>30522872
Landing gear is fucking beefy. Wouldnt be surprised if it can take off and land on unpaved strips.

>>30522882
An-225 was designed to carry the Buran and oversized loads, not strictly strategic airlift of military assets.

I get that your knowledge comes from wikipedia lists, but come on.

File: 27849499230_8b5d80d4ec_o.jpg (2MB, 4821x3214px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4821x3214px

>>30522907

>>30522882
The C-17 was meant to fill a tactical role too, hence why it does not carry as much.

See, different missions.

As a pure strategic airlifter, yes, it is an inferior design.

However, one would argue that strategically, the AN-225 a completely irrelevant factor, being that only one was ever made.

AN-124 is a better comparision, and is a damn good plane.

>>30522921
AN-124 then kek.

Seriously.

Your argumentation stinks.

Different countries have different requirements.

>>30522921
stop deflecting. You're the one who defines failure as not performing as well as an aircraft that came before.

C17 cant move as much, as far as An-225.

You're an idiot who thinks playing top trumps is a meaningful way of comparing aircraft that in no way compete directly.

>>30522961
An-225 cant be used tactically, therefore it is incomparable to a Y-20/C-17.

Pretty simple anon.

>>30522959
An-124 cannot be used tactically either.

>>30522961
>you

lel, somebody cant handle the fact that more than one person has a differing opinion.

>>30522959
The An-124-100 and the C-5A/B have roughly similar performance.

The An-125-150 came out 2 years ago, and has much better performance, but that is to be expected. The C-5B came out in 86'

>>30521697
20 years for a bad C-17

k

>>30523046
3.5 years.

China had no requirement for heavy airlifters 20 years ago.

>>30522120

Much like most domestic Chinese products, its just a shitty ripoff of something that the west had done well 20 years ago. Even when their new engines show up in 4 more years they're still not going to be as good as the ones we have.

At least the Russians have the courtesy to make their aircraft look different.

>>30523046
haha, if i post it again they wont think it's me despite the poster count staying the same.

>C-17 sized aircraft with Il-76 payload

wew lad, I guess it's better than nothing

>>30522120
you can probably get 5 Y20 for one C17

>>30523060
China's military expansion only began 20 or so years ago. And their military spending is just one sixth of the US.

>>30523075
Well the US has over 200 of the damn things, so china better get cracking.

Seriously though, fuel and aircrew costs, along with ground personnel makes this argument moot.

>>30523086
until last year it was illegal to send Chinese soldiers to fight in other countries. Even now they can only go abroad to fight terrorism.

>>30522610
>Maybe the Chinese didnt want a C-17?

Careful that you dont throw your back out when you're moving those goalposts so far anon.

Its the same size, same mission, same configuration as the C17. Saying that they intentionally wanted a shittier aircraft is some grade A damage control.

>>30523098
Oh, so the Japanese also wanted an intentionally shittier aircraft than the C-17 and Y-20?

>>30522743
>China usually settles with 80% solutions, because they grant them fast initial capability boost, which is what they really need. Not some pie in the sky that needs a decade to come out, but something that can be used ASAP.

Bingo. And it's interesting to note that the USN has suddenly adopted that same approach because they recently woke up and realized they might not have twenty years to arm up for the next war. Witness that program to develop the carrier-launched "do everything" drone being suddenly cut down to exactly one mission - air-to-air refueling tanker. That's less than 80%, but cutting requirements means they can replace our lost organic tanking ability on our carriers fast.

CHICOMS HATE HIM!

FIND OUT HOW THIS ONE WEIRD POST DERAILS CHICOM CIRCLEJERK THREADS.

CLICK HERE!!! >>30522120

>>30522796
>Dont tell them that.

I get the feeling you're not actually asspained about the J-20 so much as you're fucking tired of listening to chinks shill a perfectly normal technical advancement as WATCH OUT GAIJIN WE GOAN GIT U!!1!!ONE

>>30523121

I meant Y-20 but I guess J-20 applies to lel

File: Y-30 Transport Aircraft_.jpg (87KB, 1024x511px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1024x511px

>>30523097
With the expanding profile of the PLA, we can expect more airlifters in the future.

For once, the Y-30 is a indication that China wants soem A-400M styled multi-mission tactical transport as well.

>>30523121
>WATCH OUT GAIJIN WE GOAN GIT U!!1!!ONE

That's your projection.

