Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The potential for joint Russian-Chinese collaboration

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • JSR
    JSR
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Aug 2011
    • 4976

    #61
    Originally posted by Deino View Post

    Would you do us a favour and stop posting BS until the Il96M reaches indeed a range of 24k km, the R-77 reaches 800km, until the RuN has ist next generation carrier fleet, the PAK-DA operational and maybe even the Su-57 in comparable numbers, that would justify to call it operational?

    Otherwise the amount of BS you post is barely readable ... I'm really not sure, what you smoke or consume nor why such an amount of deliberately posted false information, fake and BS is allowed here, in nearly each and every other Forum it would be called trolling.
    you are posting information about paper plana aka C919. it hasn't demonstrated even 5000km range let alone special modification for long range missions like 10k+ missions.
    my replies are based on taking account solid engineering skills with demonstrated competencies.


    8000km range Sukhoi business Jet.
    https://www.controller.com/blog/airc...-configuration
    Powered by two PowerJet SaM146 turbo-fan jets, the SBJ includes a Thales Avionic Suite, 4,250-nautical mile (7,871-kilometer) flight range in the VIP configuration with eight passengers, Mach 0.81 high cruise speed, 109,019-pound (49,450-kilogram) takeoff weight, and nearly 7-foot (2.1-meter) cabin height


    10,500km range with 2010 Electronics. newer lighter avionics, electricals will further increase the range with newer engines. 15K range is for Tu-214 class.
    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-214pu-349498/
    This extended-range aircraft, dubbed the Dalnii version, feature improved onboard systems, larger fuel tanks and a range of up to 10,500km (5,680nm)


    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-il-96-445788/
    This aircraft would use four Aviadvigatel PS-90A1 engines, which each have a thrust of 38,360lb (171kN). Ilyushin says these are "more powerful and efficient" than the PS-90A at 35,270lb.

    you can see there is no potential for cooperation in special mission aircraft. C929 is experimental project at this point. whose technology may well be applied to IL96M first.

    Comment

    • JSR
      JSR
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2011
      • 4976

      #62
      Originally posted by wilhelm View Post
      Il-96 is massive overkill for the MPA role.
      it weighs in at around 270t fully loaded.
      To put that into context, it is 50 tons heavier than a B-52 bomber, and more than 3 times the weight of a Nimrod.
      A twin engine, such as a Tu-204, Superjet, or an MC-21, or one of the new Russian twin transport aircraft in the pipeline makes better economic sense.

      .
      To put into context. J-7►J-10►J-20 size are increasing at rate of 100%. now imagine the size of 6G fighter with its big sensors, long range, long missiles.
      only MPA that has flexibility of parked at distance with big sensors, endurance will be effective.




      Comment

      • Deino
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jan 2000
        • 4225

        #63
        Originally posted by JSR View Post
        ...
        my replies are based on taking account solid engineering skills with demonstrated competencies.
        ...
        Again, show me the 800km range of the R-77, the 24,000km range of the Il-96M you claimed ... Show me the carrier groups, a stealth bomber and an operational fifth generation fighter.

        So much on "solid engineering skills with demonstrated competencies".

        Click image for larger version

Name:	Facepalm3.jpg
Views:	470
Size:	73.3 KB
ID:	3869614

        ...

        He was my North, my South, my East and West,
        My working week and my Sunday rest,
        My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
        I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

        The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
        Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
        Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
        For nothing now can ever come to any good.
        -------------------------------------------------
        W.H.Auden (1945)

        Comment

        • JSR
          JSR
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Aug 2011
          • 4976

          #64
          Again, show me the 800km range of the R-77, the 24,000km range of the Il-96M you claimed
          Show me the carrier groups, a stealth bomber and an operational fifth generation fighter.

          . I have never made any claim regarding Carrier groups. Carrier group speed is still stuck in 1960s. only Chinese need to concentrate on it.

          I cannot repeat the same thing in every thread

          Compared to 1980s the range of Surface to air, Cruise missiles have increased by 10 times. so why you think AAM range hasn't increased by 10 times..
          Sukhoi Superjet range double in VIP version. there is no reason IL96M special mission version cannot be more than doubled considering more efficient engines.

          fighter are comfortable for 10 hour flights.

          comfortable cabin crew provide a nonstop flight of up to 10:00 without loss of efficiency of the crew.


          15 hour flghts for bomber. with Tu-160M2 further increase in range.
          https://www.express.co.uk/videos/5995325821001/Russian-TU-160-jets-take-15-hour-flight
          Russian TU-160 jets take 15-hour flight
          According to a bomber pilot these flights are becoming more routine for Russian pilots


          China has shown zero ability for continuous long range missions. So it is highly unlikely it can contribute to project where primary mission is long range and loitering.

