??? there seems to be better countries to include, why this one?
Future PLA combat aircraft composition
- Thread starter Totoro
- Start date
Just for the record, I think it makes more sense to call the twin seater J-20 as "J-20S" or "J-20AS" rather than "J-20B".
I do understand the rationale for calling it J-20B, as it does offer a unique set of capabilities even among 5th generation fighters.
But at the same time, I think we have enough pictures to determine that the aircraft is not structurally different from a single seat J-20 beyond the requisite modifications for an enlarged cockpit for a second pilot.
The weapons bays, powerplants, sensor apertures, all appear the same. I suspect that the avionics systems and mission computers and datalinks are all the same as a single seat J-20 as well -- the force multiplier capability of the twin seater lies in utilizing the subsystems on a standard J-20 but having a second human being able to exclusively focus on exploiting the potential of those subsystems (specifically sensors, datalinks, avionics).
Because the US can deploy rotating forces in Singapore if the government so desires. The point is that CAP is not done with fighters 24/7, it doesn't exist anywhere in the world. In the USAF, the CAP 24/7 is all made by remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) like the MQ-1 Predator that are at least 3x stronger than fighters. In the US Navy it looks like the MQ-4C Triton will take on this role.
I will stop here. The conversation is taking another turn and soon we will be called to the director's room.
It is most definitely not.
F-22 even currently is a traditional asset for key directions/theaters - or, as on Alaska, theaters where F-35 simply can't inherit F-15's mantle. F-15EX can, however. ;p
J-20A is different on top of that in that it is still very much alive and well, brigades change to it yearly.
Consequences of lost crucial engagements and failed missions are way beyond some "1.25" coefficient. While the logic behind "modern stealth fighter is still a modern stealth fighter" is solid one (just as same logic behind J-10C, minus stealth) - it doesn't work quite often.
Enough to send F-22 through full MLU, even when it is already more or less decided that it is exactly a MLU, and they have around 15 years of life left in them. That's quite a decision for a fleet that can't realistically deploy 100 a/c abroad.
And J-20A is in production.
Integral estimated capability modifiers probably exist - and no one will show them to us, for obvious reasons. But they vary mission by mission.
I.e.:
For ~60% missions*, it probably doesn't matter, which of the 3 is in question. Or, for the matter, if it's a J-10C. In fact, every time you're using a heavy/stealthy platform for such a mission - you're overcommitting. Those aren't secondary missions, however - they're just as important.
*high intensity scenario. For average life here will be something like 90.
For ~10-30% missions left, a specialized asset is preferable - it simply gives you more capability per plane: more favourable conditions in engagement, more ammo, and so on.
And for another 10-30% missions left(depends on theater, conditions, and so on), F-35 simply won't work. If your aircraft can't reach launch window - it just can't do it. It isn't %-based - it is "yes" or "no".
Hypothetical 50 J-20 per year, on top of alleged 100 in service now, would yield some 550 by the end of 2030.
If notional J-31 family manages to start its production in the next several years and manages an average of 25 airframes from 2025 to 2030, that's another 150 airframes.
If J-16/J-15 production remains at some 35 airframes per year until end of 2025 then that adds 165 more airframes to the existing 270 or so. (possibly even 300?)
If J-10 production remains at some 40 airframes per year until 2030 (questionable?) then that'd add another 360 airframes to the existing 550 or so. (possibly even 600 by now?)
Another assumption would be that all J-7/8, All Sukhois but the Su-35 are retired by then. If one also includes all the J-11A, then we're left with some 220-ish J-11B. JH-7 fleet would likely lose the 1990s airframes, some 50 of them, leaving some 220 or so JH7A.
All in all, end of 2030 tally might look like this:
550 J20
150 J31 (notional, of all variants)
345 J15/16
960 J10 (all variants)
24 Su-35
220 J-11B
220 JH-7A
Total: 2450 aircraft (700 of which stealthy ones)
(list does not adjust for various accidents over the years nor does it mention any potential additional new aircraft types)
For comparison, by the end of 2030 US looks to be on track to have some 3000-3100 aircraft. Of which 1500 stealthy types. (neither side here estimated to manage to produce additional new stealthy types in said timeframe)
If notional J-31 family manages to start its production in the next several years and manages an average of 25 airframes from 2025 to 2030, that's another 150 airframes.