Almost as much being projection out of feelings of guilt/paranoia, which causes the West to go mad over that new Chinese naval base in Djibouti.

>>30523108
>And it's interesting to note that the USN has suddenly adopted that same approach

wut?

> Witness that program to develop the carrier-launched "do everything" drone

WUT....

>Being suddenly cut down to exactly one mission - air-to-air refueling tanker.

RRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

UCLASS IS NOT CBARS (even if it uses the same airframe) RRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: 205724glagw6al4plvg48l.jpg (42KB, 672x506px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 672x506px

The winning proposal of a future strategic airlift by the Beihang University in China.

>>30523146
>That's your projection.

Do i really, REALLY, have to go into the archives?

File: hhkhkhdry54654.jpg (100KB, 672x552px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 672x552px

>>30523161

File: uyttuttu (1).jpg (96KB, 591x561px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 591x561px

>>30523171

File: 100730-F-0990S-003.jpg (3MB, 3847x2560px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3847x2560px

>>30521884
looks like USA can't do them right to me

File: m104_wolverine Armored bridge layer.jpg (75KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x401px

>>30523180
>Loading Wolverine

Thanks for picking up our bridge layer, china.

>>30523169
Do it.

You will only find reposted news articles written by shrill and alarmist Western authors, or the occassional ironic baitposting.

The rest is your own projection.

Hell, I know it hurts, but maybe go and read official Chinese news (in english) for once. You will never find any jingoist tone there.

>>30523204
Im not talking about offical chinese news, im talking about /k/.

>occasional

MUST I ANON?

YOU REALLY GOING TO MAKE ME DO IT?

>>30523208
Just do it, faggot.

I can assure you, you will only find
>ironic baitposting
>reporting of Fisher, Kopp, Gertz etc. and the other bunch of alarmist fags

File: 1464223000054.jpg (41KB, 700x900px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 700x900px

>chubby girl

They make my dick hard as fuck.

File: img_1959i.jpg (115KB, 348x542px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 348x542px

>Y-20 larger than C-17

wut.

It isnt.

The Y-20 is marginally larger than the IL-76

File: 35d9lq9.jpg (157KB, 960x1600px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 960x1600px

>>30523268
Yellow one is the Y-20.

>>30523223

Wew laddy, both heinessen and desustorage are down, NOW i see why you made the argument.

Get bent, fuccboi, you are fooling nobody.

>>30523243
T H I C C

>>30523314
why is desustorage down, anyway?

File: 1465611255480.gif (266KB, 666x666px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 666x666px

>>30521697
>Chinese
>Chubby girl

Lol, it doesnt even have winglets.

Way to go china, you're almost out of the 80s

>>30523328

who knows.

i mad.

>>30523243

I'd do NSFW stuff to that belly.

>>30523060
This. China loves to imitate western designs post gulf war. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but frankly it's annoying when dumbass and chinks try to claim their equipment to have parity with ours.

>>30523171
That chingrish though

>>30523332
it all makes sense now

>>30523347
same, it's annoying not being able to dive into the old shit when I wanna find something

>>30523381
>Japan loves to imitate western designs post Korean War. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but frankly it's annoying when dumbass and Nips try to claim their equipment to have parity with ours.

>>30523454
Lol, wut?

File: 1458430294435.png (46KB, 381x396px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 381x396px

>>30521697
That aircraft is T H I C K

>>30523146
>causes the West to go mad
>mad

... mad? This very article that started this thread quotes PLA jokers talking explicitly about enhancing power projection into the Indian Ocean. Chinks have been moving towards this for years. Why would it make us "mad?" They still can't match us off their own coast, much less the Indian Ocean.

File: 1467821872634.jpg (55KB, 317x152px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 317x152px

>>30522878
YOU WANT FRY CARGO!?

>>30523801

saved

File: 1452640121870.png (304KB, 472x470px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 472x470px

>>30523332

>>30523801
kek

File: 1370598147762.jpg (61KB, 538x627px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 538x627px

>>30523801

>>30521792
even funnier when you hear them say it
https://translate.google.com/#en/zh-CN/chubby%20girl

>>30523243
That's too much.

>>30521697

>"Last year China’s defence ministry released a white paper on strategy that emphasised the evolution of the country’s security needs away from simple territorial defence towards an offensive capacity overseas."

Oh shit.

File: 1342775976603.jpg (87KB, 1035x546px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1035x546px

POWER PROJECTION!!

