Future PLA combat aircraft composition

AndrewS said:

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.

Click to expand...

Now i propose the same, but with US (more than 3k active air superiority types between 3 services) in mind. That's on top of US Asian allies and possibly even others. And on top of theaters which will require a deterrent force in any case. Just to be sure.

J-10c(d?) is good in 1 important aspect: for all its downsides, it still brings "1" to the number of relevant fighters (and, more importantly, units), just as j-16s and even j-20 do. It brings in a roughly comparable sensor suite (same generation radar&IRST), it has roughly comparable specs, survivability, it carries exact same a2a weapons.

It does all that for a lower price tag, 1 pilot and 1 engine per plane, and much better serviceability than either (J-20 is a heavy stealth airframe, and J-16 is a giant which can't even be properly reached by a technician without a ladder).
And, of course, per ~half the fuel per equal sortie (training or combat).

weig2000 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree that J-10C/D/X production should continue, remember China has many countries (12 ?) that bordering China, and only USN, Japan and Korea that potentially have F-35, the rest can be easily handled even by the latest J-7 series. So J-10x still very much relevant in my opinion in the next 15 yrs.

antiterror13 said:

I agree that J-10C/D/X production should continue, remember China has many countries (12 ?) that bordering China, and only USN, Japan and Korea that potentially have F-35, the rest can be easily handled even by the latest J-7 series. So J-10x still very much relevant in my opinion in the next 15 yrs.

Click to expand...

I probably didn't make myself clear enough in my above post.

What I was trying to say was that if they just want to maintain the same number of brigades, there doesn't appear much room for J-10Cs because it's the lowest priority among J-20, Flankers and J-10Cs. But if they're going to expand the number of brigades, yes I do see it makes sense to maintain low production rate of J-10Cs a bit longer, because it's going to be too expensive to have a fleet of predominantly stealth fighters and heavy twin-engine aircraft and of the reason you mentioned. We can't rule out the latter possibility completely.

Yes, J-10x is still relevant in the next 15 years, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be continually produced for that long.

weig2000 said:

I probably didn't make myself clear enough in my above post.

What I was trying to say was that if they just want to maintain the same number of brigades, there doesn't appear much room for J-10Cs because it's the lowest priority among J-20, Flankers and J-10Cs. But if they're going to expand the number of brigades, yes I do see it makes sense to maintain low production rate of J-10Cs a bit longer, because it's going to be too expensive to have a fleet of predominantly stealth fighters and heavy twin-engine aircraft and of the reason you mentioned. We can't rule out the latter possibility completely.

Yes, J-10x is still relevant in the next 15 years, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be continually produced for that long.

Click to expand...

I doubt the J-10C production line will be discontinued in the next few years. Serial production of the J-10C started in 2015, according to the public data we have access to, from 2004 to 2012, about 296 J-10s were produced, which gives an annual production of 37 units.

J-10B entered series production in 2013, J-10C entered series production in 2015, in the period from 2013 to 2020(J-10B and J-10C production years), the total number of J- 10 in service at the end of 2020 was 468 units, with an expansion of an additional 172 units in service in the number of J-10s in the PLAAF, offering an annual production of 21 units of the "B" version and the "C" version. , but that doesn't mean that 21 units are being produced each year, that's because we don't know to what extent the "C" version of the J-10 is replacing previous versions, this just gives us a number of the PLAAF's expansion rate under the J-10C production line.

Until 2017, the number of J-10C in service was 96 units, this means that in a period of 3 years (2015-2017), there was an annual production of 32 units. This could mean that among the 500--600 J-10 units, about 224 are already made up of J-10C units and with the decommissioning of previous versions, we can expect more than 400 J-10C units in the PLAAF by 2030 , which would effectively be an annual production of 22 J-10C units by the beginning of the next decade, a pace below the historic annual production rate of 32-37 J-10 units. If series production continues at 32 units per year, by 2030 around 480 units will be in service.

The J-10B lineup has likely already been phased out with all production geared towards the J-10C which is equipped with AESA radar and better avionics compared to the previous version of the J-10B with PESA radar. The current number of units in service of the J-10 must be more than 500 units in the PLAAF, it means that the Chinese will continue for a long time the J-10C production line to replace all the old aircraft from the previous versions of the J-10 and if there is any occurrence to motivate increasing the annual production line, it could be done.

You also addressed the production preference of the J-10 and J-16 over the J-10C.

There is no way the PLAAF can keep a large number of aircraft units in service if it prioritizes an expansion of J-20 and J-16 production without also prioritizing J-10C production. The PLAAF needs numbers, not just because of the US, but because of regional actors.

