Future PLA combat aircraft composition

Suetham said:

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 .

Click to expand...

Are the J-10A actually that worn out? The airframes should be around 14-18 years old.
Whilst it makes sense to transfer some J-10A to training units, the remaining J-10A should still have a lot of airframe hours left.

Suetham said:

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.

Click to expand...

If I look at the airframe ages, the vast majority of PLAAF aircraft are less than 22 year old.
That applies even to the J-7/8s and there are only 200-300 left.
If these were solely replaced by J-20 (24-48 per year) and J-16 (12-24 per year) plus minimum orders of J-10C (12 per year ), we're still looking at 60-90 aircraft per year.
That would work out as 3-4 years to replace the J-7/8 units.

Producing the J-10C at 40 per year (like previously) only gets you to the same position a few months faster.

Suetham said:

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.

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.

Click to expand...

I think the PLAAF have sufficient numbers of J-10A (320), J-10B (55) and J-10C (200+) for homeland defence and also offensive missions close to the Chinese border. But the problem is that non-stealthy aircraft would be highly vulnerable if they ever encounter an opposing stealth fighter. So I would favour a minimum level of J-10C orders (say 12 per year) just to keep the production line open and for exports.

And that the focus of the PLAAF has to be on J-20 and J-16 for offensive operations, which have a much higher payoff than defensive missions.

Suetham said:

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.

Click to expand...

AndrewS said:

But the problem is that non-stealthy aircraft would be highly vulnerable if they ever encounter an opposing stealth fighter.

Click to expand...

That is an overstatement. There are a plethora of options where it isn't going to be the case or won't make a meaningful difference.
At very least, difference is not there to treat new - and J-11C and J-16 are quite fresh - non-stealth aircraft as a liability, not asset.

Their replacement should be some sort of LO/VLO aircraft - or maybe an aircraft/drone combination. But for both this replacement is still quite far away in the future - no earlier than the 2030s perhaps.

Things can be rushed, of course(J-31 is here and will probably become available somewhere during the second half of this decade) - but I doubt it will be the case. Not for these J-10/16, at least.

AndrewS said:

Are the J-10A actually that worn out? The airframes should be around 14-18 years old.
Whilst it makes sense to transfer some J-10A to training units, the remaining J-10A should still have a lot of airframe hours left.

Click to expand...

AndrewS said:

If I look at the airframe ages, the vast majority of PLAAF aircraft are less than 22 year old.
That applies even to the J-7/8s and there are only 200-300 left.
If these were solely replaced by J-20 (24-48 per year) and J-16 (12-24 per year) plus minimum orders of J-10C (12 per year ), we're still looking at 60-90 aircraft per year.
That would work out as 3-4 years to replace the J-7/8 units.

Producing the J-10C at 40 per year (like previously) only gets you to the same position a few months faster.

Click to expand...

As I read some time ago, the J-10A as well as the J-11A of the first batches were used for several years at a high intensity, so there is not much life left for these fighters. All of them are suitable to be withdrawn from service to give the PLAAF more freedom to equip the force with more modern aircraft or even as you said, transfer to training units. Incidentally, like the J-11 and J-10A aircraft, aircraft such as the J-7 and J-8 can also be transferred to training units, this action would be even more feasible considering the air force training program for jet fighters, it would be a great introduction for the cadets to have a 3rd generation aircraft that was previously in the operational sector of the PLAAF, it would be a suitable way to train future pilots before they take up a 4th and 5th generation fighter.

AndrewS said:

I think the PLAAF have sufficient numbers of J-10A (320), J-10B (55) and J-10C (200+) for homeland defence and also offensive missions close to the Chinese border. But the problem is that non-stealthy aircraft would be highly vulnerable if they ever encounter an opposing stealth fighter. So I would favour a minimum level of J-10C orders (say 12 per year) just to keep the production line open and for exports.

Click to expand...