WE WUZ OUT TO GET YA WHITEYS ROROROROR!!!1

TL note for the autist here:
>this is sarcasm

File: PLA Shock Forces Invading DC.jpg (162KB, 1280x527px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1280x527px

>>30524094
Y-20s will enable us to drop troops over Washington DC!

File: East China Sea patrol.jpg (322KB, 1440x960px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1440x960px

>>30524144
AMerikkka and Japan are fucking finished!!!11

Gibe plane porn

File: 1421797267825.jpg (983KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

983KB, 1920x1200px

Plens?

>>30521697
>"chubby girl"

AKA American

File: 222259e4tzo70zfij44qpz.jpg (27KB, 720x457px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 720x457px

Super lewd

File: 222308xrxrxwxoc1oou92x.jpg (63KB, 720x1072px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 720x1072px

>>30524299

File: image.jpg (66KB, 640x1028px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 640x1028px

>>30521752
>>30521763
>America will rely on Russia to get astronauts into space until at least 2024

File: 222255c3s34afvb3s4gzc6.jpg (21KB, 720x514px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 720x514px

>>30524310
That pointy nose is triggering me.

Why? Why does a transport plane have such a pointy nose?

>>30521900
What?

They put 3 people in it and it operated for 3 years. A whole year more than expected.

>>30522120
Nigga in 1995 they didn't even have transport planes.

Are you seriously saying "but America got there first" as a meaningful argument? It literally doesn't matter. They have an effective global heavy cargo plane.

File: 1442620933509.jpg (57KB, 500x562px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x562px

>>30523199
It was pilot error. So yea we can.

>>30522299
>I mean, they are competing against a 20 year old airframe,

But they are not.

If they only cared about "MUH PLANE BETTER THAN YOUR PLANE" they would have built a bigger transport and added two more engines.

>>30522400
No one except America's C-17 meets the standard of the C-17 you autist.

China isn't planning to invade Iraq any time soon. They care about South, East, and Central Asia.

>>30522663
The Y-20 in no way is meant to be China's C-17.

It is meant to replace the IL-76. That's all.

Being autistic and going MUH COMPETITION is meaningless.

>>30522663
>They clearly did, it has the same mission and the same general specifications.

So why does no other nation produce a transport plane more capable than the C-17?

Maybe just maybe it's because they don't need to.

File: 183823xzyfl44pp6o6pt3f.jpg (276KB, 800x1233px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 800x1233px

Predictions for the next few years.

Y-20 is a check now.

Only thing to wait for:

DF-41 and Type 095A SSN

>>30522796
>The C-17 had 4 years

Okay?

China was literally a nation of starving peasants when America was making the C-17. Why do you assume they have to beat America to be proud of their advances?

>>30522800
They are though.

Both planes are literally the same role.

>>30522930
>tactical role

So it fills a tactical role and the strategic airlift role of the An-225?

Because that sounds a lot like the AN-225 is filling the role better than the C-17.

Is it just me or did they sorta copy the C5 Galaxy.

>>30523060
What exactly does the Y-20 look like?

Because it does not look like a C-17 and is designed differently.

>>30523268
>b-but it's the Chinese C-17 anon
>d-dont ruin my memes

>>30523337
Winglets are not useful on some transport aircraft. And the benefits are marginal.

Delta/Continental actually stopped adding them because gas prices are low enough to make it not cost-effective.

Also, winglets are a product of the 2000's.

>>30524536
In no way did they. The plane is 2/3rd's the length of a C-5 and incorporates A-400, C-17, and RJ design.

>>30524417
>China's African colonies

File: Y-20 cargo bay by Ukrainian MoD.jpg (569KB, 1039x836px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 1039x836px

Even if weight cant compare tot he C-17, its cargo-bay is still pretty good.

>>30524312
To save money, not because the US lacks the technical ability.

>>30524493
>China was literally a nation of starving peasants when America was making the C-17.
>implying 3/4+ of Chinese are not still 3rd world

>>30524567
>50 cent shill that the Y-20 is the Chinese C-17
turns out to be a Chinese Il-76
>50 cent pretend Chinese C-17 was a anti-Chinese meme

Just likt the strawman that keeps popping up that the Y-20 was claimed to be fake.

>>30524705
What?

>>30524714
But we literally do you stupid fuck. Tell me how we'd indigenously send an astro to space within the year? We literally are rushing to get that anility because the Russians raised the flight price.

2024 at the earliest. Keep making fun of the Chinese who just put 3 more astronauts up a few months ago.