If you look at Chinese sources, you will see that the value of each unit of J-16 is relatively below the unit price of the J-20. The values are not announced, but there are bases for making comparisons. The overall cost of Chinese fighter jets is generally about 1/3 less than the same type of fighter in the United States, judging by the unit price, the J-20 is only $30 million more than the J-16. The current news is that the price of the J-20 is around 800 million yuan (US$125 million), while the price of the J-16 is in the range of 600 million yuan (US$94 million), just for the purposes of In comparison, the J-10 is taken as a reference price at US$40 million and can reach US$50 million, which means that the price of each J-10 is 2.5x-3.1x lower than a J-20.

If the PLAAF expects to have 200 J-20s in service, we can expect somewhere around 600 J-10s in service, and somewhere around 300-400 J-16s in PLAAF service, that means between 1,100 to 1,200 units in service, not counting other aircraft, in view of the degrading scenario, I am suspicious of these numbers.

I would highly doubt these numbers, sources claim that the number of J-20s produced and in service could reach 150 units earlier this year, by 2030, J-20 production could reach 216 units if you consider an annual production of 24 units, this would configure a number of 366 J-20s in service until 2030. If we are based on the information of an annual production of 40 units of J-20 until 2030, something around 360 units will have been produced, which would configure 510 J-20s in service by 2030.

In reference to the price of J-10 (high-end) is 40 million.


The situation is that the PLAAF has the trio of J-20, J-10C and J-16 aircraft as standard within established air doctrine.

Check this information here:

As the three aircraft are working together, a proportionally greater number of J-20s also offers a greater number of J-16s and especially the J-10C.

If the PLAAF expects to have somewhere around 400 J-20s in service, at the very least we can expect somewhere around 800 J-10s in service, and somewhere around 500-600 J-16s in service. in the PLAAF, this would mean between 1,700 and 1,800 units in service.

JH-7:

I would also very much doubt that the JH-7 would be taken out of service within 5 years. The new JH-7A2 version was presented in 2019, improvements were made - it updated the avionics system on the original model, updated the airborne weapons and is equipped with new photoelectric sighting pods (JDC-3) and electronic jamming pods. Not only that, but it is also revealed that the optimized JH-7A2 will continue to serve until 2030.

One of the factors for this reason to keep the aircraft at least until 2030 is the cost of construction and the other is to break new ground for newer models.

As I said earlier, the J-16 has a unit price of around 600 million yuan, which is almost 100 million US dollars. The JH-7A2, even being an updated version, its unit price is still relatively cheap compared to the J-16. Also, it is unrealistic to mass-produce the J-16 to replace the JH-7A2 in the short to medium term, so upgrading based on the JH-7A is the most efficient way to strengthen the PLA's ability to strike at sea and on the ground.

Another factor is that it will serve to test new capabilities of bombers like the H-20 and JH-XX. So there will be better performing bombers and greater combat power in the future, for the new generation of bombers to be put to successful use, many key technologies need to be verified, and these will likely become the tasks of the JH-7A2. Therefore, the JH-7A2's enhanced combat strength is not only to meet the needs of future operations, but also to pave the way for new generations of bombers.

Suetham said:

I doubt the J-10C production line will be discontinued in the next few years. Serial production of the J-10C started in 2015, according to the public data we have access to, from 2004 to 2012, about 296 J-10s were produced, which gives an annual production of 37 units.

J-10B entered series production in 2013, J-10C entered series production in 2015, in the period from 2013 to 2020(J-10B and J-10C production years), the total number of J- 10 in service at the end of 2020 was 468 units, with an expansion of an additional 172 units in service in the number of J-10s in the PLAAF, offering an annual production of 21 units of the "B" version and the "C" version. , but that doesn't mean that 21 units are being produced each year, that's because we don't know to what extent the "C" version of the J-10 is replacing previous versions, this just gives us a number of the PLAAF's expansion rate under the J-10C production line.

Until 2017, the number of J-10C in service was 96 units, this means that in a period of 3 years (2015-2017), there was an annual production of 32 units. This could mean that among the 500--600 J-10 units, about 224 are already made up of J-10C units and with the decommissioning of previous versions, we can expect more than 400 J-10C units in the PLAAF by 2030 , which would effectively be an annual production of 22 J-10C units by the beginning of the next decade, a pace below the historic annual production rate of 32-37 J-10 units. If series production continues at 32 units per year, by 2030 around 480 units will be in service.

Click to expand...