If J-16/J-15 production remains at some 35 airframes per year until end of 2025 then that adds 165 more airframes to the existing 270 or so. (possibly even 300?)
If J-10 production remains at some 40 airframes per year until 2030 (questionable?) then that'd add another 360 airframes to the existing 550 or so. (possibly even 600 by now?)
Another assumption would be that all J-7/8, All Sukhois but the Su-35 are retired by then. If one also includes all the J-11A, then we're left with some 220-ish J-11B. JH-7 fleet would likely lose the 1990s airframes, some 50 of them, leaving some 220 or so JH7A.
All in all, end of 2030 tally might look like this:
550 J20
150 J31 (notional, of all variants)
345 J15/16
960 J10 (all variants)
24 Su-35
220 J-11B
220 JH-7A
Total: 2450 aircraft (700 of which stealthy ones)
(list does not adjust for various accidents over the years nor does it mention any potential additional new aircraft types)
For comparison, by the end of 2030 US looks to be on track to have some 3000-3100 aircraft. Of which 1500 stealthy types. (neither side here estimated to manage to produce additional new stealthy types in said timeframe)
The whole concept of loitering interceptors is wrong?
p.s. main Chinese fighter jet in service was designed specifically with this role in mind.
There is still a large contingent in US military community (and more importantly, amongst all the politicians/DC insiders) that believes F-22 is better than everything else. That's why they are still spending money on a fleet that can barely crack 50% in availability and getting worse every year. But realistically, they signed the death warrant on that program the day they ended it as under 200 units. While some in USAF probably want to retire F-22 in the next few years, trying to pass that through the congress would be very hard. As such, F-22 continue to waste money on F-22 while USAF procurement of F-35A remains at under 50 a year. At the current pace of AI development, F-35 will be light years ahead of F-22 in situation awareness very soon. By being connected with other F-35s with same ability, I don't see how F-22 can match a group of F-35s in tracking enemy aircraft and keeping itself hidden. Keep in mind that F-22 uses a different era of stealth coating technology than what's been used on F-35. It degrades a lot faster and is harder to maintain. Regardless of how cool or maneuverable F-22 might be, keeping yourself hidden and find other hidden aircraft is the name of the game. Heck, F-22 is even trying out new external pods, despite the implications that would have for its radar signature.
I think American military planning is generally very good, but a little wasteful and short sighted. Ending F-22 production early and procuring large numbers of super hornets are just really bad decisions that were made based on their focus on the global war on terror for 15 years. China cannot make the same mistakes on J-20. I'm sure the original J-20s probably have stealth layers that are hard to maintain. It's important for them to continue to improve that technology and apply it on the new build. Maybe at some point, they can retrofit it on the old J-20s. The fact that they are willing to mass produce it (as they've announced everywhere in the past couple of months) indicate that they've probably worked through a lot of those issues and supply chain issues. I'd expect the WS-10C equipped J-20As to be notably improved over AL-31 version for not just the engine but also the improved materials and also likely avionics upgrade.
A while back, I heard of Shilao's podcast that J-20 two seater project was delayed because a lot of new technology became available in the past couple of years and they wanted to make sure those technologies were on there. They couldn't share what those technologies were. I'd assume newer mission computers, newer EW suites/sensors that are harder to pick up, narrowband communication and things like that, but probably also newer structural materials and stealth technology. I don't know if those technology will necessarily be on the most recent version of J-20A. I'd expect once they feel comfortable with those things on the two seater prototype, they will also equip them on J-20A. Based on what I heard, I expect there to be advantage of two seater over single seater in more way than just an extra operator. But who knows. I also expect there to be a J-20D using two seater airframe and stealthy external pods.
