In theory they can be given away or sold to other countries who can only afford second hand 4th gen.
Future PLAAF fleet procurement and composition
- Thread starter Totoro
- Start date
In theory they can be given away or sold to other countries who can only afford second hand 4th gen.
Yes, that is indeed a possibility. I think China should also pursue the US strategy of having Air Force Reserve. The US air Reserve and Air National Guard has a significant air force. Those older gen planes could put to the reserve air force of the PLA and manned by older pilots who have retired from active service.
lcloo
Major
Aircraft service life is determined by airframe lives. Early generations of fighter jets normally have 20 years of service lives and thereafter their airworthiness declined, still flyable if they invest large sum of money to have life extension program. However, I doubt China would do that because the large technological gap between PLAAF's early 4th gen and latest 4.5 gen means it will not be worth to do it.
Admittedly 20 years service life period is a lazy estimate, more accurate would be the total flight hours, so it depends on how hard PLAAF push their flight hours per aircraft per month. IMO they are pushing hard on flight training hours as well as on exercises/drills.
200 to 250 flight hours per pilot per year is highly likely, and having 2 flight crew allocated to each fighter jet would mean 400 to 500 logged flight hours per year or 8,000 to 10,000 flight hours on the airframe in 20 years period. I expect early generation PLAAF jets like J10A, J11A and JH7A to have much shorter airframe life span than later 4.5 gen J16.
Fighter jets built in early 2000s are not new. It is not the question of whether China would not retire them early or not, but once their air frame lives are depleted, it would not be worth to spend money to extend their service live. A main consideration is that China made their own aircraft at domestic price instead of importing them at much higher costs. they can build new and more capable jets instead of retaining old fighter jets with expiring airframe lives.
This is a fair argument, but importantly I think the logic behind this argument is in reverse.
The underlying premise/assumption shouldn't be "the PLA doesn't like to retire assets before they are actually old" -- because we've never actually had a scenario for the PLA where they could retire assets before they are actually old without also reducing the number of units/personnel to operate them, if it was in their near-term plan to retain the same units/personnel but upgrade them with newer platforms.
Putting it another way, the underlying "all encompassing answer" for whether the PLA retires assets at XYZ age or not, shouldn't be the age of the asset itself, but rather what their near term force composition/size/goal is.... and everything follows from there.
For most of the PLA, they have either retained or expanded their order of battle (PLAAF, PLANAF, PLARF), with the PLAGF being one where they've actively reduced it in size (and indeed the older assets have tended to be either retired or mothballed or given to reserves).
So in the case of the PLAAF's tactical fighter fleet, the key question for when they retire their existing "old" 4th gen fighters (non-SAC Flankers, J-10A, baseline J-11B, JH-7A), should be whether they actually want to expand their overall fighter order of battle significantly from what it currently is at present.
- If they want to expand it, then yes it's likely that the existing "old" 4th gen airframes will remain around for a while, while new 5th gens are introduced and new units established and then eventually the "old" 4th gen airframes will be replaced by new build 5th gen (or 6th gen, or UCAV/CCA airframes, whatever) when their time comes. This is not dissimilar to how their 3rd gen airframes were kept around for ages until they all were lined up for replacement by 4th, 4.5th and 5th gen units themselves -- the 3rd gen airframes were kept around to keep the relevant units and personnel billets all filled, rather than de-establishing these units and then having to reactivate and recompose them a few years down the line.
- But if they don't want to greatly expand their tactical fighter fleet, then by the time that their new build 5th gen production has replaced all other airframes, then it won't be long until the "old" 4th gen fighters are lined up for replacement, which could occur as early as 2030 depending on their overall fleet size goal. In this hypothetical scenario, there would be no benefit for keeping these "old" 4th gen airframes around -- they aren't useful to keep units/personnel billets active because they're lined up for replacement anyhow, and they would be near obsolescent in a modern fight -- so the most natural conclusion would be a combination of retirement/mothballing/selling or gifting to friendly states.
In short -- whether these "old" 4th gen fighter types are retired a little bit ahead of their airframe lives, will relate less to PLA preferences for keeping assets around till they are exhausted, and will more depend on what their fleet size goals actually are.
Just on this narrow point, it's not like the opfor is 100% F-35s. They have plenty of old trash too.
Technically true, but as others have said the goal of the PLA is probably fairly ambitious, and to paraphrase the USAF, I'm sure the PLA do not want to engage in a "fair" fight.
The difference between "old" 4th gens and 4.5th gens (to say nothing of 5th gens) in fighting in a modern networked environment is quite a large gulf.