          Comment

          • Trident
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • May 2004
            • 3965

            #65
            Both sides are striving for independence in military matters, Russia to maintain theirs and China to gain it. As others have pointed out this rather limits the potential scope, more so for some decisions taken on the Russian side over the past 10 or 20 years.

            For example, airframe-wise the clean-sheet Y-20 is a much better stab at a modern medium jet transport than the re-engined Il-76 but is hamstrung by its outdated engines. A joint design with Russia contributing PS-90A engines (which are much more competitive and would take a lot of pressure out of the WS-20 schedule), support in airframe design such as a more advanced flap system and a MAWS/DIRCM suite would have been a good deal for both sides. From Russia's point of view buying Ukraine out of the An-70 and An-124 in a similar manner to how they now cut Uzbekistan out of Il-76 production could have been even better, but would probably have been very difficult to achieve diplomatically.

            For the tanker role the CR929 is a prospect, but a rather distant one. It won't fly until 2025ish at the earliest with civilian EIS in 2027 or later, a tanker conversion programme is complicated by the carbon fibre wings and Western equipment that is not scheduled to be replaced until later. It is difficult to envisage such a tanker becoming available in numbers before 15 years from now, so both sides need another solution to bridge this considerable gap and the Il-96 fits the bill perfectly. As wilhelm notes, while it is not competitive as an airliner (never was, like the MD-11 which has comparable capabilities), neither is the 767 nowadays and it still makes a decent refueling platform. In fact, such a tanker might already be a reality but for the stupid decision-making on the Il-76 explained above - compared to the An-70, the Il-76 looked so bad that it took commonality with tanker and AEW fleet to make a half-decent argument for it, leaving Russia with inferior solutions for all tasks.

            The situation is similar for AWACS, but Russia having failed to adopt the Il-96 in the mid-2000s for the same reasons why it did not become the basis for a tanker, it is now too big really. A good AEW system can be hosted on a smaller, cheaper narrow-body today and still deliver good endurance, making the Tu-214 the prime candidate (apparently migrating the A-100 to that platform from the Il-76 is under consideration). With the C919 and MS-21 similar issues to the CR929 arise, and a MPA is subject to the same size considerations as AEW.

            Outside aerospace, I think a somewhat shortened derivative (say, 37000t?) of the PLAN's new Type 901 replenishment ship would be a good fit for the Russian Northern & Pacific Fleets (for the Baltic and Black, that new 14000t oiler Russia recently built is probably adequate).

            Oh, and as far as JSR is concerned: Ignore List, Deino! Trust me, it helps.
            Last edited by Trident; 2nd August 2019, 23:03.
            sigpic

            Comment

            • J-20
              Rank 4 Registered User
              • Jan 2018
              • 255

              #66
              Originally posted by Trident View Post
              Both sides are striving for independence in military matters, Russia to maintain theirs and China to gain it. As others have pointed out this rather limits the potential scope, more so for some decisions taken on the Russian side over the past 10 or 20 years.

              For example, airframe-wise the clean-sheet Y-20 is a much better stab at a modern medium jet transport than the re-engined Il-76 but is hamstrung by its outdated engines. A joint design with Russia contributing PS-90A engines (which are much more competitive and would take a lot of pressure out of the WS-20 schedule), support in airframe design such as a more advanced flap system and a MAWS/DIRCM suite would have been a good deal for both sides. From Russia's point of view buying Ukraine out of the An-70 and An-124 in a similar manner to how they now cut Uzbekistan out of Il-76 production could have been even better, but would probably have been very difficult to achieve diplomatically.

              For the tanker role the CR929 is a prospect, but a rather distant one. It won't fly until 2025ish at the earliest with civilian EIS in 2027 or later, a tanker conversion programme is complicated by the carbon fibre wings and Western equipment that is not scheduled to be replaced until later. It is difficult to envisage such a tanker becoming available in numbers before 15 years from now, so both sides need another solution to bridge this considerable gap and the Il-96 fits the bill perfectly. As wilhelm notes, while it is not competitive as an airliner (never was, like the MD-11 which has comparable capabilities), neither is the 767 nowadays and it still makes a decent refueling platform. In fact, such a tanker might already be a reality but for the stupid decision-making on the Il-76 explained above - compared to the An-70, the Il-76 looked so bad that it took commonality with tanker and AEW fleet to make a half-decent argument for it, leaving Russia with inferior solutions for all tasks.

