Future PLAAF fleet procurement and composition

[Blitzo]

I don’t think a “bomb truck” configuration would be very effective for PLAAF fighters, mainly because they lack the proper munitions to support such a role. For this kind of configuration, you really need weapons like Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs) or other long-range standoff munitions.

However, as far as I can recall, the PLAAF neither operates SDB-class weapons nor possesses a large inventory of long-range air-launched standoff munitions. Yes, we’ve seen the AKF-98 carried by the J-16 and JH-7—twice, at the 2022 and 2024 Zhuhai Air Shows—but beyond that, there’s actually little/no evidence of widespread integration of such weapons. In fact, we rarely see them carrying long-range air-launched munitions at all, which is quite surprising.

I don’t understand why the PLAAF appears to focus predominantly on air-to-air combat, whereas counterparts like the U.S. and Japan are emphasizing both air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities.

So before discussing “bomb truck” concepts, we should first ask: does the PLAAF actually have the appropriate munitions to support such a configuration?

Your questions are understandable, but the answer is that yes the PLA is thought to have a rather large variety of fairly capable and modern strike weapons, however it has been stated by many individuals on the grapevine over multiple occasions, that the PLA actually practices significant opsec towards the munitions they have in service, and the lack of visibility of said weapons in usual imagery is deliberate.

That is the operating basis for all discussions; of course that doesn't mean we can assume any weapon types are in service without any corroborating indicators (rumours, or otherwise).


In the case of SDB like weapons, we know that such a weapon should exist for 5th gens from rumours, and we saw their quad SDB-esque pylon offered at an expo last year which was stated for us both for IWBs and externally, which likely represents an indirect "disclosure" that such a weapon system is considered no longer sensitive enough to do a wink-wink-nudge that it is in PLA service.
Weapons like AKF-98, AKF-88C, are similar weapons we've known first shown at Zhuhai a few years back, but which is also said to be in PLA service meaningfully.
And then there are unknown numbers/varieties of PGM types as well, and we've seen J-16s in service carry a unique looking triple rack that could only reasonably be for triple racking PGMs (likely 250kg class).

OTOH, there are still some omissions/categories that we have not yet seen or heard indicators of in PLA service, such as a APKWS equivalent weapon, or a Brimstone/JAGM-F equivalent, etc.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Lol if you are focused about "rocket integration" to be able to shoot down Shahed pattern one way drones, I have good news for you -- the PLA does not have a APKWS equivalent in service currently at all.
No PLA 4.5th gen aircraft has such a weapon, so technically 4.5th and 5th gen aircraft are operating with the same limitations in that regard.

First stage of APKWS integration is rocket integration; J-10C and J-16 had it.
If you look at how aircraft around the world react - those who had this integration before, adapt fast. Those that didn't(Rafale, Gripen E) run into trouble,

Furthermore, once the PLA does have a APKWS equivalent or something like that, those weapons can be loaded onto J-20/A/S and J-35/As external stations in multiracks as well (e.g.: we've seen tripacks of 7 tube APKWS pods on aircraft like F-15Es; that is also perfectly feasible for the likes of 5th gens).

Maybe? We knot this wasn't designed into them, and in more than a few cases it's a show stopper.
Moreover, i think you underestimate underestimation, which is amply visible at this forum. As famous PLA slide says, you only end up in WVR is you're stupid.

As for jamming pods -- 5th generation aircraft have much more integrated EW systems of their own; the whole point is that they do not require self defense jamming pods. If you're talking about larger EW pods like those that J-16D carry or larger standoff pods that sometimes we see JH-7/A or Flankers carry, technically that is something they can integrate onto 5th gens as well if they really wanted to.

5th generation main integrated EW "system" is LO though and much of the rest(in offensive sense) is just MESA doing de facto offensive jamming; at least it's the case for F-35 (rest is towed decoy, which is more of last ditch self defense measure rather than proper self-escort); can't say for sure what's the case for J-20 and J-35, as we don't know.
Frontal MESA is exactly that - frontal jamming, i.e. 120-140 degrees sector(out of 360).

Yes, integration of more traditional pod into existing airframes is possible (and it appears something like that happens with F-22 already), but - out of available 4(6) external points...and tbh, at this point it turns self-defeating (what's the point of traditional receiver-emitter self contained jammer pod if your jet is better at that), and in any case more of a future thing.

But at this point, isn't it simpler to just use existing airframes for their specified life cycle, and by 2040s fully embrace the now emerging paradigm of air fighting altogether?

 

[Blitzo]

First stage of APKWS integration is rocket integration; J-10C and J-16 had it.
If you look at how aircraft around the world react - those who had this integration before, adapt fast. Those that didn't(Rafale, Gripen E) run into trouble,

Maybe? We knot this wasn't designed into them, and in more than a few cases it's a show stopper.

Let's first reiterate that we have no APKWS equivalent that we know of in PLA service, and we don't know if such a system would be a straight up structural adaptation of any existing rocket pod system they have.
For the purposes of discussion, let's be generous and assume such a solution would be adapting an existing rocket pod.

My question is, so what? That just means one weapons system to integrate onto 5th gens -- considering what is at stake is a difference of 700 aircraft continuing to be 4.5th gen or mothballed in favour of 700 5th gens, that seems like a minor price to pay.

Moreover, i think you underestimate underestimation, which is amply visible at this forum. As famous PLA slide says, you only end up in WVR is you're stupid.