We have at most 250 J-10B/Cs in service based on identified units, so under 200 J-10Cs. That should tell you CAC has not been focusing on J-10C production recently for PLAAF. In fact, we might have seen more production for PAF than PLAAF in the past year. Now that the production has been shifted to Guizhou, the production situation is unlikely to change.

Suetham said:

The J-10B lineup has likely already been phased out with all production geared towards the J-10C which is equipped with AESA radar and better avionics compared to the previous version of the J-10B with PESA radar. The current number of units in service of the J-10 must be more than 500 units in the PLAAF, it means that the Chinese will continue for a long time the J-10C production line to replace all the old aircraft from the previous versions of the J-10 and if there is any occurrence to motivate increasing the annual production line, it could be done.

Click to expand...

That does not make sense at all. Why does China need to replace retiring J-10A units with J-10C? Since the role of J-10 is air superiority, why shouldn't they replace J-10As with 5th generation aircraft? The gap between stealth and non-stealth aircraft is huge. You don't see USAF replacing F-16A/Bs with F-16E/F when F-35 is available. Keep in mind that the earliest J-10 regiment was formed in 2004. There will be around until well into 2030s.

Suetham said:

You also addressed the production preference of the J-10 and J-16 over the J-10C.

There is no way the PLAAF can keep a large number of aircraft units in service if it prioritizes an expansion of J-20 and J-16 production without also prioritizing J-10C production. The PLAAF needs numbers, not just because of the US, but because of regional actors.

If you look at Chinese sources, you will see that the value of each unit of J-16 is relatively below the unit price of the J-20. The values are not announced, but there are bases for making comparisons. The overall cost of Chinese fighter jets is generally about 1/3 less than the same type of fighter in the United States, judging by the unit price, the J-20 is only $30 million more than the J-16. The current news is that the price of the J-20 is around 800 million yuan (US$125 million), while the price of the J-16 is in the range of 600 million yuan (US$94 million), just for the purposes of In comparison, the J-10 is taken as a reference price at US$40 million and can reach US$50 million, which means that the price of each J-10 is 2.5x-3.1x lower than a J-20.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't know where you got your unit cost numbers from. There is no way J-20 can be 3 times the cost of J-10A when it is the mass produced model. By having a guaranteed large production volume and massive investment in assembly lines, CAC can dramatically lower its cost of producing J-20s. Are you saying CAC cannot produce J-20s more cheaply than F-35s when everything else China builds is a lot cheaper?

Shilao's podcast actually discussed this recently when comparing J-10Cs to J-16s. You might have double the number of engines, but the rest of the aircraft isn't going to be twice as much. The cost of final assembly isn't going to be twice as much. Once J-20's production line is set up(as it is now), there is no reason to believe that the fuselage, engines or avionics re going to cost more to build than J-16s. In general, there is no reason to believe 5th generation aircraft is just going to be more expensive than 4th generation aircraft.

Case in point F-35. Right now, the flyaway cost of F-35A is $78 million, which is lower than the flyaway cost of F-15EX ($88 million) or that of the eurocanards.

Again, the key point here is that investing in mass production and industrial capabilities from large guaranteed orders will definitely lower the costs and increase the automation and the final production quality of the aircraft. That's something we are seeing now with CAC and J-20.

Suetham said:

If the PLAAF expects to have 200 J-20s in service, we can expect somewhere around 600 J-10s in service, and somewhere around 300-400 J-16s in PLAAF service, that means between 1,100 to 1,200 units in service, not counting other aircraft, in view of the degrading scenario, I am suspicious of these numbers.

Click to expand...

Why would there only be 200 J-20s in service? They have 4 production lines set up for J-20. That would indicate around 50 a year. They are already at around 100 after 2021 production. Why would there not be 1000 J-20s in service at some point? If PLAAF intends to compete with USAF, it needs to compete with a comparable number of equivalent generation fighter jet.

Suetham said:

I would highly doubt these numbers, sources claim that the number of J-20s produced and in service could reach 150 units earlier this year, by 2030, J-20 production could reach 216 units if you consider an annual production of 24 units, this would configure a number of 366 J-20s in service until 2030. If we are based on the information of an annual production of 40 units of J-20 until 2030, something around 360 units will have been produced, which would configure 510 J-20s in service by 2030.

In reference to the price of J-10 (high-end) is 40 million.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The situation is that the PLAAF has the trio of J-20, J-10C and J-16 aircraft as standard within established air doctrine.

Check this information here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As the three aircraft are working together, a proportionally greater number of J-20s also offers a greater number of J-16s and especially the J-10C.

