Future PLA combat aircraft composition

crash8pilot said:

silentlurker said:

Wargames from both the US and China have pretty effectively shown that 5th gen fighters destroy 4th gens, even with AWACS. Whether you believe numbers like 15-0 it is pretty clear 5th gens have a definitive advantage.

Click to expand...

Well in that case why haven't the Americans picked up the phone to Lockheed Martin to pump out more F-22s, or even take up the full monty of 750 Raptors they ordered in the first place, settling on the mere 187 operational airframes they currently have?.... Cause they're just so gosh darn expensive to procure and operate (I'm sure politics also played a big factor, but ultimately money talks)!

Click to expand...

Maybe because 187 F-22 raptors with a 15:0 (conservative) kill ratio against 4th gens = 2,805 4th gen fighters, which is more or less equal to entire Chinese air combat fleet (fighter, bomber, attack) combined ?

Now if J-20 can achieve a 17:0 kill ratio as claimed by recent GlobalTimes piece last week, that means China doesn't need to produce that many J-20's against regional airforces equipped with 3rd or 4th gen fighters. Korea and Japan might combined have ~100 5th gen fighters. So China should atleast equal Korea and Japan. If China foresees a conflict with US over Taiwan or Korea, then China should at minimum match US Pacific fleet numbers of 5th gen as a deterrence for intervention. I don't see a reason why China should match US Global numbers for F-35s unless it expects a full-scale war with US in future... which is unlikely.

AndrewS said:

Remember that the best place to destroy an aircraft is when it is on the ground, where it spends most of the time anyway.

Click to expand...

i see you keep mentioning this point, but i suppose we can all agree missile attack on the airfield can only weaken enemy airpower but not completely wipe it out, unless they are as close as taiwan.

Given that, we can continue to talk about how j20 play a key role in air battle in west pacific.

Phead128 said:

Maybe because 187 F-22 raptors with a 15:0 (conservative) kill ratio against 4th gens = 2,805 4th gen fighters, which is more or less equal to entire Chinese air combat fleet (fighter, bomber, attack) combined ?

Now if J-20 can achieve a 17:0 kill ratio as claimed by recent GlobalTimes piece last week, that means China doesn't need to produce that many J-20's against regional airforces equipped with 3rd or 4th gen fighters. Korea and Japan might combined have ~100 5th gen fighters. So China should atleast equal Korea and Japan. If China foresees a conflict with US over Taiwan or Korea, then China should at minimum match US Pacific fleet numbers of 5th gen as a deterrence for intervention. I don't see a reason why China should match US Global numbers for F-35s unless it expects a full-scale war with US in future... which is unlikely.

Click to expand...

There is this obsession for people to want to have parity in everything, as if without absolute numerical/generational parity a war cannot be won. But that is simply not true; seriously, look at the history. Simply put: China doesn't need to match the combined total of US/Japan/Korea 5th gen aircrafts 1 on 1 in the asia-pacific in order to achieve her objectives, whatever that may be.

I've stated this before and I still believe it now that for the coming decades the combined 4th and 5th gen air force from China will be the most combat and cost effective air force in the region second to none. People are simply too quick to completely disregard 4th gen, and emphasize how much more superior 5th gen is. Well on a 1 on 1 basis yes, 5 gen is vastly superior. But war fighting is never 1 on 1, but rather it is a duel between systems, networks, strategies, and doctrines (and it will be bloody, dirty, and confusing, nothing like in a war-game).

As such, an air force made up of 100% 5th gen will not be superior to an air force that is for instance a 50/50 split between 4th and 5th (heck, even 70/30). Think about sortie rates, max load out, cost of maintenance, cost of attrition, etc. etc. But not only that, also in combat the role of 4th gen can not be overstated. 4th gen will act as force multipliers to the 5th gen, employed in strategies where 4th is either used to lure/distract, or to snipe/finish off enemies under the guidance of 5th gen crafts. And lets not forget how much more efficient a J-16/SU-34 alike would be at bombing the hell out of enemy forces than a 5th gen ever could be.

caohailiang said:

i see you keep mentioning this point, but i suppose we can all agree missile attack on the airfield can only weaken enemy airpower but not completely wipe it out, unless they are as close as taiwan.

Given that, we can continue to talk about how j20 play a key role in air battle in west pacific.