Something America currently CANNOT do.

>>30524726
Almost no one starves in China. They know their demographics are bad so they take care of the young.

But yeah, it is poor outside the 1st tier cities.

>>30524774
Western press claimed that the Y-20 was a C-17 copy or equivalent.
Chinese publications were always quite clear about the Y-20 merely being a strategic airlifter. No mentioning of its foreign equivalence.

>>30524469
>muh df-41

>>30524774
>50 cent meme
They never even once compared the two. That's just a couple autists ITT.

>turns out to be a Chinese Il-76
What?>>30524713

>Just likt the strawman that keeps popping up that the Y-20 was claimed to be fake.
?

>>30524778
>Something America currently CANNOT do.

You don't build credibility by making easily debunked statements.

>>30521697
>China’s ‘chubby girl’

Mei?

>>30524778
>Almost no one starves in China.
They're the 2nd most starving country on the planet, bro.

Only behind India because India is vegetarian.

>>30524820
>?

Threads about the Y-20 in the last week.

File: 1465062925067.png (156KB, 362x259px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 362x259px

>>30524778
>Chinaman talks shit about putting astronauts in space
>Only 55 years late.

>>30523801
kek now i understand, saved

File: 1462498948933.jpg (128KB, 735x960px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 735x960px

>>30524778
>something america currently CANNOT do
Wew lad.

>>30524856
Sorry for the memes, but this isnt true.

Noone actually starves in China.

Fuckign poor, yes. But no starvation since the 70s anymore.

>>30525225
>No one
over 133 million people are malnourished in China as of 2015.

http://english.agri.gov.cn/news/dqnf/201506/t20150612_25844.htm
according to their own government. They're improving, but they still have nearly 10x the hunger rate in China than the developed world.

>>30524938
no kidding, NASA is well into the process for a manned Mars mission and chinamen are still talking about putting things in orbit as an achievement.

>>30525265
China has raised the minimum wage and calorine line several times in the last couple years, raising their 'starvation'-line higher and higher.

If anything, starvation for me means that people die of starvation and not having not enough calorines per month to grow /fit/.

Hell, the PLA themselves produces so many surplus uniforms last year because their new recruits just happen to grow out of their largest sized uniforms in stock.

>>30524328
Because Asians love perky noses.

File: 1313684588753.jpg (15KB, 374x250px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 374x250px

>>30521697
>200-300 produced

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAHAHAHA

>>30525297
>China has raised the minimum wage and calorine line

Which has nothing to do with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization's definition.

>>30522120
Let's compare...

A400

>Introduced: 2013
>Payload: 81,600 pounds
>Current Engine: 4x11,000hp
>Range: 3,300 km

Y-20

>Introduction: 2016
>Payload: 145,000 pounds
>Current Engine: 4x 23,150 lbf each
>Range: 4,500 km

Bongs bailed just in time.

>>30527539
>Payload: 145,000 pounds

That is an estimate with engines that do not exist, it will not carry more than an Il-76MD.

air lift is a fucking meme

Air lifting armored vehicles is a criminal waste of money
The only thing I can accept worth airlifting is munitions, for security reasons.

>>30522265
>dragon decal
>+10 speed

File: dobrv2I.jpg (180KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1600x1200px

>>30527915
>WS-20 does not exist

I guess they were test flying thin air all the time, right?

Get the fuck out.

>>30527916
Big planes are really good at moving a lot of people quickly, why airlines use them..

Total shit at moving tanks though, I agree.

File: 1410256149932.gif (1MB, 250x141px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x141px

>>30521785
>That pic
DOUJINS WHEN

>>30528039
>Y-20's equipped with WS-20 engines

0

>WS-20 engines ready for production

0

>>30521697
>literal design copy of the c17

come onnnnn

>>30527916
Most stuff isn't moved by air

>>30523091
Don't agree, and here is why.

The U.S. has built, and maintained their fleet for years now. The costs have been sunk.

To maintain the qualatative to quantative ratio, we will have to begin building new heavy transports when China ramps up to full scale production. We have been sinking money for years, and all their toys are new.

We are the ones that will react to their building. Its like the dreadnaught problem the British had before WWI. They couldn't maintain their projections for tonnage when everybody also began building new battleships.

>>30523314
Oh so you're just a dumbass who can't even find desustorage's new site. It's no wonder that you believe the CHINA STRONK shitposting.