If the PLAAF expects to have somewhere around 400 J-20s in service, at the very least we can expect somewhere around 800 J-10s in service, and somewhere around 500-600 J-16s in service. in the PLAAF, this would mean between 1,700 and 1,800 units in service.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of guesstimates going on in there. First, the person that wrote the article assumes J-16 will cost as much as Su-35. He is conflating actual production cost vs what the Russians are willing to sell it for. Export contract numbers are typically inflated with profit taking, kick backs, additional spare costs and a bunch of other export program related costs. There is no evidence J-16 is anything more than 50 to 60 million per aircraft right now.

His other point of comparing F-22s to J-20s is also a complete guess work. It shows very little understanding of what's involved in lowering procurement costs. One aircraft is mass produced and the other is not. F-35 is the best comparison for J-20 at this point. Here is a rule of thumb for aircraft production. Every time you double production rate, you can lower the unit cost by about 15%. As such, there is a huge difference between producing 20 J-20s a year vs 50 to 60. The difference would be 25% lower production cost. If CAC was producing 1 J-20 a month back in 2018 and using Russian engines, it might have cost $100 million per aircraft. When the production rate goes up to 4 J-20s a month with domestic engines and more mature supply chain, it could very well become $70 million per aircraft. And we are seeing the same thing play out with WS-10. More domestic orders lead to greater investment in production line -> lower unit cost and higher production rate and quality. Higher production rate means greater worker productivity and less wasted labour which leads to even lower unit cost.

China must not make the same mistake that US did in ending F-22 production too soon. Without ramping up production, you cannot lower the cost of producing J-20s. Without having a large fleet of J-20s, you cannot lower the maintenance costs of J-20s and improve its availability. It's very important to keep rewarding CAC and the supply chain with more orders. It will lead to more productive and skillful worker base. That's how you can keep your most valuable assets, your engineers and workers. CAC would not be where it is now without all these people.

tphuang said:

We have at most 250 J-10B/Cs in service based on identified units, so under 200 J-10Cs. That should tell you CAC has not been focusing on J-10C production recently for PLAAF. In fact, we might have seen more production for PAF than PLAAF in the past year. Now that the production has been shifted to Guizhou, the production situation is unlikely to change.

Click to expand...

The problem to find information about these news is complicated, so we have to base ourselves with some speculation. You are absolutely correct, based only on the number of observable units in service, the number of J-10Cs does not exceed 200 units, but the total number of 200 J-10Cs produced has already exceeded this total produced years ago.

The number of J-10C's based on units in service, the total I've found is around 120-160 units - about 5 aviation brigades in service with J-10C up to 32 units each, based on the available air brigades. But that does not mean that J-10C production is not being prioritized.

In 2020, there are photos showing that the fifth batch of J-10C fighters was already in test flight and would be delivered to troops soon, which shows that the production of J-10C fighters is in full swing, and will replace the existing ones. J-7 and J-8 of the PLAAF. The conclusions show that after the completion of the fifth batch, the number of J-10 fighters would exceed 600 units.

As of 2014, around 350-400 J-10A/S fighters have been produced. Since then, the J-10B fighter has been put into production, but the J-10B is just a transitional model and the production number was not large.

The J-10C fighter is an improved version. According to information here from the West, it is believed that a batch of fighters should be around 32-48 units. However, the number of the second batch of J-10C fighters was relatively large and may have exceeded 72 units produced, which also shows that the PLAAF recognized the usefulness of the J-10C fighters and placed a large order.

For aircraft manufacturers, such large orders are very welcome, because the large number of aircraft purchased means that the number of purchases of raw material and equipment for production will increase proportionately, which will reduce the unit cost of aircraft. Even assuming that the number of other batches of J-10C fighters remains around 48 units, Western analysts believe that the number of J-10C fighters is already close to 200 units.

After the completion of the fifth batch it becomes very likely that the J-10 will reach or approach 700 units, on the wikipedia in China the total number in service is demonstrating that "+600" units are in service.

Most analyzes show that considering that the J-20 fighter is likely to be in mass production, production of the J-10C fighter may slow down in the future to make way for the J-20 fighter. This claim has considerable problems when considering the total number of fighters in service with the PLAAF.

At least 300 additional upgraded J-10C units are needed, mainly to replace as quickly as possible the existing J-7s, J-8s and other older fighters still in service, just to keep the total number of 1,700-1,800 units. of fighters in service with the PLAAF. Considering this, the PLAAF needs a certain scale of fighters to deal with wars of general scale and intensity, and the J-20 still does not fulfill that role. To prepare for war with qualitative and quantitative technical conditions, the PLAAF needs to slowly improve the quality of fighters, the J-20 as well as 5th generation multirole aircraft will take a long process to meet the needs and demands of the PLAAF and cannot be rushed due to circumstances. The J-10C and J-16 fulfill this role.

