Air Division, Regiments, ... Bases, Brigades, etc

tamsen_ikard said:

Here is my current estimate based on IISS 2025 numbers and guesses about newer fighter jet count.

J-10A 236
J-10S 77
J-10B 55
J-10C 240
--
Total J-10: 608 (This is probably the peak count of J-10 as they will not add any new J-10)


Older Flankers:

Su-27UBK 32
SU-30MKK 97
SU-35 24
J-11A 100
J-11B/BH 345
--
Total older flankers: 598

Even older
----
J-8F/H 40
JZ-8 48
-
J-8 total: 88

JH-7 : 200


Total so far - 1494


Now comes my own guess part augmented from IISS:

J-16 - 400 (300 according to IISS but SomePLAOSInt guesses it passed 400)
J-20 - 400 - 450 (As we have been discussing here for sometime)
--

Ultra top Tier: 850 ish


Naval
--


J-15: 100 (J-15 and J-15T)


J-7 - 150 (289 according to IISS, I am actually reducing it down by a lot)

--

Final count - 1494+850+100+150 = 2594

So its actually almost 2600 fighters.

Click to expand...

Well we were discussing fighters and I was only considering PLAAF so no J-15. JH-7 is more a pure striker than a fighter so I don't really include that either. I would also say that 450 J-20 (all variants) is probably a bit high, maybe by end of the year but I would say 400ish is a better bet right now. On the other hand I would include J-10C in the high end. So my listing would be more like:

Older (4th gen or before) fighters:
J-10A - 236
J-10S - 77
J-10B - 55
Su-27UBK - 32
SU-30MKK - 97
SU-35 - 24
J-11A - 100
J-11B/BH - 345
J-8F/H - 40
JZ-8 - 48

Total: 1,054

Modern (4.5 and 5 gen) fighters:
J-10C - 240
J-16 - 400
J-20 - 400

Total: 1,040

The numbers for J-16 and especially J-20 are hard to pin down and might be inflated somewhat it's hard to tell. But this illustrates what I was saying where roughly half the fleet of 2000ish fighters is older fighters that will be of limited utility going forward but for the moment are still very important to PLAAF to fill out the numbers.

mack8 said:

It's a crime that J-7 and J-8 are still in service, yes they might not be older than 20 years but still, considering the foes, they are too outmatched. JH-7 are obsolete too even if most probably even younger, but i guess for their attack role it's not quite as bad.

Click to expand...

I think saying that it's a crime is a bit harsh, I believe the J-7 is all retired (as you can see they're not on my list and there's some official sources saying they're going to be all retired but it's unclear if it's happened) and for J-8 only a small number are left, with retirement coming soon probably. JH-7 serves a different role and should be thought of more in the H-6 category and shouldn't really be compared to fighters. That's why I don't include them in this list.

4Tran said:

There never was any upgrade program for the J-10A/Bs, and I think that it's more to do with the PLAAF not really wanting J-10s any more. Personally I think it's a shame because there's still a lot of utility in this plane and it should be a lot cheaper to operate than a Flanker, but it's how they want to do things. On the other hand the J-11 is a heavy fighter with longer range, a heavier weapon loadout, and probably better power generation to accomodate new systems. The J-11BG is quite possibly a better fighter than the J-10C; which would explain why the PLAAF is invested the upgrade to begin with.

Click to expand...

I'm going off of the post I linked earlier which made the case that it's hard to really retrofit in datalink capability comparable to platforms designed for that capability from the ground up. If that is indeed the case then it makes sense to not upgrade J-10A/B and that J-11 platform, upgrades notwithstanding, will also be slated for replacement in the next 5-10 years.

mack8 said:

It's a crime that J-7 and J-8 are still in service, yes they might not be older than 20 years but still, considering the foes, they are too outmatched. JH-7 are obsolete too even if most probably even younger, but i guess for their attack role it's not quite as bad.

Anyway, do you have a brief summary for bombers too, especially the newer H-6 types?

Click to expand...

Don't view the remaining 3rd gen units as if they are intended to be useful, instead view them as units that keep the bases and personnel "active" so that they can more easily be re-equipped with 4.5th and 5th gen aircraft when it's their turn.
The alternative would be to retire those units and then have to reactivate their bases and re-recruit more personnel for those billets when they want to give them 4.5th and 5th gen capabilities.

