https://next.ft.com/content/4dd72950-4340-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1
>Homegrown air transport marks ‘crucial step’ in projection of power
>China’s largest ever military aircraft entered service on Wednesday, a hulking transport capable of sending troops and tanks around the world at a moment’s notice.
>The Y-20 Kunpeng, nicknamed “chubby girl”, arrives at a time when Beijing is plotting a new global mission for its 2m-strong People’s Liberation Army, from peacekeeping in Africa to anti-piracy in the Indian Ocean.
>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.
>The Y-20 “marks a crucial step for the air force improving its strategic power projection capability,” Shen Jinke, PLA Air Force spokesman, told state news agency Xinhua.
>Experts say the Y-20 bears a marked resemblance to the US Boeing C-17 transport, which has not been produced since last year. It can carry a single Type 99 tank, China’s most advanced, which weighs about 50 tonnes, along with troops and other equipment. It has a maximum range of 7,800km partially loaded — roughly the distance between Beijing and Cairo.
>Song Zhongping, a Chinese military expert, said about a dozen of the aircraft would be operating within the next year or two, and eventually 200-300 would be produced. The Y-20 will gradually replace the fleet of Chinese Y-8 and Russian Ilyushin 76 cargo aircraft, the current workhorses of China’s military airlift capacity.
>>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.
>>30521700
Some more pics of dat phat girl.
+.50 yuan
Kyuuuute!
>>30521711
Two of them now, with six by the end of the year to be delivered
>>30521726
>>30521739
last
>>30521697
>Russian Engines.
>They can't even make Engines with their socialism.
>China rising superpower
>Still can't make own engines
>>30521752
Interim solution.
Chinese engine is currently testing onboard a testbed. By 2018 they will equip the subsequent Y-20 batches.
>>30521697
THICC
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.
>>30521752
>Russian spacecraft
>They can't even launch astronauts with their capitalism
>chubby girl
More girth for the berth baby
![C-17-032-Globemaster-032-III-032-Over-032-Alaska-1920x1080[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kvOibh7.jpg "C-17-032-Globemaster-032-III-032-Over-032-Alaska-1920x1080[1].jpg")
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.
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.
>>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.
![1452824909620s[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5Z0hlCu.jpg "1452824909620s[1].jpg")
>>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
>>30521785
search in baidu for 运-20娘
Not many new pics; Chinese weebs are hard at work tho.
>>30522015
Like real grills, there are angles where she appears slim.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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)
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?
>>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.
>>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
>>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
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?
>>30523161
>>30523171
>>30521884
looks like USA can't do them right to me
>>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
>chubby girl
They make my dick hard as fuck.
>Y-20 larger than C-17
wut.
It isnt.
The Y-20 is marginally larger than the IL-76
>>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?
>>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?
>>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.
>>30522878
YOU WANT FRY CARGO!?
>>30523801
saved
>>30523332
>>30523801
kek
>>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.
POWER PROJECTION!!
WE WUZ OUT TO GET YA WHITEYS ROROROROR!!!1
TL note for the autist here:
>this is sarcasm
>>30524094
Y-20s will enable us to drop troops over Washington DC!
>>30524144
AMerikkka and Japan are fucking finished!!!11
Gibe plane porn
Plens?
>>30521697
>"chubby girl"
AKA American
Super lewd
>>30524299
>>30521752
>>30521763
>America will rely on Russia to get astronauts into space until at least 2024
>>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.
>>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.
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
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.
>>30524778
>Chinaman talks shit about putting astronauts in space
>Only 55 years late.
>>30523801
kek now i understand, saved
>>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.
>>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
>>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.
>>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
>>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.
>>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