Here's a source highlighting that between 40-44 units of the J-10C were produced in the year:

At the current stage, the J-16 is not only cheaper than the J-20, but the J-16 can use existing J-11 series production lines to rapidly produce dozens of aircraft a year. As China's first stealth fighter - the J-20 needs to be upgraded horizontally throughout the supply chain, production speed will not increase for a while. Therefore, to rapidly improve the combat capability of China's air power, it is still necessary to mass-produce J-16 fighters and the J-10C at this stage.

tphuang said:

That does not make sense at all. Why does China need to replace retiring J-10A units with J-10C? Since the role of J-10 is air superiority, why shouldn't they replace J-10As with 5th generation aircraft? The gap between stealth and non-stealth aircraft is huge. You don't see USAF replacing F-16A/Bs with F-16E/F when F-35 is available. Keep in mind that the earliest J-10 regiment was formed in 2004. There will be around until well into 2030s.

Click to expand...

The J-10C is the improved version of the aircraft that is in mass production, the J-10A are old aircraft that were put into service in 2003 when it declared itself operational after the delivery of the 13th Test Regiment. The J-10C has the ability to upgrade the PLAAF's combat power with a modern aircraft that fulfills the role in 21st century air warfare, the J-10A does not meet this mission profile.

The J-10 is a multi-role fighter, its role goes beyond air superiority. China could really replace the J-10A with a 5th generation multirole fighter, the problem is that there is no fighter with that description in mass production, the J-20 meets the descriptive task of air superiority. Unlike the US, China does not yet have a production line for 5th generation fighter jets that can sustain high order rates, the US already has this production availability to enhance the USAF by ordering the F-35A to replace the F-16A /B.

I agree with you, but at what point will it be feasible to replace older multirole aircraft like the J-10A with 5th generation fighters by 2030 without reducing the total number of aircraft in service and the combat power of the PLAAF?

Tell me, what do you think is more viable, upgrading by a J-10C that already has AESA radars and improved avionics and is already in mass production or a 5th generation fighter still in development and no mass production lines? Do you really want to compare the current situation of the PLAAF with the USAF?

tphuang said:

Again, I don't know where you got your unit cost numbers from. There is no way J-20 can be 3 times the cost of J-10A when it is the mass produced model. By having a guaranteed large production volume and massive investment in assembly lines, CAC can dramatically lower its cost of producing J-20s. Are you saying CAC cannot produce J-20s more cheaply than F-35s when everything else China builds is a lot cheaper?

Shilao's podcast actually discussed this recently when comparing J-10Cs to J-16s. You might have double the number of engines, but the rest of the aircraft isn't going to be twice as much. The cost of final assembly isn't going to be twice as much. Once J-20's production line is set up(as it is now), there is no reason to believe that the fuselage, engines or avionics re going to cost more to build than J-16s. In general, there is no reason to believe 5th generation aircraft is just going to be more expensive than 4th generation aircraft.

Case in point F-35. Right now, the flyaway cost of F-35A is $78 million, which is lower than the flyaway cost of F-15EX ($88 million) or that of the eurocanards.

Again, the key point here is that investing in mass production and industrial capabilities from large guaranteed orders will definitely lower the costs and increase the automation and the final production quality of the aircraft. That's something we are seeing now with CAC and J-20.

Click to expand...

It is not very difficult to find various statements about Chinese fighter jet prices in Chinese sources. I've already posted some sources above, I won't bother to post again, I could post dozens of articles about it, it's relatively easy to find these statements and they all confirm that the J-16 fighter is produced at a cost around US$80 million and the J-20 over US$100 million.

I didn't say that the CAC can't produce cheaper J-20s, I don't know how you came to that statement. The J-20 will have its price reduced when production increases, as can happen with the J-16. You are based on the price of the F-35, it is worth noting that the price of the first batches of the F35 is quite expensive, the unit price of the first batch is US$200 million and the second batch is US$150 million (equivalent to the last lot of F22) until lot 7 reduced the unit price to US$100 million by increasing production. Based on the earlier claim that the J-20 costs $125 million, the J-20 still in LRIP is able to sustain even lower prices than the second batch of the F-35 fighter and the last batch of the F-22. There is still no stealth fighter in the world that has reached this production scale like the F-35. The J-20 as well as the 5th generation multirole aircraft are sure to have the same increased production rates and reduced prices as the F-35.

