And so we agree, making any realistic chances of a true Sino-Russian cooperation quite slim!

IMO it is limited to the AHLH (heavy-lift helicopter), eventually a new heavy-lift transport, a VSTOL fighter …

In aviation yes, in naval matters that’s another thing entirely. China would like access to Russian submarine technology. It would happily build them any surface ship for Yasen subs.

Russia has longer routes and supply chain to cover East-West, and North- South to Syria. Even down to Cuba and Venezuela sometimes.
And such the increased flight range with PS-90A engine is a do or die for the Russian transport fleet. The increase of flight range here is Absolutely vital for their operations.
Perhaps some day you will understand such trivial information..

I’m sure Russia has the platforms and engines it needs. I’m pointing out China is fine without a Il-96 tanker. Didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.

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. They’ll be fine.

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Y-20 is a much better stab at a modern medium jet transport than the re-engined Il-76 but is hamstrung by its outdated engines.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.

What are the chances of a Il-96 based MPA. MC-21 as an MPA might not offer sufficient range for countries without forward bases. I would estimate it’s combat radius to be 1/3 that of the Tu-142. Where as the Il-96 based MPA would have comparable range. Not to mention 4 engines are always better over water.

If there’s a need for a VTOL combat aircraft in the 2030s, why would it even be manned? VTOL UCAV would be cheaper, smaller; and as recent events show, when one gets shot down, doesn’t drag you into an unwanted war.

Maybe, but what is Tu-142 but a version of strategic bomber Tu-95?

It depends on whether you see the PAK-DA as an ultra-expensive Russian version of the B-2 or something different. By what we have read, it will be cheap and subsonic, so probably they just want to use the flying wing scheme for broadband stealth and high fuel carrying capacity without focusing on exotic properties. Its big persistence and discrete signature would be very useful for long range maritime patrol.

In terms of strategic bombers, Russia no only has but is set to produce new Tu-160 with huge payload and speed, and avionics closely related if not identical to those slated for the PAK-DA, so both are going to operate in parallel quite likely. PAK-DA would be smaller, cheaper and more practical for theatre bombing, ISR, maritime patrol and other roles where persistence and LO are more relevant than turn-around time, where it cannot compete with the -160.

In any case Russia is currently modernizing the Tu-142 too.

1950s bombers were not all that different from airliners. Tu-95 was even converted into one. That’s not the case now. I don’t know what the PAK-DA will end up being, but it’s unlikely cheap enough to be used for anti-submarine patrols which eats up airframe hours.

Alternatively they could either base a MPA on existing airliner or design a low altitude aircraft for the purpose. Something like a bigger Kawasaki P-1 with 4X PD-14 engines.

They both need a new long range MPA. The Bears are getting old and China needs something more than Y-8 based platforms.