Future PLA combat aircraft composition

plawolf · Feb 8, 2022

tphuang said:
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?

Why must it be a choice between J20s or J10s? The precise point of spending the money and time to move the J10 production lines to Guizhou is so that the PLAAF does not need to make that choice.

To paraphrase yourself, sure, it will be more expensive, but China can afford it.

tphuang said:
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.

You are basically making the time old arguments of heavyweight vs medium/lightweight fighters. The consensus has always been to have both if you can afford it.

As for J10 range, surely you have already seen this official poster from years back?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

tphuang said:
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.

Well, I think we may have to agree to disagree. Especially on the better than F22 part. If the F35 was so super duper, they wouldn’t be so desperate to starve the F22 of upgrades all these years.

I have no doubt an F22 with on par radar and avionics would absolutely murder F35s, and that’s essentially what the J20 is.

It won’t be a desert storm like whitewash, but worst case it’s going to be comparable k/d ratios, which would still be considered a great victory for the PLAAF and an epic defeat for the US. Let’s hope we never get to find out which of us is right on this, but sadly I fear we may in the not too distant future.

Blitzo · Feb 8, 2022

plawolf said:
ll, I think we may have to agree to disagree. Especially on the better than F22 part. If the F35 was so super duper, they wouldn’t be so desperate to starve the F22 of upgrades all these years.

... Or, the reason the F-22 has not had many upgrades, is entirely because the F-35 is at least equal if not superior to the F-22 in the most important domains relevant to current and foreseeable future aerial combat.

Not to mention the tiny fleet size of F-22 would make upgrades to the type be limited in quantity and thus have to divide its development cost among a small fleet size.

plawolf said:
I have no doubt an F22 with on par radar and avionics would absolutely murder F35s, and that’s essentially what the J20 is.

Numbers matter.

The F-35 itself individually is a high capable and advanced aircraft.
But the reason why it is such an important and dominant aircraft type is because of the sheer number of them that will be eventually produced and the sheet number that will be capable of being deployed in a given theater.

Trust me, if the F-35's production run was limited to a small number, like below 200 airframes similar to F-22, then the assessment of its threat would be far mitigated.

And if the PLA were able to buy and procure as many J-20s/5th generation fighters as the same pace that the US and its key regional client states are able to annually induct F-35s then perhaps we could start talking about the more minutiae of the individual aircraft merits of each type, and how certain minor kinematic advantages the J-20 has might be able to make their effect felt at a fleet vs fleet scale.

Or, using the "F-22 with F-35 avionics/technology" hypothetical you raised -- the F-35 would still murder the F-22 because there are still only 187 F-22s ultimately built, while there will be thousands of F-35s ultimately built.

Whatever minor kinematic or airframe advantages that the J-20 or F-22 might have over the F-35, it is far from enough to outweigh the combination of the F-35's massive numbers, combined with the fact that F-35s avionics suite and VLO is at least equal if not superior to that of J-20 (and definitely superior to that of the F-22).

So I definitely agree with Feng here.

tphuang · Feb 8, 2022

I think F-35 is underrated on a lot of these online forums because the program itself has been criticized so much for much of its existence. The reality is that F-35 will be far and away the dominant fighter jet type that PLAAF and PLANAF will face in the upcoming 2 decades. F-22, with its small numbers, have high maintenance cost, low availability and high cost of upgrades. Superior maneuverability and better all-around stealth cannot overcome all the problem it faces. Its boosters will point to those early DACT exchange ratios, but that won't be possible today when other aircraft have caught up/exceeded it in avionics and situation awareness. In the future, F-35 will continue to improve through software upgrades. Situation awareness, flight control and network centric operation are all going to continue to get upgraded over time. Things that are limited with F-22 and its own mission computers. That's why a lot of people (including myself) thinks F-22 is heading to a dead end. If you are costly to operate and often stuck on the ground, you are just not very useful. That's why I said that China absolutely cannot make that same mistake with J-20 or whatever you call J-35 and its land variant.