I.e.: keeping 3rd gen and early 4th gen units "active" orobably helps to save money and effort when it comes to modernizing them with 4.5th and 5th gen capabilities, rather than having to "retire-reactivate" them.

Blitzo said:

Don't view the remaining 3rd gen units as if they are intended to be useful, instead view them as units that keep the bases and personnel "active" so that they can more easily be re-equipped with 4.5th and 5th gen aircraft when it's their turn.
The alternative would be to retire those units and then have to reactivate their bases and re-recruit more personnel for those billets when they want to give them 4.5th and 5th gen capabilities.

I.e.: keeping 3rd gen and early 4th gen units "active" orobably helps to save money and effort when it comes to modernizing them with 4.5th and 5th gen capabilities, rather than having to "retire-reactivate" them.

Click to expand...

mack8 said:

It's a crime that J-7 and J-8 are still in service, yes they might not be older than 20 years but still, considering the foes, they are too outmatched. JH-7 are obsolete too even if most probably even younger, but i guess for their attack role it's not quite as bad.

Click to expand...

Also these J-7 units are not that old. China was still producing J-7 in the 2010s and stopped in 2013. So, many of these J-7s have a lot of service life left. PLA has a tendency not to waste service life of weapon systems.

I would say China has a greater priority to get rid of Russian planes like Su-27, su-30 in service than J-7s, since those Russian planes have their own software, Russian Missiles and munitions and Russian engines. Its much more of a burden logistically to support these Russian flankers than J-7s.

tamsen_ikard said:

Also these J-7 units are not that old. China was still producing J-7 in the 2010s and stopped in 2013. So, many of these J-7s have a lot of service life left. PLA has a tendency not to waste service life of weapon systems.

I would say China has a greater priority to get rid of Russian planes like Su-27, su-30 in service than J-7s, since those Russian planes have their own software, Russian Missiles and munitions and Russian engines. Its much more of a burden logistically to support these Russian flankers than J-7s.

Click to expand...

The age of the airframes is less relevant here than their specific capability.

My overall point is that all aircraft prior to domestic PRC 4th gen planes (i.e.: J-10A, J-11B era), inclusive of J-7, J-8, JH-7, and Russian built or subsystem Flankers (27SK, J-11A, Su-30s) are going to be targets for retirement and replacement by domestic 4.5th and increasingly 5th gens, and the role of those older aircraft is as much for simple air policing as they are for keeping the relevant units active and running to enable a more graceful/easy re-equipping with modern aircraft.

ENTED64 said:

I'm going off of the post I linked earlier which made the case that it's hard to really retrofit in datalink capability comparable to platforms designed for that capability from the ground up. If that is indeed the case then it makes sense to not upgrade J-10A/B and that J-11 platform, upgrades notwithstanding, will also be slated for replacement in the next 5-10 years.

Click to expand...

I imagine that as the J-11 has a lot more space to put new systems, and it has two engines for more potential power generation, it's probably a lot easier to upgrade than the old J-10s are. Also, the J-11 upgraded to the BG standard should be a full blown 4.5 gen fighter, and it'd probably be a bit more potent than the J-10C. It'll probably be hard to figure out how many of these planes exist though.

tamsen_ikard said:

Also these J-7 units are not that old. China was still producing J-7 in the 2010s and stopped in 2013. So, many of these J-7s have a lot of service life left. PLA has a tendency not to waste service life of weapon systems.

I would say China has a greater priority to get rid of Russian planes like Su-27, su-30 in service than J-7s, since those Russian planes have their own software, Russian Missiles and munitions and Russian engines. Its much more of a burden logistically to support these Russian flankers than J-7s.

Click to expand...

I think that the only Russian-origin fighters China is likely to hang onto are the Su-35s. It's relatively modern but it's not intended for actual combat so it can operate with every feature active without giving up any intel to the Americans.

4Tran said:

I imagine that as the J-11 has a lot more space to put new systems, and it has two engines for more potential power generation, it's probably a lot easier to upgrade than the old J-10s are. Also, the J-11 upgraded to the BG standard should be a full blown 4.5 gen fighter, and it'd probably be a bit more potent than the J-10C. It'll probably be hard to figure out how many of these planes exist though.

Click to expand...

Maybe, I don't really know the engineering well enough to comment, I'm only going off of what other people. Either way the updated J-11s are probably pretty far down the ladder for replacements with almost everything else in the 4th gen or older category coming before them. Given that's like 500ish planes at current rate of production it'll be at least a few years before they consider retiring J-11s.