Click to expand...

Run your own cost-benefit analysis on whether attacking airfields or additional aircraft are the better option to achieve air superiority.

Airfield attack has a far higher rate of return for a given amount of money, although it won't be 100% effective.

crash8pilot said:

Well in that case why haven't the Americans picked up the phone to Lockheed Martin to pump out more F-22s, or even take up the full monty of 750 Raptors they ordered in the first place, settling on the mere 187 operational airframes they currently have?.... Cause they're just so gosh darn expensive to procure and operate (I'm sure politics also played a big factor, but ultimately money talks)! The Department of Defense have seemingly settled on a F-22 + F-15C solution to knock out enemy aircraft from the skies and achieve air superiority. Even the "cheaper" fifth-gen fighter in the form of Fat Amy F-35 is proving to be an expensive platform to develop and operate, and as such why 4/4.5-gen fighters like the Viper, Strike Eagle, as well as the older F-15C models continue to play an important role in the USAFs strategy today.

I'm not downplaying the effectiveness or strategic advantage fifth-gen platforms bring to the table. Head to head, a fifth-gen fighter hands down trumps a forth-gen.... But how would a single fifth-gen fighter go up against a division (four ship) or squadron of forth-gen fighters, especially considering how much less it costs to produce + operate + maintain forth-gen platforms as compared to fifth-gen fighters? To put things into perspective it costs an eye watering ~60,000USD per flight hour to operate the F-22, whereas it costs ~30,000USD per flight hour on the F-15C.... or ~7,000USD on the F-16 Block 50! Fifth-gen fighters play a vital role in today's battlefield, but I'm still skeptical that within this decade, and given the finite resources each country's military has at it's disposal, that running an all fifth-gen fleet is the best way of achieving strategic goals... It would be wicked to launch a wall formation of J-20s like the Americans did with their F-15s to counter Iraqi MIGs in Desert Storm, but how economic viable/practical would that be to achieve air superiority?! The PLA would be risking (potentially even sacrificing) a lot to achieve their desired objective. It surely explains why the USAF/USN are in no hurry to phase out F-16s and F-18s for Fat Amy (disregarding the amount of speed bumps the F-35 program has gone up against). Overkill is awesome on paper.... but you have to factor in at what cost? Using the Chinese idiom 紙上談兵, it is easy talking about troops on paper, but much more complicated to field actual troops on the battlefield. That is why I believe the J-10, J-11 and the J-16 will continue to play an important role along with the J-20, even as the FC/J-31 becomes operational.

Looking at the USAF/USN military pilot training system, pilots go through the same training pipeline to get their wings, regardless of whether they end up flying forth or fifth-gen fighters. In fact prior to todays two-track system, every USAF pilot going through undergraduate pilot training went through the T-38, even if they ended up flying heavy C-130s or KC-135s. I've been trying to do more digging on the PLAAF pilot training pipeline, but haven't been able to come out with much... But my point is that while the lives of highly trained pilots are valuable, and losing any pilot would be devastating.... it ultimately costs the same (from a time perspective, less from a financial perspective when you factor in the cost per flight hour operating a forth-gen) to produce a forth or fifth-gen fighter pilot.

Aaaaaanyway I'm not gonna digress further from the J-20 discussion, just thought I'd share my two cents

Click to expand...

The US is going to buy thousands of F-35s, which will have superior networking, sensors and growth potential and will be easier to maintain and integrate new weapons onto than the F-22s were.

The US will still have a large 4th generation fleet going into the future -- but they will also have a very large 5th generation fleet as well.

Eurofighter said:

There is this obsession for people to want to have parity in everything, as if without absolute numerical/generational parity a war cannot be won. But that is simply not true; seriously, look at the history. Simply put: China doesn't need to match the combined total of US/Japan/Korea 5th gen aircrafts 1 on 1 in the asia-pacific in order to achieve her objectives, whatever that may be.

I've stated this before and I still believe it now that for the coming decades the combined 4th and 5th gen air force from China will be the most combat and cost effective air force in the region second to none. People are simply too quick to completely disregard 4th gen, and emphasize how much more superior 5th gen is. Well on a 1 on 1 basis yes, 5 gen is vastly superior. But war fighting is never 1 on 1, but rather it is a duel between systems, networks, strategies, and doctrines (and it will be bloody, dirty, and confusing, nothing like in a war-game).

