Future PLA combat aircraft composition

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member

My argument regarding numbers are not inconsistent -- I fully believe the PLA needs the ability to compete with the US in total 5th gen numbers in the region.
However I never said that they needed to match the US in terms of manned 5th gen fighters deployed aboard ships.
As you can see from my fleet airwing orbat -- I place a heavy weight increasingly on UCAVs.
I believe UCAVs will be key to high end naval combat/carrier vs carrier combat in future. Their role, range and endurance for ISR, AEW&C, ASW, and strike into the future will be something that manned fighters will find difficult to match.

Having a sufficient number of manned J-XYs on board for manned CAP, for UCAV control, and having the option to conduct manned strike missions, is enough for my vision of future air-naval warfare.
If you believe that the PLAN needs to match the combined number of F-35Bs and F-35Cs that the US has, then you either have to give up the large complement of UCAVs or to build more carriers.


In regards to choosing between J-15s and J-XYs -- preferring to field more J-XYs instead of J-15s in a high end conflict depends on the availability of each type.



===

As for future air to air combat and the role of UCAVs, I think that our views are simply incompatible.

I do not view the role of future air to air UCAVs as aircraft primarily intended to engage enemy aircraft in dogfights and to exploit their lack of a pilot to pull immense Gs.

I view future air to air UCAVs as being sensor-shooter platforms that are intended to operate forward of manned combat aircraft, who together combine to operate as a manned-unmanned team, where their unmanned nature allows them to actively emit knowing that they may be destroyed but whose active emissions means the rest of your unmanned and manned aircraft are able to detect the enemy's aircraft earlier and destroy them earlier before they have a chance to detect your own manned forces.
If you lose a UCAV to enemy air action, that allows you to narrow the volume of search to track down your enemy and allow the rest of your UCAVs and manned fighters to either engage the enemy or to position yourself for a more favourable engagement.

Such a UCAV would not have to be expensive nor large. The physical size of such an aircraft can be smaller than a J-10 or F-16, does not need to be supersonic nor pull substantially high Gs, and would emphasize stealth, a moderate sensor suite (a small AESA and an EO sensor perhaps), and a datalink. A modern purpose built UCAV of this size would easily be able to achieve operationally relevant ranges that an equivalent sized manned aircraft could not.
A single such UCAV would be 1/3rd to 1/4th the cost of a manned J-20 or equivalent generic manned 5th generation fighter -- that is the kind of favourable sensor-shooter ratio one wants.
E.g.: if one was asked to field 4 manned fighter aircraft vs 4 manned fighter aircraft, and one side had the option of trading out 1 manned fighter for 4 UCAVs, I would certainly choose to go with a 2 manned fighter and 8 UCAV formation versus 4 manned fighters.


If I have a network of MUMT drones, and you my opfor is conducting hit and run attacks with manned fighters, I would very gladly trade one or two of my drones for one of your F-35s in those encounters.
The whole point of these drones is to allow my unmanned forces to be able to engage the opfor's manned forces without putting my own manned forces at the same risk.




Let's put it this way -- my view is that if the qualitative individual aircraft of each side is equally hard to detect (i.e.: stealthy), and if they field weapons and sensors of equal quality (AESAs, EO, whatever), then the side which will be able to win, is the side that is able to saturate the airspace with more sensors and more shooters operating from multiple individual platforms and directions in a networked manner, ideally with manned aircraft operating further "behind" the frontline, so they are able to preserve their valuable human pilots and more expensive manned aircraft while the forward operating UAV/UCAV swarm acts as the first line of detection and fires.

===

Edit, also, in case there was any confusion -- the role of my carrierborne UCAVs is different to the A2A MUMT UCAVs I was describing.

The role of the carrierborne UCAVs would be to primarily emphasize: stealth, range/endurance, payload, and cost, in that order of priority/capability. These UCAVs would be relatively large, capable, and intended to fill roles of ISR, long range strike and maritime strike missions, followed by supplementing CAP and air to air refuelling.

The role of the MUMT A2A UCAVs otoh, would be to emphasize stealth, cost, range/endurance, and payload, in that order of priority/capability. These MUMT A2A UCAVs would likely be primarily land based, and operate alongside manned fighters (which may be land based or carrier based depending on the exact location where you are contesting air superiority).


(There are of course other UCAVs and UAVs that I see as part of the overall future force structure in the PLAAF and PLANAF -- including large long range land based strike UCAVs, large long range land based ISR/networking UAVs, large long range AEW UAVs, swarming small size cruise missile esque reusable UAVs/decoys, among others -- but they're not directly relevant to the topic at hand.)
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
@plawolf @Bltizo

As of end-2020 or early-2021 the USN has 30x F-35C; 60x F/A-18C; 25x F/A-18D; 313x F/A-18E; 273x F/A-18F in its Active Naval Aviation branch (+158 EA-18G which are of course combat capable), and an additional 30x F/A-18C; 5 F/A-18D (+5 EA-18G) in Reserve.

