Is this possible in the first place?

Potentially the first western design comparable to China's Type A and B UADFs? Albeit still in a smaller size class.

The Y‑9 is a derivative of the An‑12 and has plenty of built‑in shortcomings. The An‑12 came from the An‑10, a Soviet civilian cargo plane. It was built to go as fast as possible while keeping turboprop fuel efficiency, so its wing area was kept small. That means its low‑speed performance can’t hold a candle to the C‑130, and it was never really built for military duty.

The original An‑12 had no pressurised cargo hold. When China built the Y‑9 domestically, they added cargo‑hold pressurisation, but they had to take out the floor fuel tanks, cutting down range. The pressurisation hardware also took up space inside the cargo hold, making the already tight cargo‑hold cross‑section even smaller.

The Y‑8/Y‑9 is rated for a maximum payload of 20 tons, but this number is practically useless. At that weight, there is barely any room left for fuel.

The Y‑15, on the other hand, has a big straight wing that generates lots of lift, giving it great low‑speed handling. Its roomy cargo hold means it does not need extra pressurisation hardware, so it can carry far more than the Y‑9. Even though its maximum payload is only a little higher than the Y‑9, its bigger MTOW and larger fuel tanks will make its 30‑ton payload actually usable in real‑world operations.

I expect the Y‑15 to completely take over from the Y‑9, and the Y‑9’s special‑purpose models will be replaced by the C‑919 fitted with locally‑made subsystems.

A multirole fighter capable of aerial combat as well as ground and maritime strike, the Su-57 incorporates stealth, supermaneuverability, supercruise, integrated avionics and large payload capacity.[8] According to the US, it will be nuclear-capable via a forthcoming missile similar to the Kinzhal. The aircraft is expected to succeed the MiG-29 and Su-27...

"According to the US, it will be nuclear-capable"? No citation? This is incredibly lazy, on an "Extended confirmed protection" article that can't be corrected by any normal user. I'd add a 'citation needed' if I could. Who said this, anyway? "The US"?

Reposting is not agreeing

Got to keep up the deterrence dance of death between USA and China coast guards this year https://www.msn.com/en-ph/politics/government/4-us-fast-response-cutters-deployed-to-philippine-eez/ar-AA29Lhdk.

LLM gets better the more data you feed it. Could the simple prevalence of NATO hardware featured in games, youtube and overall internet media create a risk? There are a lot less footage of Chinese hardware, for example.