Future PLA combat aircraft composition

Whether the J10 or J16 will continue to be more widely produced is mostly a calculation in tradeoffs and needs, between the lower cost of a single-engined J10 and a two-engined J16, and the longer range/payload of the J16, and differs from region to region

I suspect that the development of advanced avionics and mass production of WS-10s means that the balance is leaning more towards J16, but most of us won't really know and can only speculate. Personally I think both will continue to be produced in large numbers.

I keep seeing people diss the J10’s range, but it’s hardly a short legged fighter. It’s just that China’s vast territory needs long range to cover from existing Air Force bases.

There is an easy solution to that ‘problem’, more air bases and fighter regiments.

For the last 30 years China has been spending peacetime GPD percentages on its military and massively scaling back its armed forces numbers. But we have finally reached the inflection point where American hostility makes such a course unwise and dangerous to continue pursuing.

It’s odd people keep talking about the new Cold War between America and China and yet still somehow expect future Chinese military expenditure and structures to continue following the same patterns and trajectory as the last 30 years during which China enjoyed a relatively peaceful international environment.

Even against 5th gen opponents, the J10Cs are no pushover when backed up by J20s and J31/35s. Because modern air combat is still very much a numbers game. Where the number of missiles and planes available can and will make a massive impact.

In a BVR fight, it’s all about balancing defence with offence. The first incoming BVR missile has minimal chances of hitting a competent pilot in a good fighter because the fighter has a massive advantage in energy if it can detect the incoming at a good distance.

The fighter can go cold (turn away from the incoming) and dive to make the missile waste its energy, and then pull up and laugh as the missile runs of of energy and drops back to earth. The challenge is you need to also periodically turn back to shoot more missiles at the enemy to keep them defensive as well. Because if all you do is dodge the first missile, the enemy can close the distance and shoot more missiles at you when you are already low and slow and cannot dodge them.

In any major engagements against enemy 5th gens, I expect the PLAAF to use J20s as their frontline first way door kickers, backed up by J10Cs and J16Ds in the middle, with J16s bringing up the rear as PL15 trucks.

J10Cs will be actively scanning with their AESAs and IRSTs while the J20s will be operating in passive mode and feeding off J10 and AWACS for primary active radar sensor support.

Any F35s that take pot shots at J10s will likely be well within PL15 range of J20s and can expect to have missiles locked on and inbound on them almost immediately.

At the same time the J10s will loose both their PL12/15s apiece and go cold against the incoming first AMRAAM wave. Which are unlikely to cause much in the way of losses due to the F35s being forced into the defensive and the J10s being able to go fully defensive without needing to worry about recommitting until they have shaken the incoming missiles.

All the while J16s are coming in at max speed ready to dump more missiles on the F35s when they are at their most vulnerable, having expended most of their height and speed dodging the first missile waves.

With J10Cs coming back with PL10s to finish off anything that survives after they dodged the first AMRAAM barrage.

In such a scenario, J10s will take the brunt of the losses and expend the most fuel and munitions. Which is the least bad option. And J20s and J16s will probably have the fuel and missile loads for 2-3 such engagements. So the optimal course is to have a fresh J10 wave inbound as all this is happening to sub out the first J10 wave and maintain the formation and force structure ready for the next F35 wave.

As such, you ideally want a minimum of 2-1 or 3-1 number of J10s to J16s, with even 4-1 not unreasonable to take into account combat attrition.

That’s just got active frontline combat. But J10s are also valuable as second line defences to deal with the inevitable cruise missile waves the USN would be unleashing, and also to allow you to put up way more randomised air patrols to make B2 strikes much more risky and costly etc.

There is no shortage of usage for J10s, and I expect their production to continue for many more years yet at Guizhou, even if annual production rates are scaled back somewhat. I can see maybe Guizhou operating just a single J10C line, with maybe a second being transferred to Pakistan as part of ToT package for a big J10 deal.

There is a danger the conversation will go out of hand and into off topic - but there's a practical limit to the number of planes in an air battle. I don't know what that limit is - as it's a somewhat stretchable number. Perhaps after 50 or a 100 planes trying to coordinate themselves or be coordinated from outside - adding further planes doesn't increase the deadliness and efficiency of the whole group nearly as much. So maybe once the group goes over 100 or 150 planes - adding even more planes to it just becomes a waste and brings very little to the effectiveness.