              The situation is similar for AWACS, but Russia having failed to adopt the Il-96 in the mid-2000s for the same reasons why it did not become the basis for a tanker, it is now too big really. A good AEW system can be hosted on a smaller, cheaper narrow-body today and still deliver good endurance, making the Tu-214 the prime candidate (apparently migrating the A-100 to that platform from the Il-76 is under consideration). With the C919 and MS-21 similar issues to the CR929 arise, and a MPA is subject to the same size considerations as AEW.

              Outside aerospace, I think a somewhat shortened derivative (say, 37000t?) of the PLAN's new Type 901 replenishment ship would be a good fit for the Russian Northern & Pacific Fleets (for the Baltic and Black, that new 14000t oiler Russia recently built is probably adequate).

              Oh, and as far as JSR is concerned: Ignore List, Deino! Trust me, it helps.
              you're the most normal reply so far as Deino and JSR are on the same side.

              so from all the intelligent replies here

              joint Communist force would benefit the most from:

              Y-20 but with Russian engines
              AWACS based on MS-21 using a balance beam
              MPA based on MS-21
              larger tanker and AWACS based on C919 whenever it arises
              until then Il-96M
              J-31 for carrier ops on both sides, but needs new Russian engines
              New Russian Shpurm Carrier for both
              Chinese catapult on Shpurm Carrier
              joint project for An-24 replacement

              Comment

              • Multirole
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jan 2000
                • 903

                #67
                Originally posted by Trident View Post
                Both sides are striving for independence in military matters, Russia to maintain theirs and China to gain it. As others have pointed out this rather limits the potential scope, more so for some decisions taken on the Russian side over the past 10 or 20 years.

                For example, airframe-wise the clean-sheet Y-20 is a much better stab at a modern medium jet transport than the re-engined Il-76 but is hamstrung by its outdated engines. A joint design with Russia contributing PS-90A engines (which are much more competitive and would take a lot of pressure out of the WS-20 schedule), support in airframe design such as a more advanced flap system and a MAWS/DIRCM suite would have been a good deal for both sides. From Russia's point of view buying Ukraine out of the An-70 and An-124 in a similar manner to how they now cut Uzbekistan out of Il-76 production could have been even better, but would probably have been very difficult to achieve diplomatically.

                For the tanker role the CR929 is a prospect, but a rather distant one. It won't fly until 2025ish at the earliest with civilian EIS in 2027 or later, a tanker conversion programme is complicated by the carbon fibre wings and Western equipment that is not scheduled to be replaced until later. It is difficult to envisage such a tanker becoming available in numbers before 15 years from now, so both sides need another solution to bridge this considerable gap and the Il-96 fits the bill perfectly. As wilhelm notes, while it is not competitive as an airliner (never was, like the MD-11 which has comparable capabilities), neither is the 767 nowadays and it still makes a decent refueling platform. In fact, such a tanker might already be a reality but for the stupid decision-making on the Il-76 explained above - compared to the An-70, the Il-76 looked so bad that it took commonality with tanker and AEW fleet to make a half-decent argument for it, leaving Russia with inferior solutions for all tasks.

                The situation is similar for AWACS, but Russia having failed to adopt the Il-96 in the mid-2000s for the same reasons why it did not become the basis for a tanker, it is now too big really. A good AEW system can be hosted on a smaller, cheaper narrow-body today and still deliver good endurance, making the Tu-214 the prime candidate (apparently migrating the A-100 to that platform from the Il-76 is under consideration). With the C919 and MS-21 similar issues to the CR929 arise, and a MPA is subject to the same size considerations as AEW.

                Outside aerospace, I think a somewhat shortened derivative (say, 37000t?) of the PLAN's new Type 901 replenishment ship would be a good fit for the Russian Northern & Pacific Fleets (for the Baltic and Black, that new 14000t oiler Russia recently built is probably adequate).

                Oh, and as far as JSR is concerned: Ignore List, Deino! Trust me, it helps.
                Tens years ago I suspect Il-96 tankers would have been very attractive for the PLAAF had the Russians offered. But today there are about 50 Y-20s and only 30 Il-96s. A Y-20 tanker will likely be flying before long and in any case Russian production output is unlikely able to meet Chinese requirements. The same platform will be used for AWACS. That window has closed for the Il-96, which is why I inquired about a possible MPA role. If the Tu-214 has any potential in that regard the Russians should pitch the project while they can.
                pb::

                Comment

                • haavarla
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Dec 2008
                  • 6696

                  #68
                  Just how many new Tanker does VKS need, over the current Il-78 ones based on 476 prospect..?