>>30521697

>Chubby girl

THICC

>>30521853

Well, that means it's larger than the C-17.

http://www.bilibili.com/video/av5237561/

>>30531250
Comparative to cost and wealth, it's nothing like the dreadnought naval race. What you're saying is true, though it all depends on how big of a deal the DoD thinks it is. As it looks right now, the US seems to not be inclined to blow the money.

>>30531250
But the C-17 is already much better than the Y-20.

At a quantitative and qualitative level, the us is and will be ahead until a new design comes out of china.

>>30531540
C-17 has been built and is done.

>>30531383
Where is it? As far as i know, its done.

>>30521697
>size of a c-17
>payload no where near the c-17

LAUGHABLE

>>b....but china intentionally built a worse plane!

The damage control ITT is off the fuckin charts.

>>30531886
Size of the C-17

No.

MTOW is 200 vs 260ton

See:

>>30523268

>>30531872
Try finding their twitter.

Funny of you to think anyone would bother 'shilling' for the J-20, Y-20 or whatever the fuck else on /k/.

Y-20 is still enough for China to drop airborne tanks over Taiwan. No need for a C-17 for it.

>>30531891
Physical size.

Just because its engines and payload is shit does not mean its significantly smaller.

The C-17 can take off from the same runways (most likely more, because its confirmed to be able to do unprepared runways), go the same distance, but carry a fuckton more.

>>30531894
>still no link
>unconfirmed, unlinked twitter

Bait senses are tingleing.

>>30531906
Because the C-17 has four 180kn F-117 engines, while the Y-20 has four 110kn D-30KP engines.

>>30531911
And?

The WS-20 engines that might be put on it, still does not raise the Y-20s payload close to that of the C-17

File: I8lKbk3h.png (262KB, 414x414px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 414x414px

>>30531910
You really are retarded aren't you? Just searching two words in google (one of which is obviously desustorage) would give you the result at the top of the page. From there you can see the new URL underneath the profile picture.

>>30531921
WS-20 are projected to be 140kn max.

China simply does not have anything approaching the 180kn range. Not in low-bypass and not in high bypass.

Maybe with the Brexit, the EU weapons ban will fall as well, and China could import suitable CFM engines for that matter.

>>30531929
Same applies to Russia as well. Their PS-90 equipped IL-76 will still only be able to carry 60 tons, even lower than the Y-20's maximum payload.

Not everyone has requirement for 76 ton payload of the C-17. Honestly, they hardly have anything that weights so much and still can be fit into the cargo bay of either plane.

>>30531929
So, in essence, china is still more than 20 years behind usaf airlift technology.

>>30531941
The point your makeing does not make sense.

The C-17 can do everything the Y-20 can, there is no advantage to the Y-20 having a lower payload other than the inability to design a plane/engines with a higher one.

Its not a matter of having the ability and chooseing not to, its a matter of inability.

File: CJ-1000A_2.jpg (97KB, 950x634px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 950x634px

>>30531929
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACAE_CJ-1000A

CJ-1000A

196kn

But developed for the C919 as indigenous engine option. Wouldnt be surprising if they used it for a future variant of the Y-20 though.

But if they used it, it would be a monster that overpowers the F-117.

>>30531953
Soviets, who can make things like the AN-124 and AN-224, still decided upon an 50 ton payload cargo plane for general usage, the IL-76.

>>30531954
America BTFO

>>30531957
The IL-76 was made in '74.

Nobody expects that to match a plane made in 95

>>30531250
>Its like the dreadnaught problem the British had before WWI. They couldn't maintain their projections for tonnage when everybody also began building new battleships.
How is it like the dreadnought race in WW1? USA has more AND better transport.

>>30531965
So, why dont the Russians modernize their IL-76 with engines that makes them capable of loading 80 tons? But somehow, they decided to pour their effort into developing the PS-90, which will allow them to carry less than the "shitty" Y-20?

And why dont the Russians just use the AN-124 for everything?

>>30531965
The Kawasaki C-2 was made in 2010 and introduced at the same time as the Y-20, in 2016.

And it can only carry 37 tons.

America, please tell your Japanese dogs to git gud.

>>30531970
Because the Il-76 is an old design. There is more to it than engines.

>>30531980
The Kawasaki is strictly a tactical airlift.

Different mission

File: triggerd.png (463KB, 499x501px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 499x501px

>"Chubby"
>"girl"

>>30531963
Really niggah? *See link below

>>30531954

Its not as if the F117 is the be all end all of engines America COULD use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW4000

>230 to 441 kN
>441
>Four hundred and forty one.