That's due to the fact the whole network of planes in the battle is still not automated and each plane/pilot gets their orders on their own. There's no overarching AI which receives all the sensor info from all the platforms, then makes up a real time digital image, suggests a plan of action, is then perhaps influenced/edited by some human general before the AI system sends very precise orders (shoot X missiles to target Y at moment Z while at altitude/speed/position W)

Basically, only such an automated system could organize hundreds of planes in a single battle and make them efficient as a group. But we're far from such systems. And once they do come, human pilots would be a hinderance to such a system anyway.

So, in today's world, in such situations where there is a practical efficiency limit, it may pay off that the air force is using as capable planes as possible, instead of using a high low mix. Of course, there are other factors to consider, such as cost, but it's not really a clear cut deal to rely on large numbers of planes, especially less capable ones.

To get back to the topic at hand - I do believe J10's future isn't very bright. And that China may want to replace it with more expensive but more capable planes. Not in the immediate future, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if the production ends within 5 to 10 years and the next "cheap" Chinese fighter is anything but simple and cheap.

Of course, IF the AI and datalinks and automatization progress very quickly - then it's also possible we'll see entirely different force composition. One that is still mostly devoid of planes like J-10, but one where there are indeed hundreds of planes planned for a battle, with a smaller percentage being large, super high tech drone planes and a larger percentage being less high tech, smaller and cheaper drone planes.

Totoro said:

There is a danger the conversation will go out of hand and into off topic - but there's a practical limit to the number of planes in an air battle. I don't know what that limit is - as it's a somewhat stretchable number. Perhaps after 50 or a 100 planes trying to coordinate themselves or be coordinated from outside - adding further planes doesn't increase the deadliness and efficiency of the whole group nearly as much. So maybe once the group goes over 100 or 150 planes - adding even more planes to it just becomes a waste and brings very little to the effectiveness.

That's due to the fact the whole network of planes in the battle is still not automated and each plane/pilot gets their orders on their own. There's no overarching AI which receives all the sensor info from all the platforms, then makes up a real time digital image, suggests a plan of action, is then perhaps influenced/edited by some human general before the AI system sends very precise orders (shoot X missiles to target Y at moment Z while at altitude/speed/position W)

Basically, only such an automated system could organize hundreds of planes in a single battle and make them efficient as a group. But we're far from such systems. And once they do come, human pilots would be a hinderance to such a system anyway.

So, in today's world, in such situations where there is a practical efficiency limit, it may pay off that the air force is using as capable planes as possible, instead of using a high low mix. Of course, there are other factors to consider, such as cost, but it's not really a clear cut deal to rely on large numbers of planes, especially less capable ones.

To get back to the topic at hand - I do believe J10's future isn't very bright. And that China may want to replace it with more expensive but more capable planes. Not in the immediate future, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if the production ends within 5 to 10 years and the next "cheap" Chinese fighter is anything but simple and cheap.

Of course, IF the AI and datalinks and automatization progress very quickly - then it's also possible we'll see entirely different force composition. One that is still mostly devoid of planes like J-10, but one where there are indeed hundreds of planes planned for a battle, with a smaller percentage being large, super high tech drone planes and a larger percentage being less high tech, smaller and cheaper drone planes.

Click to expand...

The issue is less one of peak numbers, but more about sustaining those numbers.

To keep 100 combat aircraft on station, you probably need to have 500 planes for rotations in peacetime. Factor in combat attrition and that number could easily double over a whole campaign during war time

And we are just talking about a single area here.

In a realistic war scenario, you could easily see 3-4 active major engagements, with attacks from Japan/Korea threatening north-eastern China, maybe even Beijing; Taiwan, probes into the SCS from Australian bases and India jumping in to set fires in the west.

Thus a total fighter fleet of between 1500-2000 planes would not be excessive, and that’s basically the numbers both the USA and USSR maintained during the Cold War.

Totoro said:

There is a danger the conversation will go out of hand and into off topic - but there's a practical limit to the number of planes in an air battle. I don't know what that limit is - as it's a somewhat stretchable number. Perhaps after 50 or a 100 planes trying to coordinate themselves or be coordinated from outside - adding further planes doesn't increase the deadliness and efficiency of the whole group nearly as much. So maybe once the group goes over 100 or 150 planes - adding even more planes to it just becomes a waste and brings very little to the effectiveness.

