China Flanker Thread II

[ougoah]

Both the J-16 and J-10C are very capable planes. But how well will these planes stack up against the F-35 which is becoming the mainstay of the US and her allies air forces. I don't understand why the PLAAF show zero interest in the J-31.

That's because they've invested into the J-20 as PLAAF's 5th gen air-superiority. As far as we know, J-31 is still nowhere near completion and we don't know if it is air-superiority focused or strike or proper multirole. Why would PLAAF spend the resources to acquire a fighter that overlaps in main role with J-20 only with less overall capability than J-20 (very obvious and reasonable assumption).

All of China's military forces for the coming decades will only be focusing on a defensive posture (re. US) because an offensively geared military is pointless, unaffordable and probably unwise for China especially in the age where major powers all have MAD protection so even if one is imperialistically driven, you can't really take sovereignty these days without major headaches if you can survive at all. Taiwan and disputed regions notwithstanding. So in summary, PLAAF only needs one air-superiority platform (maybe they will eventually get different variants of J-20 that focus on different roles but it's a large platform that will be very accommodating for upgrades). Conventional military edge goes to the US by a long margin, the only way to catch up is by developing economy, industries, and technology that allow the nation to either catch-up to and overtake or leapfrog the US, certainly not by building >2000 J-20s or 5th gens. China's economy i.e. access to world's resources are not at US level so latter strategy is guaranteed loss.

To defend sovereignty from the thousands of F-35s that will EVENTUALLY be around, China relies of MAD first and it's conventional forces second for slight chances of contained fighting. Concurrent to all the existing developments and improvements to those two elements, China is also developing technologies that seriously weaken the main effectiveness of 5th gen fighters, VLO. These include various types of new detection and targeting methods that are hinted at like photonics radars, satellite imaging methods, high altitude UAVs, and probably many more effective methods not publicly disclosed. Sinking a lot of resources into one military platform like a tank or a fighter is quite silly but US can afford the F-35. One day when these 90s technology (5th gen fighters) can be easily defeated, their expense will become hard to justify.

Ordering hundreds or even thousands of J-20s and J-31s is not a good strategy to counter US involvement in Asia or the proliferation of F-35s because the US will be at least a step ahead. The only way I see any PLA branch ordering J-31s is if they can be a more economically effective J-20 alternative, or J-31s cover roles the J-20 cannot. This doesn't mean PLAAF should abandon 5th gens, just that spending vast resources in trying to match a wealthier adversary in something they are ahead of seems like a stupid strategy. Just how much China can afford to spend on J-20 and J-31, I certainly don't know. We'll definitely see at least J-20 in serious numbers though. PLAAF does still need numbers to keep a strong conventional deterrent as well as effective MAD deterrents.

 

[siegecrossbow]

In case anyone is interested in the original video about the J-16 squad in Qiqihaer.

 

[by78]

J-11BS on static display at Air Force Day open house in Changchun.

(1400 x 933)

 

[AndrewS]

That's because they've invested into the J-20 as PLAAF's 5th gen air-superiority. As far as we know, J-31 is still nowhere near completion and we don't know if it is air-superiority focused or strike or proper multirole. Why would PLAAF spend the resources to acquire a fighter that overlaps in main role with J-20 only with less overall capability than J-20 (very obvious and reasonable assumption).

All of China's military forces for the coming decades will only be focusing on a defensive posture (re. US) because an offensively geared military is pointless, unaffordable and probably unwise for China especially in the age where major powers all have MAD protection so even if one is imperialistically driven, you can't really take sovereignty these days without major headaches if you can survive at all. Taiwan and disputed regions notwithstanding. So in summary, PLAAF only needs one air-superiority platform (maybe they will eventually get different variants of J-20 that focus on different roles but it's a large platform that will be very accommodating for upgrades). Conventional military edge goes to the US by a long margin, the only way to catch up is by developing economy, industries, and technology that allow the nation to either catch-up to and overtake or leapfrog the US, certainly not by building >2000 J-20s or 5th gens. China's economy i.e. access to world's resources are not at US level so latter strategy is guaranteed loss.

To defend sovereignty from the thousands of F-35s that will EVENTUALLY be around, China relies of MAD first and it's conventional forces second for slight chances of contained fighting. Concurrent to all the existing developments and improvements to those two elements, China is also developing technologies that seriously weaken the main effectiveness of 5th gen fighters, VLO. These include various types of new detection and targeting methods that are hinted at like photonics radars, satellite imaging methods, high altitude UAVs, and probably many more effective methods not publicly disclosed. Sinking a lot of resources into one military platform like a tank or a fighter is quite silly but US can afford the F-35. One day when these 90s technology (5th gen fighters) can be easily defeated, their expense will become hard to justify.