>>30531970
The current Y-20 can only carry the payload of an Il-76MD, new Il-76 with the PS-90 engines can carry far more than the Y-20.

>>30532274
>Thrust-to-weight ratio: 6–7
Big fucking deal.

>>30532505
You silly ignorant man.

6-7 is pretty damn good.

F117 has 5-6.

F135, a stupid powerful fighter engine, has 7 without afterburner.

The current engine in the Y-20 has a 3.8 T/W.

Lurk more, newfag.

File: 27648802481_40247ffe9a_o.jpg (135KB, 726x620px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 726x620px

>>30532010
There is basically only engine. The IL-76 could carry more, if it has 180+kn engines. There's basically no difference between C-17 and IL-76 in terms of airframe and wing design (winglets do not count, as they are just for fuel efficiency).

The Y-20's airframe is already quite modern, utilizing composites and a more aerodynamic design, as well as using super-critical wings that the C-17 doesnt even have. The only bottleneck are the current Russian engines.

And nowhere it is said that the C-2 is a tactical transport aircraft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-2

It is rather said that the Japanese considered the C-17, A400M and C-130J and none of them were satisfying their needs:

>After researching foreign aircraft such as the C-130J Super Hercules, C-17 Globemaster III, and Airbus A400M, the Japanese Ministry of Defense concluded that there was no aircraft currently in production that possessed the capabilities that the JASDF required. In response to this need, the Japanese MOD commenced the production of plans to develop an indigenously designed and manufactured transport aircraft.

So, in your opinion, the Japanese have settled for some failed design, right? I mean, even India operates the C-17. There's no way that the Japs shouldnt have gotten themselves C-17s as well, since bigger/more payload = always better, right?

Evidently, they wanted a strategic airlift. Or else, they would have just bought the thousands of C-130Js with similiar payload as their C-2 for cheaps.

File: 133402hcz2cd3iajvb638z.jpg (1MB, 4896x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4896x3264px

Does it have a FLIR system on the nose?

File: four WS-20.jpg (103KB, 766x1314px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 766x1314px

4x WS-20 on the IL-76 Testbed!!!

WS-20 soon

>>30532527

t/w of 7 lol, you'd be lucky to get 1.5 on top end fighters, planes like this usually sit around 0.1-0.15.

>>30532626
>There is basically only engine.

That is false, so, so false.

>There's basically no difference between C-17 and IL-76 in terms of airframe and wing design

WEW LAD.

>nowhere on the wiki does it say its a tactical air transport.

I mean, fuck, if the wiki does not say it, then its not true, right?

There are things the C-2 can do that the C-17 cant. Much shorter wingspan, only two engines, very short take off even at MTOW.

>>30532789
We are talking about the ENGINES T/W, silly man.

>>30532808
why would that even be relevant though? engine t/w is really not that important.

>>30532798
C-2 isnt a tactical transport. Deal with it. Japan could have bought the C-130J for that role as well. C-2 is a multipurpose strategic transport that Japan needs to deploy troops to their Southern Islands, the Senkaku and to their 'asian allies' that Abe wants to militarily support in case of war with China. This is something you cant do with C-130s.

>There are things the C-2 can do that the C-17 cant. Much shorter wingspan, only two engines, very short take off even at MTOW.

And the Y-20 also can take off with short runway. Supercritial wings help them with it.
And no, it doesnt say this in wiki. You evidently agree with me on that:

>I mean, fuck, if the wiki does not say it, then its not true, right?

Who gives a fuck?

I wish OP would just be banned already, he doesn't add any useful information, just regurgitates links and makes the same shit tier style threads constantly. I'd rather have a dozen MAGS VS CLIPS threads than this shill shit.

>>30532818
Because the other poster implied that a 6-7 engine T/W is somehow not impressive.

The C-17 is absolute cold war era garbage, new American heavy transport when?

>>30532836
>Who gives a fuck?
>I wish OP would just be banned already, he doesn't add any useful information, just regurgitates links and makes the same shit tier style threads constantly. I'd rather have a dozen MAGS VS CLIPS threads than this shill shit.
I like the Chinese shill. It gives /k/ some interesting non Western news to discuss besides endless shitposting.

>>30532838
Well, the engine probably suffered in other areas due to this. Its cool though, but indeed not that impressive.