That's due to the fact the whole network of planes in the battle is still not automated and each plane/pilot gets their orders on their own. There's no overarching AI which receives all the sensor info from all the platforms, then makes up a real time digital image, suggests a plan of action, is then perhaps influenced/edited by some human general before the AI system sends very precise orders (shoot X missiles to target Y at moment Z while at altitude/speed/position W)

Basically, only such an automated system could organize hundreds of planes in a single battle and make them efficient as a group. But we're far from such systems. And once they do come, human pilots would be a hinderance to such a system anyway.

So, in today's world, in such situations where there is a practical efficiency limit, it may pay off that the air force is using as capable planes as possible, instead of using a high low mix. Of course, there are other factors to consider, such as cost, but it's not really a clear cut deal to rely on large numbers of planes, especially less capable ones.

To get back to the topic at hand - I do believe J10's future isn't very bright. And that China may want to replace it with more expensive but more capable planes. Not in the immediate future, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if the production ends within 5 to 10 years and the next "cheap" Chinese fighter is anything but simple and cheap.

Of course, IF the AI and datalinks and automatization progress very quickly - then it's also possible we'll see entirely different force composition. One that is still mostly devoid of planes like J-10, but one where there are indeed hundreds of planes planned for a battle, with a smaller percentage being large, super high tech drone planes and a larger percentage being less high tech, smaller and cheaper drone planes.

Click to expand...

It is doable, however only two countries could coordinate that many simultaneously.

As of now, we have around 550 J-10s in service of various variety. We have around 450 J-11B/15/16. We have around 125 Su-30/35s. We have around 250 JH-7A in service. Finally, 100 J-20s. This is assuming that the 400 remaining J-7/8s, the remaining JH-7s and all the su-27/J-11s are not part of the future (leaving service in the next 5 years). You are look at a total 1500 J20s/10/flankers/JH-7As from now that are in the medium term plans. On top of this, you probably have over 100 H-6s.

For the next 3 years, if we assume an average of 45 J-20s, 30 J-10s and 40 flankers, they will be over 1800 J-20s/10/flankers/JH-7As by the start of 2025. There will be very few J-7s by that time. J-8s and JH-7s will be gone. Most of J-11s will still be around. If PLAAF procures more J-10s, what will they actually be replacing? There is only so many brigades that don't face F-35 pressure.

The reality is that J-10s are limited by range. This is what the typical J-10 load looks like
They need 3 external fuel tanks in order to just have sufficient range to perform missions. With that, it would only be able to carry 2 PL-10 + 2 PL-15s.

There is a reason all these incursions next to Taiwan are performed by J-16s/Y-8s/H-6s and rarely by J-10Cs. You are really pushing the limit of J-10s in that scenario. More importantly, J-10s are not usable if the battle extends further out to the Japanese islands. As PLAAF transitions to an offensive type of Air Force, it needs longer range aircraft to do that. If we look at USAF, they have not purchased any F-16s since 2005, but are still purchasing new F-15s right now. USN pilots really protested when they "upgraded" from F-14s to F-18E/F. Range really matters for a primarily offensive type of Air Force. You can't really get that with J-10Cs.

If J-20Bs are as great as speculated and able to control UCAVs, why would PLAAF need to use J-10Cs in the role of providing sensor data to J-20s and launching missiles? UCAVs would be able to do much shorter takeoff and landing. So, they could operate from LHDs and near by airports with short runways. They have better range/loiter time than J-10s. There is no need to worry about pilot fatigue. They'd also be stealthier than J-10Cs. On top of that, they would not be limited to just A2A actions.

I personally think PLAAF would have a hard time taking down many F-35s. They would have a better time just wearing out the F-35s and then having control of the air space. Loiter time and range really matters as PLAAF transitions to an offensive force. Keep in mind that Z-10s started production even later than J-10s. Now, China has stopped producing them after they formed about 16 brigades. That was also done so Z-20 production can really ramp up. As much as I hate to say it, I think PLAAF probably will buy another 100 J-10s and be finished.

Adding more bases might not be an option in case you want to cover the Pacific.

tphuang said:

I personally think PLAAF would have a hard time taking down many F-35s. They would have a better time just wearing out the F-35s and then having control of the air space. Loiter time and range really matters as PLAAF transitions to an offensive force. Keep in mind that Z-10s started production even later than J-10s. Now, China has stopped producing them after they formed about 16 brigades. That was also done so Z-20 production can really ramp up. As much as I hate to say it, I think PLAAF probably will buy another 100 J-10s and be finished.

Click to expand...

I would go with sustaining the J-10 production line with 12 aircraft per year for the next 10+ years, but with deliveries to the PLAAF only if they can't find an export buyer.