4Tran said:

I imagine that as the J-11 has a lot more space to put new systems, and it has two engines for more potential power generation, it's probably a lot easier to upgrade than the old J-10s are. Also, the J-11 upgraded to the BG standard should be a full blown 4.5 gen fighter, and it'd probably be a bit more potent than the J-10C. It'll probably be hard to figure out how many of these planes exist though.

Click to expand...

If you are talking about J-11B family aircraft, then sure it would have the domestic subsystems to enable greater ease of upgrades.
If you are talking about J-11As, then almost certainly not.


As for J-11BG... well apart from being a heavyweight fighter in terms of airframe size, J-11BG is unlikely to be more technologically potent than J-10C unless J-11BG had a true deep avionics architecture overhaul (which is unlikely). J-10C isn't just a J-10B with an AESA. Its overall avionics and networking capability should be viewed as much more "in depth" and comprehensive than prior 4th gen aircraft, and more similar to a genuine 5th generation aircraft than anything (same goes for J-16).

From rumours in the past, J-11BG's upgrade were said to be relatively straight forward, so I doubt it was comprehensive enough to overhaul the entire avionics central nervous system and networking capability (and associated power, thermal management systems).

ENTED64 said:

Maybe, I don't really know the engineering well enough to comment, I'm only going off of what other people. Either way the updated J-11s are probably pretty far down the ladder for replacements with almost everything else in the 4th gen or older category coming before them. Given that's like 500ish planes at current rate of production it'll be at least a few years before they consider retiring J-11s.

Click to expand...

Any discussion about "J-11s" really cannot be had without discerning between A and B.
I assume you guys are talking about J-11Bs, but for sake of clarity it is probably useful to make it explicit what you're referring to.


Because J-11As most definitely have no value in MLUs.

Blitzo said:

If you are talking about J-11B family aircraft, then sure it would have the domestic subsystems to enable greater ease of upgrades.
If you are talking about J-11As, then almost certainly not.


As for J-11BG... well apart from being a heavyweight fighter in terms of airframe size, J-11BG is unlikely to be more technologically potent than J-10C unless J-11BG had a true deep avionics architecture overhaul (which is unlikely). J-10C isn't just a J-10B with an AESA. Its overall avionics and networking capability should be viewed as much more "in depth" and comprehensive than prior 4th gen aircraft, and more similar to a genuine 5th generation aircraft than anything (same goes for J-16).

From rumours in the past, J-11BG's upgrade were said to be relatively straight forward, so I doubt it was comprehensive enough to overhaul the entire avionics central nervous system and networking capability (and associated power, thermal management systems).

Click to expand...

My thoughts lie wholly on the J-11 being a bigger airframe. The PLA loves its heavy fighters with their bigger range and bigger payload. It also should be able to accomodate a larger radar. It's not a huge advantage, but it's not to be scoffed at either.

4Tran said:

My thoughts lie wholly on the J-11 being a bigger airframe. The PLA loves its heavy fighters with their bigger range and bigger payload. It also should be able to accomodate a larger radar. It's not a huge advantage, but it's not to be scoffed at either.

Click to expand...

Again, I assume you're talking about J-11B rather than J-11A and J-11B both. It is useful to be specific when differentiating between the major J-11 "variants".

If we are talking about technological sophistication and related capabilities (as opposed to the inherent nature of being a bigger airframe thus having greater range and payload), J-11BG is unlikely to be better than J-10C due to the inherent avionics architecture of the latter and the fact that the former is said to be a more conservative upgrade.

Having a larger radar is great and all, but that only makes J-11BG slightly less gimped than J-10C otherwise.
J-11BG almost certainly will not have the extent of networking capabilities, onboard computing, and sensor fusion of J-10C.


My point being -- sure, J-11B is a large airframe, and the moderate MLU it is said to consist of, means that it will continue to be relevant going into the future, and being a heavyweight airframe means there are certain mission profiles it can do which J-10 family aircraft cannot. But the J-11BG upgrade will not give it technological competitiveness with the likes of J-10C/J-16/J-15T.

Isn't the J-10B basically a J-10C with a Russian engine?

I would say J-10B and Su-35 are 4.5 generation.

But yes I think any aircraft using Russian engines and/or weapons needs to go for logistics reasons. With the exception of the Su-35 since it can be used for adversarial training in case it gets more widely exported.