I agree with that number. Something like 600 J-10 units for continental air defense. The problem is that the J-10A and J-10B are even inferior aircraft to fulfill this purpose, the J-10C is the most capable version of the J-10 to fulfill this function, so I advocate that the PLAAF maintain the production stabilized at around 36-44 units per year until fully modernized the air force, if maintain the annual rhythm of production in less than 10 years will be able to achieve the result, if the order is maintained at 36 units, if production is maintained at 44 units produced, this modernization can be completed in less than 8 years. And that's excluding the withdrawal of the J-7 and the J-8 the J-10C is also replacing them.

AndrewS said:

And that the focus of the PLAAF has to be on J-20 and J-16 for offensive operations, which have a much higher payoff than defensive missions.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree with this fact. But I think the focus should also be on aircraft like the J-10C in the medium term, China still has too many regional actors and outsiders in Asia to focus only on aircraft for offensive purpose, you can't leave the most important area unguarded. of the country with few fighters, the continental. China does not have the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean separating its territory from the big players so as not to focus on aircraft for air defense purposes.

Gloire_bb said:

That is an overstatement. There are a plethora of options where it isn't going to be the case or won't make a meaningful difference.
At very least, difference is not there to treat new - and J-11C and J-16 are quite fresh - non-stealth aircraft as a liability, not asset.

Their replacement should be some sort of LO/VLO aircraft - or maybe an aircraft/drone combination. But for both this replacement is still quite far away in the future - no earlier than the 2030s perhaps.

Things can be rushed, of course(J-31 is here and will probably become available somewhere during the second half of this decade) - but I doubt it will be the case. Not for these J-10/16, at least.

Click to expand...

A combination of a KJ-3000 AEW&C with 4.5th generation aircraft is more than enough for air defense. And for an air battle to occur in that direction in which China has to act in the war defensively, the enemy would need to shoot down all 4.5th/5th generation fighters that act more offensively, including PLANAF's own fighters.

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.

Click to expand...

What is that service life? The earliest J-10C would be 25 years old by 2040. How much longer would you want to fly them? Will there be enough pilots round to fly them? Are they better offer donating J-10s to friendly countries?

another thing to think about is AI? The J-10Cs should have relatively modern mission computers compared to the generation of fighters they have been retiring. How effective would they be if PLAAF converted them to be UCAVs?

Gloire_bb said:

That is an overstatement. There are a plethora of options where it isn't going to be the case or won't make a meaningful difference.
At very least, difference is not there to treat new - and J-11C and J-16 are quite fresh - non-stealth aircraft as a liability, not asset.

Their replacement should be some sort of LO/VLO aircraft - or maybe an aircraft/drone combination. But for both this replacement is still quite far away in the future - no earlier than the 2030s perhaps.

Things can be rushed, of course(J-31 is here and will probably become available somewhere during the second half of this decade) - but I doubt it will be the case. Not for these J-10/16, at least.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is suggesting that they need to be retired before 2030. However, there is no reason to keep producing them if the current fleet is sufficient for defense against air forces without F-35s.

I just looked today at an article about IAF's progress with MRFA
It's quite mind boggling we are in 2022 and the Indians are still at the start of a competition for 114 more non-stealth aircraft and looking to pay $200 million per aircraft. The current 4th generation fleet augmented by a couple of brigades of J-20s are more than enough to take care of risk from Western side of the country for the next decade.

Here is my approach. Order another 100 J-10Cs to be delivered over next 3 or 4 years. Out of the 300 J-10As, upgrade about 150 of them with the latest avionics/weapon support. Do the same with J-10Bs. Then, you have about 500 J-10s that will be around until 6th generation aircraft is ready to be mass produced. Produce another 150 J-16s , which will take until probably near end of this decade. Out of the 200 J-11B/BSs, upgrade about 150 of them with the latest avionics/weapon support. Then, you have about 500 flankers that will be around until 6th generation aircraft is ready to be mass produced. It will probably take another 15 years before 6th gen aircraft is ready to be mss produced. Over this 15 years, we could see 700 J-20s and 300 land version of J-35s produced for the Air Force (+another 200 J-35s for the navy). So we get to a point of 1000 5th generation aircraft + 1000 4++ generation aircraft by 2037 along with a handful of 6th gen aircraft. That to me seems to be a pretty healthy place to be. If USAF retires F-22 as I expect, the 2 Air Force will have similar # of 4th and 5th generation aircraft.