At this point, I think J-20B (let's call twin seater that) will be an absolute game changer in capabilities for PLAAF. When it gets into production phase, it will be able to combine the situation awareness and network centric attributes of F-35 with the dedicated operator. It's a true force multiplier. If you want to be optimistic, that's something potentially better than F-35 in many ways. It's also something that will continue to improve through software upgrades. When it comes to PLAAF, you want to produce as many J-20Bs as possible when that's available. The gap between non-stealth aircraft and J-20B will be humongous. In any offensive scenario, PLAAF does need a good number of J-15/16s to carry large diverse weapon load, conduct EW and use its large radar to track and pass targeting data along to J-20s. It's a great complement to J-20s which only wants to carry AAMs and may want to only use passive sensors to hide itself. Both aircraft will also have significant range/loiter time. J-10Cs simply cannot complement J-20 in the same way.

As such, PLAAF seems to have already slowed down J-10C procurement in the recent times while ramping up J-20 production. Depending on how good 6th gen aircraft is, I think an eventual production run of 1500 to 2000 5th generation is needed over the next 20 years. A the same time, PLAAF will probably want to withdraw J-10Cs from its fleet by 2040 as 6th gen production ramps up. It has been withdrawing J7s/8s recently as J-20 production ramped up. As such, why would PLAAF want to keep producing J-10Cs for a long time? J-7/8s will be basically gone from the service in 5 or 6 years. Older J-11s will be gone pretty soon too. After that, the new 5th gen production will be replacing early J-10s/J-11Bs/Su-30s. (When I say retire, I mean put into storage. Those early J-10/11B airframes should still have plenty of service life left.) Since I see this as PLAAF's likely timeline, I see no reason why they should keep ordering J-10Cs after 2025. Flanker production should also stop by the latter part of this decade.

Akame · Feb 8, 2022

By the way, I have a question.Is the J-16 still in production?

Gloire_bb · Feb 8, 2022

tphuang said:
F-35 is a very formidable opponent. It's the most capable fighter jet in the world. More capable than F-22.

You Shall Not Make for Yourself an Idol (exodus 20:4).
Stealthy, numerous, modern. Also, exportable and intended (for now, with arguable success) to be affordable.
Nothing more and nothing less than that.

Unless there is something fundamentally wrong with J-20A, it's probably significantly more competitive in the a2a domain.
Whether other parts and levels of the US air combat environment can compensate and overcompensate for this is a different matter - especially since those multipliers equally apply to other planes, both in US and Chinese service.

tphuang said:
I think F-35 is underrated on a lot of these online forums because the program itself has been criticized so much for much of its existence.

It isn't underrated(or, to be exact - it is, but not here and now).
Joint strike fighter (same as fighter-bomber - both are fancy/cooler words for that essentially means light bomber) program has produced exactly what it was intended to produce.
It is still overall very capable in a2a domain. But some of its fighter specs - there, where there was such contradiction - were sacrificed to its primary mission. On J-20A or F-22A, they were not.
Furthermore, the F-35 program placed way more focus on cost control, certainly more so than F-22A one - and a lot of that couldn't just be changed with ~10 years of progress. But even that doesn't apply to J-20A, which appeared more or less simultaneously with the F-35.

Suetham · Feb 8, 2022

tphuang said:
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.

The J-15 is estimated at 400 million RMB, the J-10A cost around 200 million RMB at the time, the J-10C cost US$40 million (255 million RMB) and the J-11B cost around 300 million RMB. RMB, very interesting such information. However, have you researched the price of the J-16? In China, the estimated price of J-16 is 500-600 million RMB, do the conversion and you will see that the price will be higher than your estimate of US$50-60 million.