Ordering hundreds or even thousands of J-20s and J-31s is not a good strategy to counter US involvement in Asia or the proliferation of F-35s because the US will be at least a step ahead. The only way I see any PLA branch ordering J-31s is if they can be a more economically effective J-20 alternative, or J-31s cover roles the J-20 cannot. This doesn't mean PLAAF should abandon 5th gens, just that spending vast resources in trying to match a wealthier adversary in something they are ahead of seems like a stupid strategy. Just how much China can afford to spend on J-20 and J-31, I certainly don't know. We'll definitely see at least J-20 in serious numbers though. PLAAF does still need numbers to keep a strong conventional deterrent as well as effective MAD deterrents.

Just 2 points to add.

If and when the J-31 goes into service, it is likely to enter to be air-superiority focused given the huge number of F-22s and F-35s already produced.

The Chinese economy is already bigger than the USA, and as time goes on, China continues to grow faster and become more hi-tech. But yes, the US will have a huge advantage in the numbers of F-35 and F-22 already produced. So I agree that China should counter this asymmetrically eg. by having the capacity to disable the few airbases in the Western Pacific that could host these aircraft.

 

[Tam]

J-11BS on static display at Air Force Day open house in Changchun.

(1400 x 933)

Great workmanship on this plane especially when compared to Flankers thrown into exhibits in the past.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Great workmanship on this plane especially when compared to Flankers thrown into exhibits in the past.

Yep, I think the Chinese Flankers are much cleaner than the Russian birds, they just are lovely... I would love to know what the Chinese pilots flying Su-35s think of those birds in comparison...

Anyway the Flanker is beautiful in all it iterations and the Chinese seem to have gone to great pains to incorporate composite construction and to improve the build quality...

I'd love to see a Russian and Chinese Flanker side by side to confirm my observations, I have been up close and personal with several Mig-29's.

 

[ougoah]

Just 2 points to add.

If and when the J-31 goes into service, it is likely to enter to be air-superiority focused given the huge number of F-22s and F-35s already produced.

The Chinese economy is already bigger than the USA, and as time goes on, China continues to grow faster and become more hi-tech. But yes, the US will have a huge advantage in the numbers of F-35 and F-22 already produced. So I agree that China should counter this asymmetrically eg. by having the capacity to disable the few airbases in the Western Pacific that could host these aircraft.

I agree that it if it enters service with PLAAF, it will likely be focused on air superiority. China's got little need for stealthy strike fighters for PLAAF because they will get dedicated VLO bomber and striker in near future and China will only be fighting localised wars if any. It is more likely to become a PLAN fighter if anything. Carrier or not, it probably can't hold current anti-ship missiles internally so even in PLAN it probably won't become a striker. I don't see PLAAF wanting two separate air-superiority fighters unless J-31 is much simpler and cheaper. But if it is, it is likely much less capable as well. It would make more sense to scale production for J-20 and order hundreds more than to diversify and dilute.

China only recently surpassed by Purchasing Power Parity. Then we also need to remember China's population size is about four times larger than USA's which means four times as many mouths to feed and resources to spread. That means simply, it cannot afford to spend as much on fighters IF all things are equal. Sure things may be far more cost effective in China and we can assume that government military spending value give greater returns in China but those are assumptions. The road to conventional equivalence is going to be long. Balance will be achieved faster through efficient use of available resources, not crazy spending on buying all the 5th gen fighters available. So I don't think we'll ever see J-31 in PLAAF. Maybe in PLAN if J-20 is not suitable and J-31 is a custom made fit for PLAN requirements.

 

[ougoah]

Yep, I think the Chinese Flankers are much cleaner than the Russian birds, they just are lovely... I would love to know what the Chinese pilots flying Su-35s think of those birds in comparison...

Anyway the Flanker is beautiful in all it iterations and the Chinese seem to have gone to great pains to incorporate composite construction and to improve the build quality...

I'd love to see a Russian and Chinese Flanker side by side to confirm my observations, I have been up close and personal with several Mig-29's.

That's something I noticed in J-16 as well. Most Chinese flankers before J-16 have similar surface quality to Russian flankers. We have to compare them with newer Russian flankers like Su-30SM and Su-35 rather than the stressed out Su-27s.

J-16 however seems to have different paneling structure and fewer panels that are riveted. It could be the new coating that is hiding these protrusions and gaps though. It seems like a really smoothed over flanker. I wonder how well that "stealth coating" works. Is reducing RCS by a little bit (and adding costs and complexity) worth it when the fanblades are that exposed and weapons are worn externally? PLAAF seems to think so. Maybe the coatings are part of the structure and fabricated into the frame instead of just applied after every few flights. They could just be part of an MLU in manufacturing technologies at SAC. About time they improved the surface worksmanship on their planes.

Chinese efforts to domesticate this type of fighter has been thoroughly impressive. I think there are more flanker types in Chinese armed forces than there are in Russia's. J-11 series, J-15 series, J-16 series, Su-30 series, and Su-35. Also more total numbers of flankers as well.

