One may add the short war in Georgia in 2008.
Russia lost up to 6 aircraft (it confirms 3).
Whatever, given that Georgia doesn’t have any “real” air defence, quite some aircraft lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_war#Equipment_losses_and_cost

Interesting question.

A large part of the cost is in avionics, & a dedicated trainer wouldn’t need the radar & some other systems.

I had the same thought.
The costs can be separated into:
– engine
– airframe
– flight systems (hydrualics and the like)
– avionics and combat systems (radar and the like)

A huge burden is development and setting up a production line. This cost is partly saved if the US Gripen doesn’t come as gold plated model.
I doubt that an airframe produced in USA is so much more expensive than one produced in Korea. Engine is US anyways, and systems mostly, too.

There is a minimum cost of producing such an aircraft. It will be comparable to that of an F-16, which is given with 18.8 Million USD (1998 Basis), around 30 Million USD if you apply a 3% price escalation.
I doubt that any subsonic aircraft will by so much less expensive. Yes, systems are a bit less and engine has less power. Cost of production depends partly on the complexity of production. I know the Eurofighter has machined fuselage frames where basically a frame is cut from a solid block of aluminium.
Having Boeing in the team might help getting a more production oriented mindset into the project. An US-backed affordable aircraft could be useful for some countries, including NATO memberstates.

I am not entirely sure what you are trying to drive at Schorsch, the aircraft was on one of its first flights at the beginning of its flight test program. It is rather unwise to draw any particular conclusion at the moment considering there might be all sorts of issues that will be ironed out as they expand the flight envelope. It might be a pitch problem but it could just as well be the flight controls need adjusting or simply the pilot holding the nose up on landing. I suggest you look at the details of the flight test program of other large transport aircraft, they have all sorts of control and flight dynamic issues! The C5 had some nasty wing tip flutter issues, the YAL-14/15 had numerous issues and the C-130J had some worrying issues in her flight test program!

There is lots of sweeping statements being made on not so much information not counting JSR and his magic performance detecting eyes!

I try to identify at which point this program stands. People* here tend to think that entry-into-service is around the corner and China will mass-produce this machine in near future. For me the status of the test program seems to be at a very early point. Actually, control issues at landing are an indicator that many details are not ironed out. Airbus or Boeing wouldn’t fly an aircraft if such issues are not solved. A&B have a different approach, and vastly more resources.
So, I tend to think that the Y-20 is years from being service ready. Its flyable, and that is very important for the continued design effort.

———-
* people on this forum are increasingly made up of fanboys, this thread is good example.

I just took another look at the landing after the first flight.
Can it be that the nose landing gear actually touches ground and then lifts up again?
The aircraft seems to pitch up AFTER touchdown, lifting the nose landing gear well above the surface.

Crappy piloting or crappy engineering?

I suppose that could very well be the answer – but if so, can we conclude that the Y-20 would necessarily suffer from the same problem? I see no reason to assume by default that such a penalty would carry over, and they did have Antonov to coach them on modern wing design.

I would think of the following:
The Chinese started with the IL76 as basis and thought about what didn’t their needs. The fuselage is too small, and probably they need more payload (MBT carrying capability).
Attaching that fuselage to the IL76 wing would result in quite a poor aircraft, additional drag through wetted surface and high induced drag at high weights reduces range.
Next step is to increase wing area, that reduces the induced drag, helps take-off performance and landing distance. Disadvantage: structural mass increases, partly compensated by new technology like a supercritical wing.

The latter was only possible with a new engine.

The increased wing and thrust and limited fuselage length results in a large tail. Bit disadvantage for drag and weight, but not that bad.

MTOW of a military transport is kind of a decision. If field performance and structural design margins are relaxed, you get the numbers a C-17 features. If civil design rules apply, the C-17 becomes a 250t aircraft.

Currently, MTOW is likely to be very close to the 190 tons of the Il-76 (OEW 92 tons) – 265/190*92=128 tons, precisely the OEW of a late model C-17. So it should be uncontroversial to estimate 220/190*92=106 tons OEW for the Y-20 based on the Il-76. Similarly, based on the C-17: 220/265*128=106 tons again, or 104 tons if you use early model figures (125 tons OEW). Both these arguments quite justifiably allow for the later 220 ton MTOW to have been structurally “built in” already. From the 106/104 tons however we arguably have to deduct a bit due to the current lighter engines, putting us very close to the 100 ton mark for the D-30 powered version indeed.

And even if it is 106 tons already – *at worst* that gives 190-106=84 tons of margin for payload and fuel, which is good for at least 36 tons over no less than 4400km (based on the Il-76, without assuming any fuel burn advantage). Which other aircraft that China *actually has access to* can do that?

Could you detail your estimates based on fuselage volume and wing area? I accept that these are less crude and potentially more accurate, but by the same token they are more susceptible to errors in the input data. It seems problematic to get good estimates of said properties from the information we have.

Now we are talking! 🙂
Thanks for summing up the numbers.
I roughly agree, I am just a bit less optimistic on the OEW (but only by a small margin, and I cannot reason it), and I would put MTOW slightly less due to added wetted surface (more drag). In this point the required field performance is key. If one assumes the minimum thrust/weight of the C-17, the Y-20 would be at 175t MTOW. Taking that – and allowing for a handful tons of additional OEW – you easily end up with 65t margin, which is less than the IL76 has – at similar or higher fuel burn. But please don’t understand the last lines in a way that I am disputing your more optimistic assessment. Due to the lack of hard numbers, both are viable conclusions.

Fuel load for equal range at equal payload. I looked at that comparison in quite some detail a few weeks back, so I might dig it up and give you some numbers.

I would really welcome that! Either in this location, or via PM.
I could think of following reasons:
– the IL76’s wing was never intended for flying 190t gross weight in an efficient manner. It is more optimized for low weight at still acceptable cruise performance at high weights. A common problem of 1960ies swept wings. That really eats into range when the aircraft operates at the edge of its range-payoad.
– I doubt the PS90 engines have similar cruise efficiency as the PW4000/F117.
– 1960ies style high lift system takes its share, while this has less relevance for range …

I don’t see why going from 1960s aerofoil to a good supercritical design would not give an improvement in that ball park, possibly more.

An A380 doesn’t have a much better lift-over-drag than a 1969 B747-100, at least when cruising below drag divergence. Knowing that, I kind of doubt that you have really reviewed 1960ies and “modern” designs. Your claim is just a guess.
The fact that a heavy triple-slotted flap was used kind of indicates that the Chinese preferred proven technology over innovation. These high-lift systems will have a huge impact on its performance (as they directly influence field performance).
Finally: when the Soviet Union made the -76, it had 20 years of experience in transonic aircraft design. In the SU, many technology features were more triggered by centralized research at TsAGI. The IL76 can be compared to C-141 and C-5 in aerodynamic technology. And since then, there wasn’t much break-through innovation.

Sorry, but – as one of those without a clue like You say – I have that strange feeling You like to keep us “stupid” or You enjoiy that feeling too juch of “having a clue” alone ! 😡

Deino

I didn’t mean you or Trident.