I think we must have somewhat different expectations on the number of carriers China will ultimately field, as well as the speed of their introduction.
I expect the PLAN to ultimately be planning for a carrier fleet equivalent if not even larger than the one the USN currently fields. I would also expect PLAN carriers to be of a similar if not larger size compared to USN Ford class carriers. So that’s potentially between 500-750 manned carrier fighters depending on UCAV composition in carrier air arms and taking into account land based reserve squadrons.
I also expect PLAN carrier production to at most peak at two being built at the same time, with say 4-6 year build time per carrier, and we are allowing at maybe 24-36 years before the PLAN carrier fleet reaches peak numbers.
My idea is that the PLA does not procure J21s based on their carrier induction schedule, but rather on SAC maximum production rates, which again will be dependent on how much the PLA want to invest in setting up production.
But I would say maybe J10 production figures would be a good ballpark for the PLA and SAC to aim for, so 20-30+ fighters per year at peak production, with annual J20 production also peaking at similar numbers which may take a couple years to ramp up to. That means SAC can potentially finish the entire PLAN figure carrier fighter requirement within 20 years (which is where export orders comes in to extend the production run for attritional replacements, although in 20 years 6th gens may well be on the cards).
By front loading fighter production, you build up your 5gen inventory ASAP, but ultimately all those J21s and the associated support and spares inventories are earmarked for the PLAN, meaning you do not double up on types and support within the PLAAF.
The whole point is to keep the PLAAF’s 5th gen fleet to J20s only without needing the complication of a second type in the long run. That is because I think it would be more cost and capabilities effective to build more J20s rather than induct J21s since I suspect we will see a very similar trend develop as was the case with F22s and F35s, where you end up paying the same if not more per plane for a far less capable plane.
It is largely a budgetary and political distinction, but such things can be important in the real world.
So, I agree that I think the PLAN will eventually seek a similar or slightly greater number of carriers than the US -- let's say 10-12 carriers.
And I of course am assuming a steady state of seeking 10-12 100k ton CVNs as well.
I imagine that they may reach 10-12
carriers overall, by 2040 -- that's including CV-16/17, and however many 003 carriers they buy, followed by however many CVNs they buy. Reaching 10-11 100k ton CVNs may take 2050 or onwards as the older carriers get retired depending on schedule.
However even for 10-12 100k ton CVNs, I do not see a requirement for 500-750 manned fighters, and I dont' see a requirement for more than 300+ carrier based J-XYs.
A US CVN airwing currently holds something like 60-70 aircraft for maximal sortie efficiency. The majority those of course are manned fixed wing fighters.
By the time we reach the mid to late 2030s, I fully expect carrier based fixed wing UCAVs/UAVs to make up at least half of a carrier's fixed wing complement by airframe count. After 2040, I very much expect fixed wing UCAVs/UAVs to potentially out number the manned fixed wing airframes as part of a carrier's airwing.
In the case of Chinese carriers, I expect the make up of their future manned fixed wing combat aircraft fleet to include a combination of J-15B (CATOBAR J-15 with 4.5 gen/at least J-16 level avionics and weapons suite, to be produced from early 2020s to late 2020s) -- as well as a carrier based J-XY (to be produced from mid 2020s to after mid 2030s) -- as well as J-15D (which I think may see a longer production run than J-15B but ultimately produced in smaller numbers).
In context of the above, if we are talking about a "CATOBAR fixed wing combat airwing," I'd posit them over time as something like this:
- 2027: 50 aircraft, 30 J-15 size airframes (mostly J-15B, maybe 4-6 J-15D), 20 J-XY -- aboard a 003
- 2032: 66 aircraft, 30 J-15, 25 J-XY, 5 fixed wing UCAV/UAV (X-47B sized, initially single role but will be more multirole over time) -- aboard a future CVN
- 2037: 70 aircraft, 20 J-15, 30 J-XY, 20 fixed wing UCAV/UAV -- aboard the same CVN design as from 2032
- 2042: 70 aircraft, 6 J-15 (mostly/all J-15Ds by this point), 30 J-XY, 34 fixed wing UCAV/UAV -- aboard the same CVN design as from 2032
The above is not exhaustive of course, but if we plot out how many carriers the PLAN are likely to have at each of those junctures, and at how many J-XYs they may require at each of those junctures, I think a maximal production run of say 350 carrier based J-XYs can fulfill the PLAN's needs until the 2040s, at which point I expect a new generation 6th generation carrier based fighter to be in advanced development/testing anyhow.
In other words, the reason why I think the carrier based J-XY will see a relatively "small" production run (though still some 300+ aircraft!) is because between the early 2020s and early 2030s I expect at least half if not a slight majority of each carrier's fixed combat airwing to be J-15s (J-15B and J-15D) -- and between the late 2030s and 2040s onwards I expect UCAVs to significantly make up a greater strength of a carrier's airwing as J-15Bs are retired (though some J-15Ds will likely be retained).
So, my view in regards to the carrier based J-XY is that I don't think they will build more than 350 throughout its entire production run to begin with between 2025 and say 2037.
The idea of "frontloading" J-XY production (whether it's for carrier based variant or land based variant) -- is not something that can be reasonably talked about as if it is achievable.
From beginning of LRIP, one usually needs 3-4 years until you achieve more sustainable higher levels of production and even that is limited not only by money, but also by the finite amount of aerospace industry resources as well as the military's ability to absorb new stealth fighters -- specifically their requisite logistics and support network to allow them to operate effectively.
Obviously everyone wants to build 5th generation aircraft that do not require a dedicated 5th generation logistics/support network, but looking at the trend of F-22, F-35 and also J-20, I suspect that the ability of a military to absorb new generation fighters will be as much of a bottleneck as money and industry as well.
.... as for the cost of J-20 and a land based J-XY/J-21....
That really depends on how much cheaper J-XY/J-21 is to procure and operate than J-20. There are indications that J-XY/J-21 is meant to not only be cheaper to procure (including through the design of its airframe structure and the use of additive manufacturing), but also rumours that it should field more advanced and cheaper to maintain VLO relative to J-20 as well.
Neither of those things can necessarily be "spun into" future J-20 variants in a very easy manner unless they want to significantly redesign the J-20 airframe, and if I was CAC, I'd probably rather be focusing more of my money and expertise in applying new technologies for 6th gen instead.
That is to say, my premise for the PLAAF buying a large number (600+) of land based J-XYs is entirely on the premise that a land based J-XY is both meaningfully cheaper to procure and to operate through its life time, than the likely J-20 equivalent of the time.