The production number matters, but it's not everything. According to public sources, the J-16 maintains a steady production of around 16-18 units per year, this is 3x higher than the production of the J-15, but both aircraft are not even in mass production, and even considering that the J-16 is being produced in batches above 15 units per year and that the J-16 which is a much superior aircraft to the J-11 was priced a little over 318-380 million RMB.

View how the logic problem applies here.

You claim that previously when the J-11 was fully production, the price of the fighter was around 300 million RMB (US$47 million in current dollars), but then you claim that the price of the J-16 is around US$50 to US$60 million (RMB 318-380) based on the number of units produced that don't even have enough cadence to bring the price of the fighter down to that level. If you consider inflation and other factors for the increase in the unit cost of the J-11 fighter, comparatively it would have the same price as the J-16 fighter today if it had the same peak production as years ago. This cannot even be considered viable, because the J-16 is a much more capable aircraft than the fighter that originated it, precisely the J-11. So what you are indirectly claiming here is that the J-16 is priced the same as the J-11 fighter today based on rising costs over time, with the aircraft having a production of less than 20 units per year.

See how the logic problem applies again. If the PLAAF hypothetically wants to increase production of the J-16 fighter jet to somewhere around 36 units, if the J-16 costs based on your claim US$50-60 million and the 15% discount based on your estimate, the J-16 will cost US$42.5-US$51 million, which would be within the previously quoted price range of RMB 300 million, US$47 million. Do you really believe this? I do not.

tphuang said:
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.

There are a lot of logic problems here.

The annual production of the J-20 should not exceed 24 units, this year we will certainly see a progressive increase in this established annual production capacity of the J-20, I simply consider doubling this capacity feasible if the PLAAF so requests, but in years I highly doubt the J-20 has dropped from $200-$150 million to below the F-35 today.

IMO it is very likely that as the J-20 increases production, with a number in the range between 36-45 units, the unit price of the J-20 will plummet to below US$100 million, and may even reach the unit price of the fighter. like the F-35, but I think it's highly unlikely that the J-20's price will drop below the F-35's price, unless J-20 production increases to somewhere around 60-70 units per year.

You simply disregard that the F-35 is being produced at over a hundred units, the production rate of the F-35 is close to 140-150 units per year, which is exactly why the price of the fighter has plummeted to below $80 million. The J-20 to try to get a bigger discount for purchasing the PLAAF with a lower price than an F-35, will have to order more than 60 units annually, which is a 2x lower production rate for China for an even lower price. smallest of each J-20 unit compared to the F-35.

Suetham · Feb 8, 2022

tphuang said:
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 problem is that China still has many brigades and regiments with 3rd generation aircraft like the J-7 and J-8 and not only that, the J-10A aircraft themselves are already very worn out and need to be taken out of service replacing them. those for newer generation aircraft. The transition from the PLAAF to a modern Air Force has to be effectively achieved, some put it as the deadline until 2027 which is the most important year of this decade for the PLA, I am still putting an even longer deadline for something around 2030 onwards .

I still don't understand why this understanding that the PLAAF needs to replace 4th generation aircraft with 5th generation fighters. Again, this becomes a problem of logic. The production capacity of 5th generation aircraft is still starting, the J-20 is not even in mass production, there are still many 3rd generation aircraft to be replaced, and there is a full production capacity of 4th or 4th generation aircraft, 5th generation to modernize the PLAAF. There is simply no way for the PLAAF to replace the entire air force with 5th generation aircraft when the industry simply cannot replace on a 1:1 basis 3rd/4th generation aircraft with 5th generation fighters. You are totally convinced that the PLAAF needs to have an air force fully equipped with 5th generation fighters but you forget how to achieve this objective.

I believe that the PLAAF like everyone else expects China to fully equip its air force with 5th generation fighters, the problem is how the PLAAF aims to achieve this objective, nothing leads me to believe that they will be able to achieve this objective until at least 2030. The objective of making the PLAAF fully modern with 4th/4.5th generation fighters complemented by 5th generation fighters is fully feasible within the deadline set until 2030.

tphuang said:
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.