                  People are beating the same dead horse here.
                  VKS need other stuff, like the smaller new Cargo transport obviously. Then Russia needs to figure out how to manage their Heavy An-124 fleet with new engines. The mid-size transport is no problem.
                  Last edited by haavarla; 4th August 2019, 09:28.
                  Thanks

                  Comment

                  • J-20
                    Rank 4 Registered User
                    • Jan 2018
                    • 255

                    #69
                    Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                    Just how many new Tanker does VKS need, over the current Il-78 ones based on 476 prospect..?

                    People are beating the same dead horse here.
                    VKS need other stuff, like the smaller new Cargo transport obviously. Then Russia needs to figure out how to manage their Heavy An-124 fleet with new engines. The mid-size transport is no problem.
                    its okay baby cakes. everyone here got you.
                    we all agreed Y-20 with new sexy Russian engines is the way to go.

                    Russia-Sino consortium will also go for an An-124 replacement program too

                    Comment

                    • haavarla
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Dec 2008
                      • 6696

                      #70
                      Originally posted by J-20 View Post

                      its okay baby cakes. everyone here got you.
                      we all agreed Y-20 with new sexy Russian engines is the way to go.

                      Russia-Sino consortium will also go for an An-124 replacement program too
                      You need to google Russian State procurment program for Il-476(find the hard numbers) and upgrades on existing Il-76 fleet Hottie. Then check back to us from your current fantasy world.

                      For the trillient time, Russia has the mid-size transport covered for now and medium future.
                      Thanks

                      Comment

                      • J-20
                        Rank 4 Registered User
                        • Jan 2018
                        • 255

                        #71
                        Originally posted by haavarla View Post

                        You need to google Russian State procurment program for Il-476(find the hard numbers) and upgrades on existing Il-76 fleet Hottie. Then check back to us from your current fantasy world.

                        For the trillient time, Russia has the mid-size transport covered for now and medium future.
                        you need to check the title of this thread Harvy. its called Russo-Chinese collaboration.
                        its at least a realistic fantasy. unlike adding a su-57 fuselage to a Su-35 ROFLMAO

                        Comment

                        • Levsha
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2006
                          • 2851

                          #72
                          Originally posted by J-20 View Post
                          Russia-Sino consortium will also go for an An-124 replacement program too
                          Didn't the Chinese get technical help from Ukraine or Russia in the development of the Y-20?

                          If the Chinese didn't need to create a foreign partnership to create the Y-20 they certainly won't need to form a foreign partnership to create a bigger version of such a transport aircraft.

                          Comment

                          • J-20
                            Rank 4 Registered User
                            • Jan 2018
                            • 255

                            #73
                            Originally posted by Levsha View Post

                            Didn't the Chinese get technical help from Ukraine or Russia in the development of the Y-20?

                            If the Chinese didn't need to create a foreign partnership to create the Y-20 they certainly won't need to form a foreign partnership to create a bigger version of such a transport aircraft.
                            you're right sexy stud.

                            China milked the teeets of Ukraine cash cow.. but now it's dry. not sure Antonov can offer anything more.
                            Also Y-20 is still lacking in engine.

                            Modern body but hampered by last gen engines.

                            Russia is probably the only one who can save China's heavies

                            Comment

                            • JSR
                              JSR
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Aug 2011
                              • 4976

                              #74
                              Originally posted by Multirole View Post

                              Tens years ago I suspect Il-96 tankers would have been very attractive for the PLAAF had the Russians offered. But today there are about 50 Y-20s and only 30 Il-96s. A Y-20 tanker will likely be flying before long and in any case Russian production output is unlikely able to meet Chinese requirements. The same platform will be used for AWACS. That window has closed for the Il-96, which is why I inquired about a possible MPA role. If the Tu-214 has any potential in that regard the Russians should pitch the project while they can.
                              IL96M is digitally created from ground up with new manufacturing and materials.
                              Y-20 has only 12tons thrust engine. IL96M has 17.5 tons thrust engine with flight hours on wing approaching western engines with flight altitude of 13100m and higher Mach . it will have atleast three times longer range than Y-20 when use as special mission and tanker.
                              Y-20 is fatter than IL-78-90 tanker and highly likely very short range and slow speed.
                              Russia defence Industry develop big, complex, longer range.
                              Tu-160M2
                              Tu-214/Tu-204 special versions
                              IL-96M
                              BE-200 advance version
                              20 Ton UCAV.
                              PAKDA.
                              I am sure Mi-38 can lift heavier to higher altitude than any Chinese made helicopter.
                              Russia also developing new heavy universal Naval helicopter.
                              https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...makes-progress
                              The primary role for the Minoga will be antisubmarine warfare, but unlike its predecessors, it will also be required to carry out other tasks. Of note, the Kamov Ka-52K Katran is already in flight tests, but its missions are limited to electronic reconnaissance and strike.
                              NPP Polet is reported to be heading the work on the Minogas mission equipment. Its parent organization Rostec says that the Russian navy is seeking an intelligent command/control system." A life-long after-sales support commitment from the industry is another navy requirement.