Anyhow, back to the original question of future PLAAF composition. This is what they have now approximately in just the Air Force
100 J-20s, 320 J-11B/16, 550 J-10, 120 Su-30/35, 150 JH-7A, 110 J-11A/Su-27, 400 J-7/8. So about 1750 in total. My other piece expanded them to 2100 by early 2040s. But given the future requirements and what we've seen in the PLAN explosion in both quantity and quality, we could see a similar explosion here with PLAAF. It seems like they finally have the industrial base to do so. This would allow them setting up oversea military bases to protect SLOC and increase the size and number of brigades domestically. On J-20 alone, we could also see something like this.
2022 to 2023 - 45 a year
2024 to 2025 - 50 a year
2026 to 2028 - 60 a year
2029 to 2035 - 75 a year
2036 to 2040 - 50 a year
That would give them about 1250 J-20s by 2041. Add in another 300 land version of J-35s (assuming PLANAF also gets 300 J-35s). You could then augment it with 400 J-10s and 350 J-16s in my original scenario. Assuming they'd have 100 6th gen aircraft by this point, that would be a 2400 aircraft Air Force. It would also be very competitive to what USAF would have. In fact, they'd have more 5th generation aircraft than USAF.
I think American military planning is generally very good, but a little wasteful and short sighted. Ending F-22 production early and procuring large numbers of super hornets are just really bad decisions that were made based on their focus on the global war on terror for 15 years. China cannot make the same mistakes on J-20. I'm sure the original J-20s probably have stealth layers that are hard to maintain. It's important for them to continue to improve that technology and apply it on the new build. Maybe at some point, they can retrofit it on the old J-20s. The fact that they are willing to mass produce it (as they've announced everywhere in the past couple of months) indicate that they've probably worked through a lot of those issues and supply chain issues. I'd expect the WS-10C equipped J-20As to be notably improved over AL-31 version for not just the engine but also the improved materials and also likely avionics upgrade.
A while back, I heard of Shilao's podcast that J-20 two seater project was delayed because a lot of new technology became available in the past couple of years and they wanted to make sure those technologies were on there. They couldn't share what those technologies were. I'd assume newer mission computers, newer EW suites/sensors that are harder to pick up, narrowband communication and things like that, but probably also newer structural materials and stealth technology. I don't know if those technology will necessarily be on the most recent version of J-20A. I'd expect once they feel comfortable with those things on the two seater prototype, they will also equip them on J-20A. Based on what I heard, I expect there to be advantage of two seater over single seater in more way than just an extra operator. But who knows. I also expect there to be a J-20D using two seater airframe and stealthy external pods.
Anyhow, back to the original question of future PLAAF composition. This is what they have now approximately in just the Air Force
100 J-20s, 320 J-11B/16, 550 J-10, 120 Su-30/35, 150 JH-7A, 110 J-11A/Su-27, 400 J-7/8. So about 1750 in total. My other piece expanded them to 2100 by early 2040s. But given the future requirements and what we've seen in the PLAN explosion in both quantity and quality, we could see a similar explosion here with PLAAF. It seems like they finally have the industrial base to do so. This would allow them setting up oversea military bases to protect SLOC and increase the size and number of brigades domestically. On J-20 alone, we could also see something like this.
2022 to 2023 - 45 a year
2024 to 2025 - 50 a year
2026 to 2028 - 60 a year
2029 to 2035 - 75 a year
2036 to 2040 - 50 a year
That would give them about 1250 J-20s by 2041. Add in another 300 land version of J-35s (assuming PLANAF also gets 300 J-35s). You could then augment it with 400 J-10s and 350 J-16s in my original scenario. Assuming they'd have 100 6th gen aircraft by this point, that would be a 2400 aircraft Air Force. It would also be very competitive to what USAF would have. In fact, they'd have more 5th generation aircraft than USAF.
(1)Sensor fusion is in the end about algorithms and computing power. Lockheed-Martin produces both, the available generation of electronics is the same for both, the security level is higher for the F-22=less shackles.
Comparing sensor suites is a bit complex, but f-22 main radar is still superior in raw specs. Again, algorithms are updateable for both.
F-22s were networked from day one in the first place(it is 1980s tech in the end), as well as had this fusion. But it's a safe bet to expect them to have the same deep fusion the F-35 has after the MLU.