As such, an air force made up of 100% 5th gen will not be superior to an air force that is for instance a 50/50 split between 4th and 5th (heck, even 70/30). Think about sortie rates, max load out, cost of maintenance, cost of attrition, etc. etc. But not only that, also in combat the role of 4th gen can not be overstated. 4th gen will act as force multipliers to the 5th gen, employed in strategies where 4th is either used to lure/distract, or to snipe/finish off enemies under the guidance of 5th gen crafts. And lets not forget how much more efficient a J-16/SU-34 alike would be at bombing the hell out of enemy forces than a 5th gen ever could be.

Click to expand...

An air force made up of 100% 5th generation will certainly be superior to a numerically equal air force that is 50/50 between 4th and 5th generation -- operating off the assumption that each air force has the requisite funding and maintenance and expertise to maintain their respective fleets.

At the system of systems level, say, an air force of 100 5th generation aircraft will absolutely be able to defeat an air force of 50 5th generation and 50 4th generation aircraft.


The only caveat in which that may not be the case is if the air force with 100% 5th gen aircraft was unable to properly fund and maintain their upkeep.

In which case, this doesn't become a question more about budget size and allocation rather than about military requirements and having the best budget to match those requirements.

Bltizo said:

At the system of systems level, say, an air force of 100 5th generation aircraft will absolutely be able to defeat an air force of 50 5th generation and 50 4th generation aircraft.

Click to expand...

"System of systems" is a term that's often abused to advance all kinds of sloppy thinking. Systems are ultimately made of components, and those components' individual capabilities matter.

crash8pilot said:

5th gen J20 clears up the sky with BVR stealth so that J16s can roll in to knock the door down after, while other 4th gen J10 + J11 perform counterair sweep/AWACS+Tanker escort mission. With that game plan in mind, don't think the PLAAF need a large amount of 5th gen fighters to clear up the sky

Click to expand...

I thought I would address this post because a few people have commented on it, suggesting it is a good idea.

This kind of procurement strategy would be suicidal in the medium and long term (beyond 5-10 years, and 10-20 years, respectively).


The future orbat composition of China's potential adversaries in 5-10 years and certainly after 10 years, will include many hundreds if not over 1500 5th generation fighters, the majority of which will be F-35s. Going into the 2030s that will likely begin to approach 2000+ F-35s for the US alone.
Furthermore, in the medium term it is likely AEW&C and battle management and EW and ISR aircraft will become very distributed and attritable -- i.e.: instead of single large lumbering aircraft, they will become smaller, perhaps unmanned, where losing one or two aircraft will not bring down the entire battle-space's ability to maintain situational awareness/battle management or ISR or EW.


What all this means is that no, it is not enough to simply "depend" on a relatively small force or a minority fleet of 5th generation fighters supported by 4+ generation fighters, because you are going up against a foe with 1000+ or 2000+ 5th generation fighters (depending on the time period and how you count it), and because the enemy's force multipliers will become more survivable and distributed as well.

This is also ignoring likely advances in unmanned aircraft technology, specifically air to air unmanned loyal wingman type UCAVs that will likely enhance the capability and "fleet size" of the side which fields it, which will augment the capability of manned combat aircraft by acting as secondary sensor and shooter nodes.


All this is to say that going into the next 5, 10 and 15 years, the path that the PLA's combat aviation fleet needs to take is quite obvious:
- try to move to all 5th generation fighter procurement as soon as possible and stop 4+ generation fighter production (likely not possible until the mid 2020s at the earliest), with the goal of procuring as many 5th generation fighters as the budget and fleet requirement allows
- further develop and fast track unmanned aircraft technology, with the goals of operationalizing their own loyal wingman UCAV type aircraft within 5 years, as well as operationalizing their own distributed/attritable ISR/AEWC/ISR/ELINT UAV fleet. Once mature, large scale procurement is necessary.
- 4+ generation fighters will continue to be in service and upgraded, however will be completely non-competitive against a foe who will be operating majority fleet 5th gen fighters supported by a large fleet of their own 4+ fighters and increasingly capable unmanned technologies and pre-existing formidable "legacy" AEW&C/EW/ELINT force multipliers.
- continue to try to fast track and develop 6th generation fighter technologies for a rollout preferably by 2030 if not earlier, even if it is in a "phased" manner where new capabilities are rolled into the aircraft over time.