                              Comment

                              • JSR
                                JSR
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Aug 2011
                                • 4976

                                #75
                                Originally posted by Trident View Post

                                The situation is similar for AWACS, but Russia having failed to adopt the Il-96 in the mid-2000s for the same reasons why it did not become the basis for a tanker,


                                China and India only had money for Soviet engineering that was IL-76 based A-50. There was zero percent chance of IL-96 based AWACS. At the time IL-96 and IL-76 has identical engine power on offer. Only now the 17.5 ton PS90A1 is going into IL96M.

                                From Russia's point of view buying Ukraine out of the An-70 and An-124 in a similar manner to how they now cut Uzbekistan out of Il-76 production could have been even better, but would probably have been very difficult to achieve diplomatically.

                                Again your lack of understanding of technicalities. An-124 is too big for AWACS role. An-70 too slow and short range for AWACS. the same constraint for Air-refuellers. Plus they have unique engines not shared widely with other aircraft.
                                Only IL-476 has the range, speed turn around time for AWACS. and it is fully multifunctional platform for transport and airrefullers.
                                The word long range is associated with A-50U. do you know why China and India cannot convert further IL-76 or Y-20 into big AWACS?
                                https://defence-blog.com/news/russia...-aircraft.html
                                The A-50U long-range radar surveillance and control plane has been modernized as part of the large-scale program of renewing long-range radar surveillance aircraft stipulated by the defense procurement plan, the Rostec press office said in a statement.

                                Comment

                                • Multirole
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jan 2000
                                  • 903

                                  #76
                                  Y-20 will be better than Il-78 and A-50 in those roles, so good enough for PLAAF needs. They can afford to wait for the CR-919.
                                  pb::

                                  Comment

                                  • haavarla
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Dec 2008
                                    • 6696

                                    #77
                                    Originally posted by Multirole View Post
                                    Y-20 will be better than Il-78 and A-50 in those roles, so good enough for PLAAF needs. They can afford to wait for the CR-919.
                                    it bloddy wont be good enough without newer, lighter, less noisy, more fuel efficient engines, no matter which airframe.

                                    Engine tech, is THE singel most important capability on Aircraft. You can take that one to the Bank! The Chinese is nowhere near Launching a similar PS-90A as Russia is Launching its PD-14 engine.
                                    Last edited by haavarla; 4th August 2019, 22:19.
                                    Thanks

                                    Comment

                                    • Multirole
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jan 2000
                                      • 903

                                      #78
                                      Originally posted by haavarla View Post

                                      it bloddy wont be good enough without newer, lighter, less noisy, more fuel efficient engines, no matter which airframe.

                                      Engine tech, is the singel most important capability on Aircraft. You can take that one to the Bank! The Chinese is nowhere near Launching a similar PS-90A as Russia is Launching its PD-14 engine.
                                      Oh dear, how did the poor Russians get by all these years without them? Surely the Americans could never have fought the Vietnam War with just turbojet powered KC-135s.

                                      China never had it so good with tankers as they do now. Theyll be fine.
                                      Last edited by Multirole; 4th August 2019, 22:10.
                                      pb::

                                      Comment

                                      • haavarla
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Dec 2008
                                        • 6696

                                        #79
                                        Originally posted by Multirole View Post

                                        Oh dear, how did the poor Russians get by all these years without them? Surely the Americans could never have fought the Vietnam War with just turbojet powered KC-135s.

                                        China never had it so good with tankers as they do now. Theyll be fine.
                                        Umm all of a sudden, a change of goal post..
                                        You just claimed the Y-20 was better vs a Il-476, NOT if its good enough for PLAAF.
                                        See what you did there..
                                        Thanks

                                        Comment

                                        • J-20
                                          Rank 4 Registered User
                                          • Jan 2018
                                          • 255

                                          #80
                                          Originally posted by haavarla View Post

                                          Umm all of a sudden, a change of goal post..
                                          You just claimed the Y-20 was better vs a Il-476, NOT if its good enough for PLAAF.
                                          See what you did there..
                                          you saying the Chinese cant make equal or better transports than the Russians????

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X