that would mean that all the Russian flankers, JH-7As, J-11As and unupgraded J-10s/J-11Bs get retired over the next 15 years. That's about 600 of those aircraft along with around 400 J-7/8s still in service. The J-7/8s can be converted to drones. They can try selling the used flankers or donate them to friendly nations. Same with J-10s. If PAF wants them, they can pay to have the old J-10As upgraded to have the same avionics/weapon support as J-10Cs.

I think this gives plenty of work to CAC (about 50 J-20s a year for 15 years), SAC (about 50 J-35 variants a year for 10 years) and Guizhou (potentially 200 new J-10Cs for domestic and export + converting another 300 to J-10C standard -> over 30 a year).

tphuang said:

Here is my approach. Order another 100 J-10Cs to be delivered over next 3 or 4 years. Out of the 300 J-10As, upgrade about 150 of them with the latest avionics/weapon support. Do the same with J-10Bs. Then, you have about 500 J-10s that will be around until 6th generation aircraft is ready to be mass produced. Produce another 150 J-16s , which will take until probably near end of this decade. Out of the 200 J-11B/BSs, upgrade about 150 of them with the latest avionics/weapon support. Then, you have about 500 flankers that will be around until 6th generation aircraft is ready to be mass produced. It will probably take another 15 years before 6th gen aircraft is ready to be mss produced. Over this 15 years, we could see 700 J-20s and 300 land version of J-35s produced for the Air Force (+another 200 J-35s for the navy). So we get to a point of 1000 5th generation aircraft + 1000 4++ generation aircraft by 2037 along with a handful of 6th gen aircraft. That to me seems to be a pretty healthy place to be. If USAF retires F-22 as I expect, the 2 Air Force will have similar # of 4th and 5th generation aircraft.

that would mean that all the Russian flankers, JH-7As, J-11As and unupgraded J-10s/J-11Bs get retired over the next 15 years. That's about 600 of those aircraft along with around 400 J-7/8s still in service. The J-7/8s can be converted to drones. They can try selling the used flankers or donate them to friendly nations. Same with J-10s. If PAF wants them, they can pay to have the old J-10As upgraded to have the same avionics/weapon support as J-10Cs.

I think this gives plenty of work to CAC (about 50 J-20s a year for 15 years), SAC (about 50 J-35 variants a year for 10 years) and Guizhou (potentially 200 new J-10Cs for domestic and export + converting another 300 to J-10C standard -> over 30 a year).

Click to expand...

Perfect. This is a very correct and viable approach.

Suetham said:

I do not disagree with this fact. But I think the focus should also be on aircraft like the J-10C in the medium term, China still has too many regional actors and outsiders in Asia to focus only on aircraft for offensive purpose, you can't leave the most important area unguarded. of the country with few fighters, the continental.

Click to expand...

I see this as a contradictory statement.

If you want to guard your important areas, it's better to conduct more offensive operations so that the opponent has no time or opportunity to launch attacks against you.

When an enemy airbase is attacked, aircraft are destroyed and it forces the opposing Air Force to scramble their fighters unexpectedly.

So what I'm saying is that the PLAAF has a decent number of J-10s, and doesn't really need to add large numbers of them.
If you look at a map of the J-10/J-7 units, you can see concentrations of their airbases in rear areas, where you definitely don't need anymore J-10s for local defence.

AndrewS said:

If you want to guard your important areas, it's better to conduct more offensive operations so that the opponent has no time or opportunity to launch attacks against you.

Click to expand...