So we are talking 701x in Active (859x total including EW) and 35x in Reserve (40x total including EW). The USN therefore has 736x carrier-capable combat aircraft or 899x if you include the EW Hornet variant which is very combat-capable.

Of course not all of these are on carriers at the same time, but they all belong to the same limited variants, and I would expect if China did field the same number of carriers then at worst you'd be talking 10% or 20% less of the combined carrier mix (5th gen + 4th gen), to account for perhaps less FRS-equivalent squadrons in China if they aren't going to have as many squadrons for shore-based training.

Of course if you throw in the USMC numbers too then you're talking about as many as 387 more combat-capable aircraft on top of the up to 899x in the USN. Certainly not nearly as many will be on carriers but you get the point; there's a lot of room to be had in Chinese expansion of the Naval combat-capable carrier-capable fleet. Now, if China ever started producing VTOLs and putting them on amphibious assaults ships then these USMC numbers would become entirely applicable, but of course there is no news to that extent.

I'm not sure what you are talking about.
 

sinophilia

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'm not sure what you are talking about.

You were referring earlier to the number of US combat ac that are carrier-capable. Your numbers were wrong so I sought to correct them.

Producing 350 combat-capable carrier-capable ac as an ‘upper’ number for China if she had 10-11 carriers is ridiculous, even if you had a similar number of 4th gen onboard the composition is not ideal AND the quantity is significantly inferior.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
You were referring earlier to the number of of combat ac that are carrier-capable. Your numbers were wrong so I sought to correct them.

Producing 350 carrier capable ac as an ‘upper’ number for China if she had 11 carriers is ridiculous, even if you had a similar number of 4th gen onboard the composition is not ideal AND the quantity is significantly inferior.

?
I wasn't referring to the number of combat aircraft that were carrier capable.

The 350 number was in reference to carrier capable J-XYs that I think the PLAN would require.
That 350 number does not include other combat aircraft that would be aboard PLAN carriers of the foreseeable eras (J-15 variants, UCAVs).
 

sinophilia

Junior Member
Registered Member
?
I wasn't referring to the number of combat aircraft that were carrier capable.

The 350 number was in reference to carrier capable J-XYs that I think the PLAN would require.
That 350 number does not include other combat aircraft that would be aboard PLAN carriers of the foreseeable eras (J-15 variants, UCAVs).

In your estimates, even including J-15 and UCAVs it seems the total number would still be quite a bit below the current US numbers
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
In your estimates, even including J-15 and UCAVs it seems the total number would still be quite a bit below the current US numbers

Would it?

By 2042 -- which is when I think the PLAN might be able to achieve 10 CATOBAR carriers -- as I wrote before here:

... my fixed wing combat airwing of a standard CATOBAR carrier is:
- 2042: 70 aircraft, 6 J-15 (mostly/all J-15Ds by this point), 30 J-XY, 34 fixed wing UCAV/UAV

70 aircraft per CATOBAR, 10 CATOBAR carriers -- that's 700 aircraft.


If we posit an eventual aim of 12 CATOBAR carriers (say, 2045), that's 840 fixed wing combat capable aircraft.


edit: this is of course only talking about the CATOBAR carriers -- the 076s will have a fixed wing complement as well, primarily of UCAVs, and I expect those would be of the same model as one of the UCAV types that will be aboard the CATOBAR carriers, operating again in the ISR, strike roles primarily.
 

sinophilia

Junior Member
Registered Member
Would it?

By 2042 -- which is when I think the PLAN might be able to achieve 10 CATOBAR carriers -- as I wrote before here:

... my fixed wing combat airwing of a standard CATOBAR carrier is:
- 2042: 70 aircraft, 6 J-15 (mostly/all J-15Ds by this point), 30 J-XY, 34 fixed wing UCAV/UAV

70 aircraft per CATOBAR, 10 CATOBAR carriers -- that's 700 aircraft.


If we posit an eventual aim of 12 CATOBAR carriers (say, 2045), that's 840 fixed wing combat capable aircraft.


edit: this is of course only talking about the CATOBAR carriers -- the 076s will have a fixed wing complement as well, primarily of UCAVs, and I expect those would be of the same model as one of the UCAV types that will be aboard the CATOBAR carriers, operating again in the ISR, strike roles primarily.

So if we assume 11 instead of 10 just to provide for an appropriate basis for comparison with current USN/USMC figures, that would be 770 in your total. You are also including electronic attack variants so I'll include those too.

At end-2020 or early-2021 the USN has a total of 899 F-35s, F/A-18C/D/E/F, and EA-18G. I guess your numbers are fairly close but still ~15% less. With the addition of USMC carrier numbers that total may be 20-25% less than the the current US Naval Aviation combat-capable, potentially carrier capable fleet.