I didn't say otherwise. I am absolutely sure that the J-20 with the expanded production price of the fighter will further reduce the cost advantage of the J-16, but they are fighters with different purposes. There are still efforts to make such comparisons. For example you point out that the cost of the F-35A is US$78 million, below the F-15EX which is US$88 million. Really, the price is below, but did you consider the total number of units produced? The F-35A fighter is produced 3x(48-14) more than the F-15EX fighter, this comparison is not realistic when determining that the 4th generation fighter is more expensive than a 5th generation, if the F- 15EX were at the same annual production level as the F-35A, the price of the F-15EX would certainly plummet as did the F-35.

Therefore, the F-15EX does not have the advantage you said yourself: "mass production and industrial capabilities from large guaranteed orders will definitely reduce costs and increase automation and quality of the final production of the aircraft".

tphuang said:

Why would there only be 200 J-20s in service? They have 4 production lines set up for J-20. That would indicate around 50 a year. They are already at around 100 after 2021 production. Why would there not be 1000 J-20s in service at some point? If PLAAF intends to compete with USAF, it needs to compete with a comparable number of equivalent generation fighter jet.

Click to expand...

I did not state that the PLAAF aims to establish a force of 200 J-20 aircraft, I put a hypothetical scenario in which 200 J-20 aircraft would have to be complemented by a minimum number of other fighters such as the J-16 and J -10.

Now your imagination of 1,000 J-20s in service is totally unrealistic, even considering the PLAAF intends to compete with the USAF. The J-20 is an air superiority fighter, even the US which is its biggest rival has less than 400 fighters with this same function that are formed by F-15 and F-22A. This arbitrary number of 1,000 units of 5th generation fighters would be realistic if China were to consider equipping 5th generation multirole fighters rather than J-20s.

tphuang said:

There is a lot of guesstimates going on in there. First, the person that wrote the article assumes J-16 will cost as much as Su-35. He is conflating actual production cost vs what the Russians are willing to sell it for. Export contract numbers are typically inflated with profit taking, kick backs, additional spare costs and a bunch of other export program related costs. There is no evidence J-16 is anything more than 50 to 60 million per aircraft right now.

His other point of comparing F-22s to J-20s is also a complete guess work. It shows very little understanding of what's involved in lowering procurement costs. One aircraft is mass produced and the other is not. F-35 is the best comparison for J-20 at this point. Here is a rule of thumb for aircraft production. Every time you double production rate, you can lower the unit cost by about 15%. As such, there is a huge difference between producing 20 J-20s a year vs 50 to 60. The difference would be 25% lower production cost. If CAC was producing 1 J-20 a month back in 2018 and using Russian engines, it might have cost $100 million per aircraft. When the production rate goes up to 4 J-20s a month with domestic engines and more mature supply chain, it could very well become $70 million per aircraft. And we are seeing the same thing play out with WS-10. More domestic orders lead to greater investment in production line -> lower unit cost and higher production rate and quality. Higher production rate means greater worker productivity and less wasted labour which leads to even lower unit cost.

China must not make the same mistake that US did in ending F-22 production too soon. Without ramping up production, you cannot lower the cost of producing J-20s. Without having a large fleet of J-20s, you cannot lower the maintenance costs of J-20s and improve its availability. It's very important to keep rewarding CAC and the supply chain with more orders. It will lead to more productive and skillful worker base. That's how you can keep your most valuable assets, your engineers and workers. CAC would not be where it is now without all these people.

Click to expand...

The price of Russian fighters is much lower than that of the Americans and all the analyzes that consider the export price of the Russians put the price of Chinese fighters to be even cheaper, so the price of the J-16 at US$80 million is cheaper than than its similar Su-30MKK which has an export value of US$95 million. It cannot be said that the price of a Chinese fighter is half that of a Russian export fighter.

I agree with the statement that the J-20 will lower the unit price. I have previously stated that based on the previous claim that the J-20 costs US$125 million, the J-20 still in LRIP can sustain even lower prices than the second batch of the F-35 fighter and the last batch of the F-22. There is still no stealth fighter in the world that has reached this production scale like the F-35. The J-20 as well as the 5th generation multirole aircraft are sure to have the same increased production rates and reduced prices as the F-35. In fact, some analyzes suggest that the price of the J-20 is in the region of US$110 million.

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...

Why would they only look to replace existing numbers and not expand and create additional new units?

tphuang said:

The reality is that J-10s are limited by range. This is what the typical J-10 load looks like

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

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.

Click to expand...

Prefer to doesn’t necessarily equal to need to. And even then it’s mainly photos the PLA prefer to release in high quality that gets the most exposure and distribution.