Things like APKWS isn't even WVR, it's for targeting low end one way attack drones.
If you want to make it a mission for PLA tactical fighters as standard, that's fine, but don't make it sound like integrating it onto 5th gen aircraft is somehow such a burdensome task that it outweighs the rest of the consequences of keeping around 700 4.5th gen airframes versus 700 5th gen airframes for the overall fleet!

5th generation main integrated EW "system" is LO though and much of the rest(in offensive sense) is just MESA doing de facto offensive jamming; at least it's the case for F-35 (rest is towed decoy, which is more of last ditch self defense measure rather than proper self-escort); can't say for sure what's the case for J-20 and J-35, as we don't know.
Frontal MESA is exactly that - frontal jamming, i.e. 120-140 degrees sector(out of 360).

You were talking about self protection jamming; F-35 at any rate has 360 degree active EW emitters for self protection (in addition to things like towed decoys). The use of its frontal AESA for jamming is not for "self protection" but for more offensive purposes.

Yes, integration of more traditional pod into existing airframes is possible (and it appears something like that happens with F-22 already), but - out of available 4(6) external points...and tbh, at this point it turns self-defeating (what's the point of traditional receiver-emitter self contained jammer pod if your jet is better at that), and in any case more of a future thing.

Funny that, 2030+ is in the "future".

But at this point, isn't it simpler to just use existing airframes for their specified life cycle, and by 2040s fully embrace the now emerging paradigm of air fighting altogether?

Again, I reiterate this which I wrote before:

If one accepts that the PLA will see significant addition of 5th gen airframes from now to 2030 (and afterwards as well), then you only have two options:
- Either expand the overall size of the manned fighter fleet post 2030.
- Or retain about a similar manned fighter fleet size, and retire 4.5th gen aircraft a bit earlier than their airframe lives would project.

If you are unable to explicitly address this specific choice and the premises and give a straight forward answer, then I'm going to treat this discussion as one not in good faith.

 

[another505]

My question to blitzo is, (not as a challenge but an inquiry) are there currently any signs that PLAAF is going to retain the it's current fleet size by replacing 4.5s or increase with the new intake 5th Gen? Or is it another, we will see in 5-10 years thing?

 

[Blitzo]

My question to blitzo is, (not as a challenge but an inquiry) are there currently any signs that PLAAF is going to retain the it's current fleet size by replacing 4.5s or increase with the new intake 5th Gen? Or is it another, we will see in 5-10 years thing?

We will only definitively know what choice they make, after 2030+

However as of now, it is an inevitability, that if they produce 5th gen airframes in the way that we expect them to (100 odd J-20A/S per year, and ramp up of J-35/A, and build out of J-16D, J-15T/DT to finish by 2030), then by early 2030s they will face option to either:

- expand their fighter fleet size
or
-keep the fighter fleet the same size (and if the latter, what to do with the 4.5th gens as they will be the "oldest" fighters they have by that point)

 

[TheWanderWit]

and we've seen J-16s in service carry a unique looking triple rack that could only reasonably be for triple racking PGMs (likely 250kg class)

By any chance @Blitzo , do you have the image for this? Never heard of that one. I tried looking for it through the search function and Google but could not find it.

 

[Blitzo]

By any chance @Blitzo , do you have the image for this? Never heard of that one. I tried looking for it through the search function and Google but could not find it.

Yup
Port side wing station.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I don’t understand why the PLAAF appears to focus predominantly on air-to-air combat, whereas counterparts like the U.S. and Japan are emphasizing both air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities.

So before discussing “bomb truck” concepts, we should first ask: does the PLAAF actually have the appropriate munitions to support such a configuration?

Considering the primary axis of threat, anti-shipping capabilities may be more relevant than traditional ground attack munitions.

Adjacent to bomb truck is the missile truck, akin to the F-15SE capable of carrying large quantities of a2a munitions as well as ground attack munitions, depending on the mission profile.

The utility of a munitions truck is not purely limited to the ground attack role.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I don’t understand why the PLAAF appears to focus predominantly on air-to-air combat, whereas counterparts like the U.S. and Japan are emphasizing both air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities.

In addition to what @FriedRiceNSpice has mentioned:

Because the PLAAF has been mainly on the defensive side since the foundation of the PRC, and China isn't the one that goes to bomb people hiding inside tents or tunnels all the time. In addition, the major threat vectors envisioned by Beijing primarily originate from the air (namely, the USAF and USNAF, among others).

Therefore, it should br no surprise that the China's main focus of combat warplane development projects for many decades has been on repelling enemy advances and offensives in the air as their primary objectives, which necessitates having strong air-to-air capabilities.

As for air-to-ground attack, the Q-5s were procured for such roles back then. But since the last Q-5 was retired and modern warplanes have become multirole-capable, such roles are now handled by the JH-7s, J-16s, and various models of ground-attack UCAVs we see today.

Last but not least, recall that CCTV also acknowledged that the J-35A is a multirole fighter that works in tandem with the air superiority-focused J-20/A/S in the PLAAF's order of combat, which means that the J-35A can also be used for air-to-ground (and air-to-surface) missions in addition to air-to-air missions.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

- expand their fighter fleet size
or
-keep the fighter fleet the same size (and if the latter, what to do with the 4.5th gens as they will be the "oldest" fighters they have by that point)

I have a feeling the pace of development of the CCA programs will likely play a significant role in shaping the PLAAF's decision regarding the number of manned fighters to retain/procure.