>>30532829
>And the Y-20 also can take off with short runway.

The C-17 can take off of the same runway as the Y-20.

>And no, it doesnt say this in wiki.

What, the design requirements? Yes it does.

>The C-2 is being developed to meet the following requirements of the Ministry of Defense: a minimum payload of 26 tonnes, 120 short ton (240,000 lb 108.8 tonnes) take-off weight, ability to land on short runways, (e.g. Tachikawa—900 m), a maximum payload of 37,600 kg whilst taking off from a 2,300 m Take-off Field Length at a 141 short ton (282,000 lb 127.9 tonnes) take-off weight, ability to fly international airway routes, in-flight aerial refueling and forward looking infrared systems.

C-17 cant land on a 900m runway at weight. When its wet, they require nearly twice that.

In essence, you are comparing a two engine plane to a four engine plane of wildly different sizes and roles.

Me, im comparing a 4 engine plane to a 4 engine plane, of the same role.

>>30532861
>Well, the engine probably suffered in other areas due to this.

What?

>Its cool though, but indeed not that impressive.

Its pretty damn impressive, i mean there is no two ways about it.

Its certainly more impressive than anything the Chinese are coming out with.

>>30532878
well the F1 engine had a t/w of about 80...

>>30532869
>4 engine vs 2 engine

Stop deflecting.

The C-2 has better engines than the Y-20:

>Powerplant: 2 × GE CF6-80C2K1F[37], 59,740 lbf (266 kN) each

2 of the C-2's engines (532) are still considerably more powerful than 4 of Y-20's D-30KP (110Kn per piece, 440kn in total). And still, it cant carry more than an A-400M.

Saying this; KEK I guess I will win this discussion if I agreed with your point before:

>Because the Il-76 is an old design. There is more to it than engines.

There seems to be indeed more to it than engines: And it seems the Japs are very bad at it. Engines arent even Jap to begin with, so it would be fair to say that the Japanese are 20 years behind China and the Soviet Union, who are 20 years behind the US (according to you).

YOU: SELF REKT

>>30532891
And the merlin 1d has about 180
rockets ain't turbofans

>>30532891
The rocket engine?

No shit anon.

>>30532898
B T F O
T
F
O

File: 89E4D597-57B7-4744-A2F5-B67BAA5212D5_zpsb6p2lquq.jpg (40KB, 900x579px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 900x579px

>>30532878
>Its certainly more impressive than anything the Chinese are coming out with.


More impressive than China's DF-ZF Hypersonic Glider that is quickly approaching IOC, compared to the US' sad attempt at PGS, which failed 2 out of two times?

KEK

>>30532898
>The C-2 has better engines than the Y-20:

But is overall much smaller than the Y-20, which was the entire point.

>KEK I guess I will win this discussion if I agreed with your point before:

So you do agree that there is more to design than just the engines. Thats fine, thats been my point the entire time.

>: And it seems the Japs are very bad at it.

Again, the C-2 can do things the C-17 cant, hence its total design.

The C-17 can do anything the Y-20 can do.

Im glad you agree with me about the engines though.

File: 133147w66hvvkdbhzm8vv5.jpg (124KB, 2957x383px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 2957x383px

Aircraft comparisson:

Y-20 is significantly smaller than the C-17. It is indeed China's IL-76 replacement.

>>30532902
I was saying that the t/w of the engine itself doesnt fucking matter. hell, the engine in the f117 was actually used in the fa18 aswell, nothing special about.

>>30532919

US has hyper sonic weapons that don't need to go into the upper atmosphere to work, and that actually hit targets.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/advanced-hypersonic-weapon-ahw/

>In November 2011, AHW was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii, to the Reagan Test Site on the Marshall Islands. The glide vehicle successfully hit the target, which is located about 3,700km away from the launch site.

hypersonics are old, old news.

>>30532933
>Y-20 is significantly smaller than the C-17

Nope.

see >>30523291

>>30532931
532 KILONEWTONS!!! FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY TWO!

Seriously. How did the Japs fail at that?

Even if the C-2 is smaller than the Y-20, it just means that its cargo-bay is. With that much thrust, they could easily haul more than the Y-20, even if it was just some buckets of mercury or gold.

Japs still fail at airframe design, then.

Y-20 can evidently take off in rain and wet/icy runway: It was a requirement from the start and it was tested in Tibet for that matter. So, no deflection here.

>>30532953
Are you blind? The Y-20 is smaller on both pictures.