Your production totals for the J-XY imply not as many potentially carrier capable aircraft that are shore-based, which could be used if carriers wanted to push to their maximum capacity of 90+ or for shore based training, etc.

Right now USN has 899x and USMC for potential carrier operations is in the low hundreds too. You are talking over 1,000 vs 770 for your future 2040s fleet. I think if we are talking the same numbers of carriers I'd think the Chinese numbers might be 10-20% higher if not a bit more than that.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
So if we assume 11 instead of 10 just to provide for an appropriate basis for comparison with current USN/USMC figures, that would be 770 in your total. You are also including electronic attack variants so I'll include those too.

At end-2020 or early-2021 the USN has a total of 899 F-35s, F/A-18C/D/E/F, and EA-18G. I guess your numbers are fairly close but still ~15% less. With the addition of USMC carrier numbers that total may be 20-25% less than the the current US Naval Aviation combat-capable, potentially carrier capable fleet.

Your production totals for the J-XY imply not as many potentially carrier capable aircraft that are shore-based, which could be used if carriers wanted to push to their maximum capacity of 90+ or for shore based training, etc.

Right now USN has 899x and USMC for potential carrier operations is in the low hundreds too. You are talking over 1,000 vs 770 for your future 2040s fleet. I think if we are talking the same numbers of carriers I'd think the Chinese numbers might be 10-20% higher if not a bit more than that.


The 70 aircraft CATOBAR airwing I describe are what would be deployed on deck during a deployment. A fully fitted carrier airwing, I would see up to 90 aircraft in total including fixed wing and rotary -- 70 of those aircraft would be fixed wing combat aircraft (J-XY, UCAVs, J-15Ds), while up to 20 of those would be a mix of fixed wing support aircraft and helicopters (KJ-600, perhaps a COD variant, as well as ASW helicopters, general utility helicopters).

In terms of total production to include a small number of shore based training aircraft, you can increase it a little bit as you see fit.

I'm also not sure what your obsession with comparing or "matching" with the USN and USMC is.

For the sake of "total naval fixed wing combat aircraft" comparisons, in the number of aircraft that I describe, I do not include the UCAV airwings of 076s -- we do not know how many UCAVs the 076s could carry in a fixed wing heavy loadout, nor do we know how many 076s will be built.
You can do the maths of it yourself if you want to come up with how many hypothetical UCAVs a hypothetical 076 could carry based on however many hypothetical 076s they build.



In any case, your reading of my previous writing about "350 carrier capable ac as an ‘upper’ number for China if she had 11 carriers is ridiculous" is categorically incorrect.
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
At end-2020 or early-2021 the USN has a total of 899 F-35s, F/A-18C/D/E/F, and EA-18G. I guess your numbers are fairly close but still ~15% less.
But PLAN will still be operating 001 and 002 and some number of 003s, which will all hold less than Ford/Nimitz
 

sinophilia

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'm also not sure what your obsession with comparing or "matching" with the USN and USMC is.

I don't get these responses, isn't it obvious? They are the foremost military power and have been for a long time. China has been one of the lowest most inconsequential 'powers' (if it even was one) for centuries. China is finally rising, so fast in fact that it has securely displaced everyone except the #1 power.

Why not let people fanboy a little bit in excitement instead of acting like it's weird or unprofessional.

On another note, if you are to remove emotion from the equation and talk purely about objectively ascertaining future numbers of X or Y (which is what we're doing), I don't see why they wouldn't be similar in composition and quantity. If China would really go for the same number of carriers as the US, I don't see why they wouldn't have a similar number of anything, until you adjust for radically different strategic and mission objectives or differing designs, which we haven't done as there is no indication of that.

So on the one hand, it's fun to compare to the #1 power when you consider where China was only 20 years ago (let alone the last 200), but on another note it's also relevant since China seems to be modeling itself on the US in many ways when it concerns its military. In our arguments we are assuming that will continue to be the case, with the only difference being the America/Wasp equivalents in the Type 075/076 might not have VTOLs (so naturally it fills in that hole, with fixed-wing UCAVs).

Who the hell knows, maybe China will eventually produce a 5th Gen VTOL in a decade in low numbers, as a variant of the J-XY or something else. And if it does then the USN/USMC quantity and composition of aircraft will be pretty much the same, in which case you could posit that China will have over 1,200-1,300 5th and 4th Gen combat aircraft, including EW, on carriers and assault ships, including shore-based aircraft which have the capability to join carriers or the amphibious assault ships.

As for now, removing the assault ship contingent, assuming similar composition of the carriers alone, I think the total numbers of combat aircraft would be closer to 1,000. If you are including UCAVs for the assault ships then I would assume roughly an equal or slightly higher amount than the equivalent number of 5th Gen USMC aircraft on their own ships, so the total would be 1,500 or so for China.
 
Top