If Pakistan goes for another 50 J-10s, that already accounts for 4 of those years.
And I imagine payment could be in instalments with little paid upfront.

So it's more about finding export buyers and generating income, whilst also have the side benefit of lower sustainment costs for the existing Chinese J-10 fleet, along with the occasional induction of new replacement aircraft.

plawolf said:

The issue is less one of peak numbers, but more about sustaining those numbers.

To keep 100 combat aircraft on station, you probably need to have 500 planes for rotations in peacetime. Factor in combat attrition and that number could easily double over a whole campaign during war time

And we are just talking about a single area here.

In a realistic war scenario, you could easily see 3-4 active major engagements, with attacks from Japan/Korea threatening north-eastern China, maybe even Beijing; Taiwan, probes into the SCS from Australian bases and India jumping in to set fires in the west.

Thus a total fighter fleet of between 1500-2000 planes would not be excessive, and that’s basically the numbers both the USA and USSR maintained during the Cold War.

Click to expand...

It's not about staying on the defensive with CAP anymore.

It's about sustaining offensive missions, because defending is harder than going on the offensive.

Say you have 3 active theatres eg. Taiwan, Japan, Korea
You would want to conduct an offensive sweep say every 3hours. That is 8x a day.

The result is that the defending fighters never get a rest, the limited numbers of airbases/carriers are under daily attack (with airplanes on the ground destroyed) and you always have some fighters in the air which are ready to deal with any incoming air attack anyway. Then afterwards, some of the fighter escorts can remain as a CAP whilst the rest of the aircraft return to base.

So an offensive sweep might have 12-24 fighters, covering another 12-24 bombers strike aircraft, along with some support aircraft.
That comes to a maximum of 50-odd aircraft like we see on the missions flying around Taiwan. You couldn't pack any more aircraft into the crowded airspace over Taiwan or Korea anyway, because they are geographically small.

Frequent airstrikes are feasible when each is composed of 30-50 aircraft. But you start to run out of available aircraft and worthwhile targets (air and ground) really quickly when you send out 100 aircraft at a time. So there's also no practical need to regularly send out 100 aircraft at a time.

---

China currently has about 400 dedicated attack aircraft like the H-6 or JH-7, plus another 200 J-16s which would be suited to strike missions.
So with 600 strike aircraft, China could sustain 3theatres x 8 daily airstrikes each comprising 24 strike aircraft.
Then you would need another 600 fighters to cover those strike aircraft.

So going forward, I expect PLAAF procurement to further emphasise offensive missions. In that context, J-16s are more useful than J-10s, as the J-16 can initially focus on long-range air control with the J-20/J-35, and then switch to a strike role.

tphuang said:

As of now, we have around 550 J-10s in service of various variety. We have around 450 J-11B/15/16. We have around 125 Su-30/35s. We have around 250 JH-7A in service. Finally, 100 J-20s. This is assuming that the 400 remaining J-7/8s, the remaining JH-7s and all the su-27/J-11s are not part of the future (leaving service in the next 5 years). You are look at a total 1500 J20s/10/flankers/JH-7As from now that are in the medium term plans. On top of this, you probably have over 100 H-6s.

For the next 3 years, if we assume an average of 45 J-20s, 30 J-10s and 40 flankers, they will be over 1800 J-20s/10/flankers/JH-7As by the start of 2025. There will be very few J-7s by that time. J-8s and JH-7s will be gone. Most of J-11s will still be around. If PLAAF procures more J-10s, what will they actually be replacing? There is only so many brigades that don't face F-35 pressure.

Click to expand...

I would project up to 2027, which is an official milestone data (the centennial of the founding of PLA). It's about six years.

There are about 400 J-7/8s, 100+ Su-27/J-11s, 100+ JH-7/JH-7A. They're roughly 700 to be replaced.

In terms of production priorities, they're J-20 > Flankers (J-16/J6D/J-15B/J-15D) > J-10C. If J-10C is to be phased out in the next three years at about 100 new units. That leaves out 600 new aircraft between J-20s and Flankers. If the average production rate for J-20 in the next six years are at 45 max, then you need 330 Flankers to make up the balance, which translates into 50+ per year.

The Flankers are definitely favored over J-10C if there is a budget constraint. J-16 can substitute for J-10C, but the reverse is not true. I would continue to produce more J-10C if I had a lot more old aircraft to replace just to maintain the same number, since it would be more cost-effective. As the numbers above shown, it doesn't appear to be the case.