Obviously in addition to the above fundamentals, seeking greater strike/offensive counter air capability to hit opfor air bases when their aircraft is on the ground is desirable, and that will also be pursued.
But seeking to have an air force that is able to at least match, if not outmatch the enemy in the air if you are unable to greatly hamstring their sortie rate/airbases, IMO is also essential.



.... Now, all of this isn't to say that continuing to have 4+ generation aircraft in your fleet is a bad idea -- but rather what I'm saying is that depending on how large and capable the opfor's 5th generation fleet is, you also need to have a sufficiently large and capable 5th gen fleet of your own.

Say we have three air forces:
Air Force A: has 1000 4+ generation fighters and 200 5th gen fighters
Air Force B: has 400 4+ generation fighters and 60 5th generation fighters
Air Force C: has 600 4+ generation fighters and 700 5th generation fighters


In comparing those three air forces, Air Force A's composition would obviously be able to outmatch Air Force B by virtue of not only having a larger total air fleet of fighters (in both 4+ gen and 5th gen).
However, Air Force A would likely be greatly challenged to face Air Force C which has a 5th generation fleet of 700 fighters versus Air Force A's only 200 5th generation fighters, and Air Force a's 1000 4+ generation fighters will not likely be able to pick up the slack.

In an ideal world, not only is your own air force larger than your opfor's, but also each and every single one of your aircraft is qualitatively superior than your opfor's. I don't need to describe the synergistic effects of this in a system on systems confrontation between two air forces, I'm sure.

In the real world, where air forces are limited by budgets, you have to make do with what you can.
But for the PLA, I think we also have to be realistic wrt the scale of the challenge they will be facing in the near future and how their future procurement may be shaped to approach it.

ZeEa5KPul said:

"System of systems" is a term that's often abused to advance all kinds of sloppy thinking. Systems are ultimately made of components, and those components' individual capabilities matter.

Click to expand...

I would say that successful implementation of system of systems allows each individual component of the system to have its effectiveness multiplied.

However, if system A's components are all individually much more capable than system B's individual components, then when both systems are operating as a system-of-systems, the multiplicative effect on their net "effectiveness" is going to cause system A to be much more capable than system B in an absolute manner.


Now, system A is obviously going to cost much more than system B as well... but that's why you need an economy and industrial base able to support your requirements and have the ability to put your money where your mouth is.

Quick reply to Bltizo:

I absolute agree with you that it is indeed essential for China to continue to build up its 5th fleet to a sufficient size in order to effectively counter her adversaries. On top, I also fully agree with you about the future path China should take with regard to unmanned and 6th gen systems. That being said, where we differ in opinion is how large that 5th gen air force needs to be for the coming 10-20 years. The point I was trying to make is that China really does not need to match her adversaries on 1-on-1 basis in terms of 5th gen in order to be effective. If in the next 10-20 years 50% of PLAAF fighters is 5th gen, then that is likely sufficient.

Previously I've touched upon some underlying arguments. Cost is an obvious one, cost of procurement, maintenance, and replacement etc. With cost of replacement being especially relevant in an all out war of attrition.

Second, having a mix of 4th gen and 5th gen allows so much more operational and tactical flexibility which is really hard to achieve with 5th gen alone. In fact I'd be less worried about an opponent with say 1000 F35s and 200 F22s, compared to an opponent with say 600 J20s and 600 J16s. Remember that a war is not fought in isolated spaces between fighter jets alone. The most formidable fighting force is one that can outfight the enemy in multiple domains and one that can quickly change and adapt its fighting strategies. In that regard, the combination of J20 and J16 is able to offer so much more flexibility which you simply cannot achieve with F35 and F22 alone. Just a simple example to make a point: if J16s, guarded by J20s, are used to take out the enemy airfields, what use do you have for those 5th gen aircraft, as the 5th gen are not able to return the favor as effectively? (given load out, sorties rates etc).

And lastly, like you mentioned, with the advancement in unmanned systems, sensors, electronic countermeasures, the advantage of 5th gen vs 4th gen will only get further eroded. This is an additional reason why I'm opposed to blindly focusing on producing 5th gen en masse just for the sake of reaching numerical parity. Those funds could find much better use elsewhere.