It is true. The difference is huge. The problem becomes real when considering how the PLAAF hopes to achieve this, more than just wishing, it is necessary to face reality when analyzing the criteria for achieving this objective.

The J-20 is a stealth fighter with full offensive capabilities, the J-10C is a multirole fighter with the primary role of air superiority, but can act as an interceptor for air defense. The J-10C is a fully modern fighter with full capabilities to act as a continental air defense fighter, China has a vast territory to defend, more than a long-range fighter, they need quantitative advantages, the PLAAF needs of large amounts of fighters to defend the mainland, the J-10C fulfills this function in an exemplary manner.

The J-10C is capable of providing continental air defense while the J-16 and J-10 act offensively in a future contingency against Taiwan or against all other regional actors, with the help of ground radars and some airborne assets such as AWACS to to cover the shortcomings and gaps of ground radar, the J-10C can effectively defend the entire Chinese mainland, without needing fighters like the J-16 and J-20 to fulfill this function that would be dedicated to operating offensively. The US does the same thing with its Air National Guard for continental air defense, while sending the most capable fighters to operate offensively in the USAF.

Regarding the production of the J-10C, there are ramblings about production rates. In fact, the production of the J-10C as well as the J-20 in Chengfei is at full capacity, the greater number of orders for the J-20 made it simply impossible to produce all the aircraft ordered in Chengfei, so part of the production of the J -10C was transferred to Guifei. The J-10C order has not been reduced as you claim, under the circumstance that Chengfei is facing huge production capacity pressure, it is also a good way to reduce your own production capacity pressure by shifting some of the production orders. from J-10C to Guifei, which is also a subsidiary of AVIC that currently produces a few drones, so there is plenty of room to increase production.

AndrewS · Feb 8, 2022

tphuang said:
.As such, PLAAF seems to have already slowed down J-10C procurement in the recent times while ramping up J-20 production. Depending on how good 6th gen aircraft is, I think an eventual production run of 1500 to 2000 5th generation is needed over the next 20 years. A the same time, PLAAF will probably want to withdraw J-10Cs from its fleet by 2040 as 6th gen production ramps up. It has been withdrawing J7s/8s recently as J-20 production ramped up. As such, why would PLAAF want to keep producing J-10Cs for a long time? J-7/8s will be basically gone from the service in 5 or 6 years. Older J-11s will be gone pretty soon too. After that, the new 5th gen production will be replacing early J-10s/J-11Bs/Su-30s. (When I say retire, I mean put into storage. Those early J-10/11B airframes should still have plenty of service life left.) Since I see this as PLAAF's likely timeline, I see no reason why they should keep ordering J-10Cs after 2025. Flanker production should also stop by the latter part of this decade.

You can still justify the existing fleet of 200 J-10C solely for 2nd line CAP duties in rear areas in 2050.
Primary missions would be hunting down cruise missiles and responding to stealth aircraft infiltrations, which it can do with the existing AESA and IRST.

Rather than prematurely withdraw the J-10C by 2040, I think the J-10C can stick around until the end of their service lives.

Suetham · Feb 8, 2022

Suetham said:
The J-10C is capable of providing continental air defense while the J-16 and J-20 act offensively...

Suetham · Feb 8, 2022

AndrewS said:
You can still justify the existing fleet of 200 J-10C solely for 2nd line CAP duties in rear areas in 2050.
Primary missions would be hunting down cruise missiles and responding to stealth aircraft infiltrations, which it can do with the existing AESA and IRST.

Rather than prematurely withdraw the J-10C by 2040, I think the J-10C can stick around until the end of their service lives.

Exactly.

Future PLA combat aircraft composition

plawolf

Lieutenant General

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

tphuang

Lieutenant General

Akame

Junior Member

Gloire_bb

Captain

Suetham

Senior Member

Suetham

Senior Member

AndrewS

Brigadier

Suetham

Senior Member

Suetham

Senior Member