 

[plawolf]

I agree that it if it enters service with PLAAF, it will likely be focused on air superiority. China's got little need for stealthy strike fighters for PLAAF because they will get dedicated VLO bomber and striker in near future and China will only be fighting localised wars if any. It is more likely to become a PLAN fighter if anything. Carrier or not, it probably can't hold current anti-ship missiles internally so even in PLAN it probably won't become a striker. I don't see PLAAF wanting two separate air-superiority fighters unless J-31 is much simpler and cheaper. But if it is, it is likely much less capable as well. It would make more sense to scale production for J-20 and order hundreds more than to diversify and dilute.

China only recently surpassed by Purchasing Power Parity. Then we also need to remember China's population size is about four times larger than USA's which means four times as many mouths to feed and resources to spread. That means simply, it cannot afford to spend as much on fighters IF all things are equal. Sure things may be far more cost effective in China and we can assume that government military spending value give greater returns in China but those are assumptions. The road to conventional equivalence is going to be long. Balance will be achieved faster through efficient use of available resources, not crazy spending on buying all the 5th gen fighters available. So I don't think we'll ever see J-31 in PLAAF. Maybe in PLAN if J-20 is not suitable and J-31 is a custom made fit for PLAN requirements.

Just to add that military spending is cumulative to a large degree, since weapons purchased from one year’s budget will be useful for decades.

China also only spends 2% of GDP on defence compared to 3-4% of the US, meaning even when China’s economy is the same size as America’s it is still only spending about half as much on defence.

However, is see little chance of China trying to match the US on defence spending, since the current US defence spending levels are excessive and becoming a significant and growing liability for economic health and growth.

China will accelerate military spending to further erode US military advantages, and will aim to achieve parity or even limited superiority in China’s immediate periphery, but will not try to match the US globally.

For the US to maintain existing military commitments worldwide and still try to overmatch a rapidly modernising Chinese military in China’s own backyard would require significantly more resources to be invested by the US. Especially with its lower efficiency spending compared to China (caused in no small part by everyone treating defence spending as a gravy train in the US; whereas in China, companies make water thin margins on military contracts as profiteering on national defence is highly frowned upon by the authorities). As China’s economy continue to out grow that of the US, it would require the US to gradually but consistently increase defence spending as a percentage of GDP. Which is how the USSR shot themselves in the foot.

But few Americans seem to see this obvious historical parallel.

 

[ougoah]

Just to add that military spending is cumulative to a large degree, since weapons purchased from one year’s budget will be useful for decades.

China also only spends 2% of GDP on defence compared to 3-4% of the US, meaning even when China’s economy is the same size as America’s it is still only spending about half as much on defence.

However, is see little chance of China trying to match the US on defence spending, since the current US defence spending levels are excessive and becoming a significant and growing liability for economic health and growth.

China will accelerate military spending to further erode US military advantages, and will aim to achieve parity or even limited superiority in China’s immediate periphery, but will not try to match the US globally.

For the US to maintain existing military commitments worldwide and still try to overmatch a rapidly modernising Chinese military in China’s own backyard would require significantly more resources to be invested by the US. Especially with its lower efficiency spending compared to China (caused in no small part by everyone treating defence spending as a gravy train in the US; whereas in China, companies make water thin margins on military contracts as profiteering on national defence is highly frowned upon by the authorities). As China’s economy continue to out grow that of the US, it would require the US to gradually but consistently increase defence spending as a percentage of GDP. Which is how the USSR shot themselves in the foot.

But few Americans seem to see this obvious historical parallel.

I think the assumption that US spending efficiency is somehow lower is unfair. We truly do not know this for sure and you can bet it varies depending on platforms and procurement sizes. US would seem to be more accountable and arguably more transparent, at least on paper it is. PRC corruption isn't entirely inexistent either so military matters could have similar problems with corruption, nepotism, and inefficiencies.

Let's say the assumptions are true. Chinese companies making smaller margins on military programs may actually be a "bad" thing for China. I personally have a love hate feeling towards military stuff. In an ideal world, none of these efforts and technologies should be necessary or celebrated. But we don't live there for various reasons so here we all are. As much as it makes good moral sense to not create a MIC that ends up becoming a cancer in how a nation is run, giving small incentives for great talents working in a more "well regulated" MIC will mean lower productivity and less impressive results. We should give the US the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their military industry. To assume they are bloated, over-charging, and incompetent is dangerously arrogant (I know this is NOT what you are claiming at all but maybe some may read into this whole thing like it is). To match the technologies and overall military capabilities of the US, China needs to provide healthy incentives for its own domestic producers. So I would hope that these thin margins for Chinese military industry is not true. What could be good would be tapping into the vast labour forces and talents available in China and using it to increase competition with enormous rewards for expected results.