>>30532956

Anon, there is less than a 10% difference between the size of the C-17 and the Y-20.

>>30532898
America: Blown the Fuck Out.

>>30532954
>With that much thrust, they could easily haul more than the Y-20, even if it was just some buckets of mercury or gold.

Again, thats not how it works.

With smaller airframes, wings, etc, the engines have to work harder to keep heavy loads in the air.

>Y-20 can evidently take off in rain and wet/icy runway: It was a requirement from the start and it was tested in Tibet for that matter.

Its not the fact that the runway is wet, its that it was wet and very short. And it was not about take off, it was about landing.

File: pak-ta program.png (770KB, 1051x525px) Image search: [Google]

770KB, 1051x525px

In my opinion, china failed with conception of the future heavy cargo plane.

The cargo plane of the future in the class of 80tonnes should be with the two engines.

>>30532993
Engine thrust is still the most important factor and the Japanese failed that they cant carry more than a A-400M (42 meters wingspan, 42m length vs 44 meters wingspan and 43,9m length of the C-2), which carries as much and also just needs 900m runway to take off.

>>30533022
A-400M also just needs 625m of runway for landing.

Japan: 20 years behind Europe and China according to your logic.

File: Airbus_A400M_EC-404_MSN_004_at_Seville.jpg (434KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 1024x683px

>>30533031
Also, A-400M is a turboprop as well Kek.

>>30533022
>Engine thrust is still the most important factor

No, its not.

Its a combination of wing size, design, engine, etc.

>Japanese failed that they cant carry more than a A-400M

Actually, it carries slightly more.

The reason they did not pick the A-400M was range and speed. Otherwise, the A-400M would have been a fantastic choice (and is a very, very good plane)

>chicom 50c cant compete with american designs
>Change the subject to jap designs

The asshurt is real.

>>30531980
The Y-20 is nearly twice the size of the C-2 yet can only carry ~10 tons more.

>>30522120
Different kind of mind behind the concepts.
you don't go into production costs, you don't cover consumption (in terms of fuel, spare parts, man hours to repair ect) and countries image.

Not taking into account combat and long term military uses.

>>30534881
Other than production costs (which will be lower in china regardless), the C-17 logically is equal to or beats the Y-20 in pretty much every category you listed.

>>30524705

And their interests in the Panama Canal Zone.

>THICC
>5 matches
>T H I C C
>3 matches

Excellent

>>30524778

China is a demographics timebomb waiting to explode, mostly because of their One Child Policy that lasted longer than it should have.

>>30533187
Japs claim to be the rightful leaders of asia. Hence it is a double shame that they fail at that.

Just like how they were recently BTFO by the Chinese Su-30 drivers over the ECS.

>>30535115
>what is automatization

The entire pearl river delta is already switching to robots. The old meme of needing a human workforce is just that, a meme.

Robots already replace 90% of the workers in the Southern Chinese factories, mainly because the wage is rising too fast.

>>30533524
It carries 66 tons.

>inb4 it needs WS-20

It was never officially states that they need the WS-20 for the 66 tons. The PLAAF always said that they achieved the target specs with what they have now. And the PLAAF wants to transport their Type 99 to Tibet when the Indians get some weird ideas.

File: F-2.png (529KB, 1024x733px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1024x733px

>>30533056
>The reason they did not pick the A-400M was range and speed. Otherwise, the A-400M would have been a fantastic choice (and is a very, very good plane)

Shameful display. 533 Kilonewtons cant carry significantly more than the A400M, that is powered by turboprops that are still specced in horse-power.

Japan is pretty shit. According to your logic, they are 20 years behind China and Russia.

Pic: Oh, Japan is really that shit.

File: F-2 1.png (785KB, 1015x769px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 1015x769px

>>30535546

>>30535531
>heavier than an Il-76MD
>same engines as an Il-76MD
>~50% more payload than a Il-76MD

No.

>>30535593
Believe it.

Wing and airframe design does make a difference. Or do you want to revide your previous statement about 'engine not being everything'?

>>30535596
If that were the case then the Il-76MD-90 would not be able to match the Y-20's claimed payload like it does.

>>30535596
You are under the illusion that only a single anon disagrees with you.

>>30521884
You have to remember that the chinese are a little behind in things mechanically speaking. Look at their cars too. Everything is just odd, and they try to copy everyone else because they dont know how to do it themselves..... witch is the chinese in general.