The PLA are in a fortunate position of having the industry and the funding to replace these old 4th gens with much more capable aircraft if they wish without diminishing fleet size (or alternatively to augment the old 4th gens with much more capable aircraft with accompanying fleet expansion)
Those 4th gens are probably still useful as missile trucks and Bombing Trucks once Air dominance is achieved by the 5th and 4.5th gens. They can also act as point defense against enemy drone and cruise missiles attacks in deep interior of China.
So, I still see uses for them in the near term until the 5th gens can be produced in large numbers. But as you said, depends on whether China wants to expand its air force or not.
My thesis is that China will expand its air force, Just cause China has the capacity in terms of GDP, population and also has the strategic need due to the fact that most of China's enemies are so close by and are indeed a big threat, China still needs to field huge land based air power to firmly achieve air dominance against US and its allies and 2000 fighters will not cut it. They need to expand to 3000+ for the Air force alone and if they keep producing carriers then augment that with 1000 fighter jet fleet of Naval Air force. Only then China can firmly achieve overwhelming dominance against Japan, Taiwan and US PACOM.
So, my view is that if the PLAAF does not choose to greatly expand its fighter force, then assuming 200-250 fighters total produced per year from 2026 onwards (combination of J-20A, J-20S, J-35A, J-35, and J-16D, J-15T, J-15DT, of which J-20A, J-20S, J-35A and J-16D are for the PLAAF), then by 2028, the "old" 4th gens will be up for replacement, and thus a little bit "ahead" of their airframe lives in theory.
If they do not choose to greatly expand its fighter force count, then it would be a terrible, catastrophic idea to retain their "old" 4th gens rather than to replace them (directly or indirectly) with new build 5th gens.
That's because whether the "old" 4th gens are useful or not in specific scenarios is not the challenge they face -- instead the challenge for the old 4th gens is the opportunity cost of using personnel, pilots, air bases to operate old 4th gens versus having them operate 5th gens instead.
- In terms of personnel cost you are paying them regardless of whether they're flying and maintaining old 4th gens or if they're flying and maintaining 5th gens
- In terms of availability and spare parts, chances are the old 4th gens will be somewhat short of circulating spare parts and logistics by the late 2020s because they would have been out of production for a decade and a half by that point, while there would be a burgeoning huge and active supply chain for J-20A/S and J-35A
- There will of course be a degree of upfront capital cost to buy the jets and upgrade the bases to adequately handle 5th gen jets and provide additional training for pilots and personnel, but that was always going to happen at some point eventually... and the cost would be more than worth the major capability upgrade.
In essence -- most of the operating and personnel costs will be the same regardless of whether it's an old 4th gen or 5th gen that a unit operates, so if the industry capacity is there and if the upfront procurement funding is there, it makes no sense to not retire those old 4th gens early to replace them with 5th gens.
The most justifiable reason to not do that, is if they want to expand the fighter fleet size.
If they want to expand the fighter fleet size, then yes it would make sense to keep the old 4th gens around to keep the units, personnel billets, bases etc active, until such a point that PLA procurement of 5th gens allows for the old 4th gens to be replaced in the same way that the old 3rd gens were kept around.
That 2030 fleet would look like :
~1000 5th Gen Stealth Fighters (J-20 and J-35)
~400 4.5 Gen J-16
~300 4.5 Gen J-10B/C
That feels insufficient, given the objective is air dominance as soon as possible.
So I think they'll keep all the J-11B (~250 aircraft) and also the JH-7A. (But yes, they would retire the J-10A and Su-30)
The J-11B can be upgraded to near 4.5 Gen capability, and when not needed for air superiority missions, they can act as bomb trucks. Then we have the JH-7A dedicated to strike missions.
That would mean an increase from 2000 to 2500 tactical aircraft, from 2025-2030.
---
By 2035, based on 200 5th Gen fighters annually, it could look like this:
Some 6th Gen (J-36 and J-50)
~2000 5th Gen (J-20 and J-35)
~400 4.5 Gen J-16
~300 4.5 Gen J-10B/C
~250 4.5 Gen J-11B
~100? JH-7A
That would be a further increase from 2500 to 3500 tactical aircraft, from 2030-2035
That looks like overwhelming superiority on Day 1, but only a "comfortable" level of superiority in a long war of attrition.
1000 naval fighter jets implies 20 aircraft carriers, which will take time.
Also, let's say China is buying 200-250 fighter jets per year.
That is about the same cost (~$20 Bn) as buying an entire Carrier Strike Group (with its aircraft)
At some point, 200+ new fighter jets annually for the Air Force is overkill, and you want to shift resources to Carrier Groups.