That's a simple model of two bodies: A simple world of two bases, belonging to two countries, both filled with aircraft of 1 exact same multirole type.
It may be a good model to compare the capabilities of fighters on ideal "competitive ground" - but it is very far away from reality.

AndrewS said:

I see this as a contradictory statement.

If you want to guard your important areas, it's better to conduct more offensive operations so that the opponent has no time or opportunity to launch attacks against you.

When an enemy airbase is attacked, aircraft are destroyed and it forces the opposing Air Force to scramble their fighters unexpectedly.

Click to expand...

Once again, geography prevents this full vocation for China to focus exclusively on offensive actions. You are clearly making a comparison with the US that there is simply no comparison, the US has two open oceans protecting the CONUS, the USAF's task for offensive operations is clearly feasible, precisely for this reason the USAF is itself a fully expeditionary force , China does not have this advantage of geography to focus exclusively on offensively, therefore, the PLAAF must also focus on defensive operations, because there are too many regional actors close by for China to focus exclusively on the scope of offensive operations.

AndrewS said:

So what I'm saying is that the PLAAF has a decent number of J-10s, and doesn't really need to add large numbers of them.
If you look at a map of the J-10/J-7 units, you can see concentrations of their airbases in rear areas, where you definitely don't need anymore J-10s for local defence.

Click to expand...

I will tell you why the number of J-10C may still be insufficient if we are going to analyze the future scenario. As China advances with air and naval bases in the SCS, thus expanding a territory to be defended, the exclusive area for air defense will expand and the J-10 in current numbers may be insufficient to cover all that territory, not there is simply a way to leave an empty hole without layers of air defense protection between the mainland and these expeditionary bases, so in addition to these "rear areas", the J-10 and other aircraft with the purpose of intercepting for air defense will have to act more in the mainland frontlines and possibly even expeditionary bases, including Taiwan if so conquered.

tphuang said:

Here is my approach. Order another 100 J-10Cs to be delivered over next 3 or 4 years. Out of the 300 J-10As, upgrade about 150 of them with the latest avionics/weapon support. Do the same with J-10Bs. Then, you have about 500 J-10s that will be around until 6th generation aircraft is ready to be mass produced. Produce another 150 J-16s , which will take until probably near end of this decade. Out of the 200 J-11B/BSs, upgrade about 150 of them with the latest avionics/weapon support. Then, you have about 500 flankers that will be around until 6th generation aircraft is ready to be mass produced. It will probably take another 15 years before 6th gen aircraft is ready to be mss produced. Over this 15 years, we could see 700 J-20s and 300 land version of J-35s produced for the Air Force (+another 200 J-35s for the navy). So we get to a point of 1000 5th generation aircraft + 1000 4++ generation aircraft by 2037 along with a handful of 6th gen aircraft. That to me seems to be a pretty healthy place to be. If USAF retires F-22 as I expect, the 2 Air Force will have similar # of 4th and 5th generation aircraft.

that would mean that all the Russian flankers, JH-7As, J-11As and unupgraded J-10s/J-11Bs get retired over the next 15 years. That's about 600 of those aircraft along with around 400 J-7/8s still in service. The J-7/8s can be converted to drones. They can try selling the used flankers or donate them to friendly nations. Same with J-10s. If PAF wants them, they can pay to have the old J-10As upgraded to have the same avionics/weapon support as J-10Cs.

I think this gives plenty of work to CAC (about 50 J-20s a year for 15 years), SAC (about 50 J-35 variants a year for 10 years) and Guizhou (potentially 200 new J-10Cs for domestic and export + converting another 300 to J-10C standard -> over 30 a year).

Click to expand...

That's about what I go for as well.

But I'd go with a 100 J-10C delivered over the next 8 years at minimal production levels at Guizhou, rather than in just 3-4 years.
And I'd skip the J-10A upgrade as they already just went through their MLU.
The J-10B are about due a MLU anyway, but they're already similar enough to the J-10C, so I'm not sure what you would want to upgrade?

I'd also keep the Su-35 around, since they are new and also capable.