J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31

[latenlazy]

With all respect, let's not overuse this card.
Yes, F-35/F-22 readiness rates suck - when compared to non-5 numbers. Assuming that PLAAF 5th gen readiness is stellar is a step too far.
First, we don't know; second, much of China's fleet is fresh new.

Eh we do know actually. Off the top of my head think the J-20’s readiness rate is something like 70-80%. It’s in the thread history somewhere. The age of the fleet is also hardly a good excuse. 70% of the F-35 fleet was delivered after 2017, aka they’re about as old as the J-20 fleet is.

Edit:
Here.

J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Is there any data on the maintenance of the J-20? From what can be understood from the Finnish F-35 purchase contract is that the maintenance of the invisible "paint" of the aircraft is incredibly complex and expensive, I seem to remember that half of the contract was the refurbishment of...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

 

[Gloire_bb]

Eh we do know actually. Off the top of my head think the J-20’s readiness rate is something like 70-80%. It’s in the thread history somewhere. The age of the fleet is also hardly a good excuse. 70% of the F-35 fleet was delivered after 2017, aka they’re about as old as the J-20 fleet is.

With all due respect, "No worries" is not a source. Anecdotal evidence is nice and all, but it isn't given under oath.

 

[AndrewS]

I don't think anyone is expecting high rate production for the 6th gens much before 2030, so meanwhile maximum production for the J-20 and J-35 is the obvious choice. PLAAF is still inferior numerically to USAF in 5 gens, and PLANAF can use every 5th gen it can get given it's own numerical disparity vs the USN. So a combined 150-ish J-35 and J-35A per year is not so outlandish, not counting exports (which i'm sure they will come, look how late J-10 was exported in it's production, i would expect J-35 to be exported far earlier than that, given all the hints we got so far)

Personally I think it will be a maximum of 200 fighters per year. That is already an extra 2000 over the course of 10 years.

 

[ismellcopium]

With all due respect, "No worries" is not a source. Anecdotal evidence is nice and all, but it isn't given under oath.

You have no clue who that is.

 

[Gloire_bb]

You have no clue who that is.

No matter the clues, statements like that should not be considered in the same bullpark of data as congressial reports. Peer level reports in China are just not in a public domain.

There's more than enough important F-35 people between major forums and reddit. Just by them alone, F-35 program would be unquestionable.

 

[latenlazy]

No matter the clues, statements like that should not be considered in the same bullpark of data as congressial reports. Peer level reports in China are just not in a public domain.

There's more than enough important F-35 people between major forums and reddit. Just by them alone, F-35 program would be unquestionable.

You mean the congressional reports that said China wouldn’t have a stealth fighter until the mid 2020s?

The source you’re discounting is someone who touches the “peer level reports” btw.

With all due respect, "No worries" is not a source. Anecdotal evidence is nice and all, but it isn't given under oath.

Lots of faulty information have been given under oath before.

 

[Gloire_bb]

You mean the congressional reports that said China wouldn’t have a stealth fighter until the mid 2020s?

The source you’re discounting is someone who touches the “peer level reports” btw.

No private opinion does that. It just doesn't work this way.
And btw, congressional reports on China estimates are indeed about as valuable as it gets. As the nation-level intelligence failure is right here out in the open - which was funny to us, but it also exposed US intelligence community.

Lots of faulty information have been given under oath before.

Certainly not as much as inconsequentual and biased opinions. Especially when people seriously in the know tend to keep their mouths tightly shut.
For all faults of the US system, they're the only side playing with open cards. Which is arrogant, but it also prevents a lot of mismanagement from being hidden under secrecy. It also helps that their military is quite active, and it is benchmarked quite often.
China - it's military, - operates in the opposite way.

 

[latenlazy]

No private opinion does that. It just doesn't work this way.

Never heard of a private person who has security clearance that doesn’t exist.

And btw, congressional reports on China estimates are indeed about as valuable as it gets. As the nation-level intelligence failure is right here out in the open - which was funny to us, but it also exposed US intelligence community.

Value is determined by accuracy.

Certainly not as much as inconsequentual and biased opinions. Especially when people seriously in the know tend to keep their mouths tightly shut.

The “biased opinions” in this community have somehow beaten the unimpeachable intelligence community you’re lauding at accurate assessment and forecasting for over a decade now.

For all faults of the US system, they're the only side playing with open cards. Which is arrogant, but it also prevents a lot of mismanagement from being hidden under secrecy. It also helps that their military is quite active, and it is benchmarked quite often.
China - it's military, - operates in the opposite way.

The US military is managed so well it lost a war to Iran and depleted the munitions stock it would have needed to stay in the picture in Asia.

 

[HighGround]

No private opinion does that. It just doesn't work this way.
And btw, congressional reports on China estimates are indeed about as valuable as it gets. As the nation-level intelligence failure is right here out in the open - which was funny to us, but it also exposed US intelligence community.

Certainly not as much as inconsequentual and biased opinions. Especially when people seriously in the know tend to keep their mouths tightly shut.
For all faults of the US system, they're the only side playing with open cards. Which is arrogant, but it also prevents a lot of mismanagement from being hidden under secrecy. It also helps that their military is quite active, and it is benchmarked quite often.
China - it's military, - operates in the opposite way.

I don't think you're wrong necessarily. I agree with your conservative stance, but I also think a lot of "neutral positions" need to be revisited.

I do think it's reasonable to think that 5th gen readiness rates can be as high as the previous generation. Yes, sure, the planes require a larager maintenance footprint but national resources can grow to be able to cover those costs.

The collapse of US readiness rates is also a reflection of institutional decay. I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion to reach.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I don't think you're wrong necessarily. I agree with your conservative stance, but I also think a lot of "neutral positions" need to be revisited.

I do think it's reasonable to think that 5th gen readiness rates can be as high as the previous generation. Yes, sure, the planes require a larager maintenance footprint but national resources can grow to be able to cover those costs.

The collapse of US readiness rates is also a reflection of institutional decay. I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion to reach.

Maybe they can, though honestly i am sceptical.
The problem is that it's very hard to verify. Performance of China's weapons and especially commercial electronics is out in the open.
Sustainance rates of stealth aircraft can't be verified - either until there are similar publications (which is impossible), or until we see China going into a war which will actually strain it's military.

The US military is managed so well it lost a war to Iran and depleted the munitions stock it would have needed to stay in the picture in Asia.

But because of that war, we do have a very good benchmark of US military capability, including readiness rates.
We don't know that for China - all we have is either opinions, or intelligence assesments.

Is it possible China's 5th gen fighter availability is superbly high? Well, yes. It may be well be higher than the opinionated number. And that's the problem with opinions - we operate of a network of weighted opinions. Which is best source we have, not best possible source imaginable.