I have seen J10s fly pretty regularly on training missions and they rarely if ever hang fuel takes.

With triple tanks, you are looking at over 1200km combat range without air refuelling. Hardly short ranged by any stretch.

Even discounting air refuelling and hanging triple tanks, J10Cs can and will perform an important task of being the WVR go getters. That frees up J16s to carry more PL15s and can hang back without needing to worry about lugging large numbers of heavy BVRAAMs into dogfights.

tphuang said:

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.

Click to expand...

Again, why pick one or the other when you can have both and enjoy the best of both worlds?

Having J10Cs frees up J16s to go on the offensive knowing J10s have got their rear secured.

With the Y20 tankers coming online in numbers, the PLAAF’s tanker shortage is set to be greatly alleviate, which will benefit the J10 fleet most of all.

tphuang said:

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.

Click to expand...

If you want to make your loyal wingmen UCAVs stealthy, pack decent AI, a good sized AESA radar, compressive EW suit and have decent missile carrying capacity and you are reaching or even exceeding J10C unit costs.

Plus stealth and active radar scanning are not great combo deals. Sure you can go LPI mode, but that’s not without costs or drawbacks.

Better to keep loyal wingman cheap and single as stealthy missile magazines and maybe direct control WVR brawlers and leave the complex BVR stuff to a human pilot.

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...

Depends entirely on the scenario and location.

With stealth fighters, I think sure you might have a hard time trying to actively hunt them down or intercept them at range. But then I think the F35s are going to be largely wasting their missiles if they play it safe and just lob AMRAAMs at max range.

But then you can force the issue by going after stuff they absolutely have to defend. Like their carriers and land bases. But then that also depends on how aggressively the PLA wants to play.

But realistically speaking, I’m doubtful there will be much in the way of F35 action since both USN carriers and close land bases will be heavily targeted by Chinese missile forces. With a focus on killing F35s on the ground rather than waste time fighting them in the air.

But with J20s in the picture, it’s the F35 that is going to be under much more pressure because they are going to be at a significant disadvantage going up against J20s in WVR especially due to their lack of an IRAAM and mediocre agility.

To take pot shots at J10s and J16s at BVR range will probably put F35s in WVR of forward deployed J20s. Who also have a massive speed and range advantage on the F35.

I have always said the F35 was a colossal strategic blunder by the US driven by corporate greed and enabled by legalised corruption.

They didn’t expect anyone else to have 5th gens in numbers until their 6th gen started entering service, so thought they can cash in on the F35 by limiting performance to reduce costs but maintain high prices to maximise profits. LockMart is rolling in it, but the cost is a distinctly underwhelming jet that is nothing close to the F22 in raw performance yet delivered no real cost savings to the Air Force (when taking into account economies of scale had F22 production run been the same as the F35’s) since LockMart captured all that as extra profits for itself instead.

The F35 might have been good enough against legacy fighters, but it’s really got nothing going for it except numbers when facing a jet like the J20. That in turn is going to massively blunt their combat effectiveness against J10s and J16s due to the F35 having to minimise the chances of a run in with J20s.

I will try to be brief here, but there is a lot of stuff to go through. Sourcing is very important when it comes to Chinese military. Official sources and photos are the best. After that, a lot of the big shrimps really know what they are talking about and should be taken seriously. Articles posted by people without much apparent knowledge should not be taken seriously.

As far as I know back 12 years years ago when J-11B production first started, J-10A cost about 200 million RMB back then and J-11B cost about 300 million RMB. That's according to some reputable "big shrimps" on Chinese bbs. One would assume inflation and improved avionics and materials have increased the cost a little bit. J-16 is also a two seat aircraft, which will add a little more to cost. IIRC, J-15 was quoted as being around 400 million RMB. Keep in mind that's with a specialized aircraft and a very limited production run. J-16 would likely be cheaper than that. If I had to guess, we are probably looking in the range of $40 million per J-10C and $50 to 60 million per J-16. Keep in mind that Russian export of Su-35 are not what they pay for their own Air Force. A really friendly discount price from Russia to Belarus was about $50 million per su-30SM. J-16 does have more advanced electronics, but Chinese industry are very competitive in this area. It's unlikely J-16 is significantly more expensive than that.

if they get the production part of it right, J-20 cost could easily be lowered to the $70 million range. It's avionics are good, but not a generation ahead of J-16s. It's engines are a newer model, but unlikely to be appreciably more expensive. It's materials are probably more expensive, but not that much more expensive. If the production lines are efficient, there is no reason the labor cost will be higher than that of J-16 production. I'm sure at some point, J-20 did cost well over $100 million per aircraft. Back in 2016, things might have cost $150 to 200 million per production aircraft. But with the production process mature, more automated process and efficient work force, we should expect J-20 to cost below F-35 at this point. Chinese engineering and labour is just a lot cheaper than Lockmart ones.

