antiterror13
Brigadier
I thought all J-10B (not many anyway) have been upgraded to "C" specs
Future PLA combat aircraft composition
- Thread starter Totoro
- Start date
I thought all J-10B (not many anyway) have been upgraded to "C" specs
antiterror13
Brigadier
I think SU-35 and SU-30 is still useful to fly around sensitive areas and not in conflict, so the adversaries wouldn't know the true of Chinese radar/AESA capability
I think the Su-30s will be 33+ years old by the 2037 date mentioned.
I can't imagine them flying by then.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Well, the end result of "comparable k/d ratios," would be China running out of J-20s after their "great victory," while the US would still have plenty of F-35s after their "epic defeat". I believe that in historical studies of air combat exchange ratios, it was determined that quantity was more important than quality in determining which side enjoys a favorable KDR. In an engagement between a force that was numerically superior by a factor of 2 and a force composed of planes that were qualitatively superior by a factor of 2 - the numerically superior force would enjoy a favorable K/D ratio. For the PLAAF to successfully deal with F-35s, she would need to establish superior situational awareness and rely on the J-20's advantages in range and speed to only engage F-35s when local numerical superiority can be achieved, in order to achieve any kind of sustained K/D ratio. The PLAAF must choose engagements carefully and should only engage when she can dictate the parameters of the engagement to her advantage.
I don' think anyone expects the PLAAF to be an all 5th gen, or even mostly 5th gen force by 2030. Even the US is not going to have a predominantly 5th generation force by 2030. Otherwise, the US would not have invested in F-15EX and would not be mass producing Super Hornets.
Within an decade, I envision the air-defense and interceptor roles to be fully filled by UCAVs directed by AWACs. Only in contested air space or deep penetration of enemy air space, situations in which AWACs would be subjected to unacceptable attrition, would you need a manned fighter platform in the mix. There would be few use cases for a short ranger fighter. As a corollary, the total number of manned platforms that the PLAAF would need to maintain would also decrease - there is no need to re-equip all J-7/J-8/J-10 regiments if UCAVs can fulfill their role instead.
The same logic of CAP versus Offensive Operations does apply to US carriers and US airbases in the Western Pacific.
If a US carrier maintains a CAP of just 6 aircraft, it has few spare aircraft for offensive operations.
The attacker always get to choose where and when they want to fight.
So they can choose when and where to send in 24 fighters with say 2 jamming aircraft.
But if you want to maintain a defensive CAP of 24 fighters and 2 jamming aircraft at all times - with a on-station time of 3hours - you will have to dedicate 8x the number (208 aircraft) to this task. Alternatively, you could conduct 8 [offensive fighter sweeps / strike missions] against airbases instead.
And if you have to be on the defensive in 3 locations, you have used up 624 aircraft already. That would be a third of the entire Chinese Air Force fighter fleet.
---
But when you have a cluster of airbases, you can justify keeping some J-10s for local CAP which will disrupt the plans of incoming aircraft and can investigate anything strange. And if stealth bombers appear at night, it's worth having a pair of J-10s trying for the bombers and also any missiles or bombs which are launched.
---
So it doesn't make sense to me to have many fighter aircraft performing defensive CAP.
If you want to intercept incoming fighters or missiles, it's better to use a SAM system.
Something like a medium-range HQ-16 with up to 72 ready SAMs plus reloads is relatively inexpensive. Pakistan paid roughly $60-80?Mn for their HQ-16 batteries, which is roughly equivalent to the cost of a single fighter jet.
Or you could go for a high-performance HQ-9B SAM system with a range of up to 300km, but the cost will be a lot higher.
antiterror13
Brigadier
ohhh, I didn't mean in 2037 ....... I meant now until 2025 - 2030
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.
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.
All of this discussion of J-20 and F-22 being "significantly more capable than F-35 in the A2A domain" is interesting for academic purposes.
But for practical purposes, the sheer number of F-35s being produced cannot be ignored.
Or putting it another way, just how much is the F-22's being "more capable in A2A domain" able to offset the fact that the F-35 will eventually be produced in numbers that total well over ten times the number of F-22s ultimately produced?
If we could somehow quantify "A2A capability", do we think the J-20 and F-22 are 25% greater than that of F-35? Or maybe even 50% greater, or whatever number one wants?
Great, well is that greater number particularly influential in light of the total fleet sizes of the respective aircraft and the effect it would have on deployable 5th gen aircraft in a given theater of operations?
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Why would you need J-10Cs to defend empty ocean? Are you going to be flying J-10Cs from the mainland to defend empty ocean, or are you going to create J-10D with waterskis instead of landing wheels?
Agreed
So I think PLAAF doctrine would have to shift to constantly attacking the small number of airbases that are available to the opponent.
That negates the F-35 numerical advantage because they can't get off the ground or are always scrambling to deal with an incoming attack.
I think the USAF revised their 5th gen split from 50% to 60% recently
That is possible. But I suspect AWACs will prove too vulnerable if the opposing side has stealth fighters along with AAMs that have a 200km range.
But something like the dual-seat J-20 directing loyal wingman UCAVs would have the same effect.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Right, so even with such a head-start in the design and procurement of 5th generation aircraft - the US is just barely going to be mostly 5th gen by 2030. Also, the USAF/USN is geared almost exclusively towards offensive operations / power-projection, which favors a higher ratio of 5th generation aircraft.
Correct, which is why you need something like a dual-set J-20 in contested airspace and especially for penetration of enemy airspace. The AWACs would only be operating in relatively secure airspace, making them suitable for the air-defense role.