When it comes to replacing previous generation aircraft, I think we have all under estimated PLAAF. Back 15 years ago, people thought PLAAF would order JF-17s to replace J-7s. It turned out, PLAAF went the other direction. It ordered almost as many domestic flankers a year as J-10s and did not order any Jf-17s. I don't quite understand why PLAAF at this point would not replace 4th generation aircraft with 5th/6th generation aircraft on a 1-to-1 basis. They have the low cost labour force and growing economy to be able to do this. The gap between stealth and non-stealth aircraft is huge. The gap between aircraft with range and without sufficient range is also huge when you go from a defensive to an offensive force. PLAAF has realized this. That's why it has pushed full speed ahead with mass production of J-20. We had all these articles coming out of China in the past 2 months about increased J-20 production for a reason. This baby is getting mss produced. That's why J-20 has 4 production lines at CAC. J-10C got moved to Guizhou.

J-20's biggest competitor will be F-35. F-35 is an extremely capable aircraft. It will be even more capable than F-22 in the future. It has higher availability than F-22. It's foolish for anyone to underestimate it. The only way to confront this threat is to have enough 5th generation aircraft of your own.

plawolf said:

Why would they only look to replace existing numbers and not expand and create additional new units?

Prefer to doesn’t necessarily equal to need to. And even then it’s mainly photos the PLA prefer to release in high quality that gets the most exposure and distribution.

I have seen J10s fly pretty regularly on training missions and they rarely if ever hang fuel takes.

With triple tanks, you are looking at over 1200km combat range without air refuelling. Hardly short ranged by any stretch.



They didn’t expect anyone else to have 5th gens in numbers until their 6th gen started entering service, so thought they can cash in on the F35 by limiting performance to reduce costs but maintain high prices to maximise profits. LockMart is rolling in it, but the cost is a distinctly underwhelming jet that is nothing close to the F22 in raw performance yet delivered no real cost savings to the Air Force (when taking into account economies of scale had F22 production run been the same as the F35’s) since LockMart captured all that as extra profits for itself instead.

The F35 might have been good enough against legacy fighters, but it’s really got nothing going for it except numbers when facing a jet like the J20. That in turn is going to massively blunt their combat effectiveness against J10s and J16s due to the F35 having to minimise the chances of a run in with J20s.

Click to expand...

A lot of what I am talking hinges on CAC's ability to continue to improve the production process of J-20s and lowering the cost. If PLAAF has the option of ordering 36 J-20s and 24 J-10s a year or 60 J-20s a year, I think the latter is preferable. If PLAAF has the option of ordering 60 J-20s and 24 J-10s a year or 84 J-20s a year, I think the latter is preferable. It might be a little more expensive, but not as much as you think since higher J-20 production rate will be lower its costs. Having fewer variety production line at CAC will also lower cost of J-20. That's why moving J-10 production to Guizhou makes a lot of sense. It gives CAC the ability to make the most optimized assembly lines for J-20s. Why keep producing more J-10s when you can produce more J-20s? If you know 1 aircraft is better, you should buy more of it. Sure, you can argue that J-20 will cost more right now. On the flip side, PLAAF budget is going up every year. The cost of operating, maintaining and building J-20 is only going to get better over time as more of them join service with PLAAF. By 2025, why can't PLAAF afford to buy 50 or 60 J-20s a year? Why limit itself to also having to order J-10Cs? There is nothing J-10C can provide that can't be replicated by UCAVs at lower cost or J-16s at longer loiter time. And with J-16s, you are guaranteed to also have greater payload for ground and sea strikes.

J-10C simply has short legs. There is a reason PLAAF sends J-16s on most of those Taiwanese incursions. If J-10Cs with external fuel tanks had comparable range to J-16s, PLAAF would be sending J-10Cs a lot more often. Feel free to post proof that J-10 with external fuel tanks have over 1200 km in combat range.

F-35 is a very formidable opponent. It's the most capable fighter jet in the world. More capable than F-22. It will be very hard for PLAAF to track them down. Aside from that, F-15E and F-18E/F will also be very formidable. Do not think it's easy for J-20 or any PLAAF to take down any F-35 whether from beyond or within visual range. PLAAF will have its hands full in any plausible combat scenario against a combination of USN, USMC and USAF.