Also, USAF specifically bothered to ensure they're finally properly interlinked with others and not just themselves - with Talon HATE pods.
(2)Stealth requirements for the JSF were outright lower than for the ATF. It isn't something that can be reversed in the middle of the program. A different generation of the coating doesn't necessarily mean it is better in echo reduction. It may be cheaper, it may be tougher, it may be easier to maintain. In fact, we do know that the latter trio was the primary focus.
+exportability.
(3)F-35 had an external pod from day 1: gun. Similarly, it never could mount Sidewinders internally in the first place. It's only logical that F-22 can carry something it lacks externally, too.
(4)F-35 development itself isn't exactly smooth either: "simple patching" isn't exactly simple, as block 4 schedule shows. As of now, it appears that both will get there at a more or less the same time (probably ~together with the first big J-20 upgrade).
All that on top of 3 simple things:
1. F-22 is M=1.5+, 60'000 feet supercruiser (and is widely believed to get to ~1.7 just on dry thrust). It's energy&ToT superiority over most modern fighters in BVR is outrageous(=its missiles) - especially so over the F-35.
2. It has more available onboard power and a larger aperture of its main sensor.
3. Same is true in WVR. Crucially, however, F-22 doesn't exactly need to choose between sidewinders and stealth.
4. F-22 has more internal ammo than any other stealth fighter: 8 missiles + gun. Twice the number of the F-35.
5. As small as F-22 fleet is by US standards - it by itself is as large as a major European fighter fleet. Its smallness is relative - and is certainly feasible for an important high-end capability.
All in all, there are good reasons to keep available F-22s around for their full life cycle - and replace it with NGAD later.
We aren't comparing future jet with a dinosaur here, we're comparing two modern jets. One of them just happens to be ~50% better in most fighter stats.
I think that as long as there are enemy airbases with active aircraft, you should dedicate as many aircraft as required to keep those airbases effectively non-operational, even if that comes at the expense of loitering defensive CAP.
If you have loitering interceptors which spend 3 hours on station, you need a total of 8x the number of aircraft.
So a CAP of 6 fighters would need 48 aircraft dedicated to the mission. Plus presumably tankers and AWACs.
But that CAP of 6 fighters could easily be overwhelmed, because your opponent can likely concentrate 12 aircraft at some point during a day, but you don't know when.
Alternatively, with 48 fighters, you could conduct your own mission with 24 strike fighters + 24 air superiority fighters to target an airbase, force an unplanned takeoff of the planes and destroy any left on the ground.
But I do think having a modest number of CAP makes sense in many cases. If you relied on quick-reaction fighters taking off, realistically they won't be able to intercept fighters/bombers/missiles in time.
And when you have concentrations of airbases or rear area airbases with high-value aircraft (eg. bombers/tankers), it is worth have a CAP because their presence will complicate enemy planning. The enemy would have to launch a smaller number of heavy and expensive missiles from a longer distance for example.
If a HQ-16 Battery costs of $60-80Mn and has up to 72 missiles available to launch, the cost of defensive missile salvoes is comparable in cost to the incoming powered missiles (eg. JASSM at $0.8Mn), so it's manageable.
Given the current fleet of approx 550 J-10s, and assuming each performs a 3 hour CAP, that would be more than 60 J-10 on CAP at any time. Yes, China is a big country, but this does seem like enough for a modest border CAP plus some interior CAP.
If we look at the situation 20-30 years ago when it were designed, Chinese doctrine and military capability was very different.
The objectives were much more defensive, partly because of lower military spending and also because they were behind technologically.
But now we can see Chinese doctrine aiming beyond the 1st Island Chain.
Also, a few years ago, Japan could have chosen a neutral position like we see with South Korea today.
But Japan has decided to double down on the US alliance, and the Japanese Home Islands have a lot of runways to host US aircraft.
There are an additional 7 main airbases in Japan, plus the US could potentially stand up 40+ airbases.
So there is a potentially requirement for a lot more Chinese air/missile strikes for these bases.
Not really. F-35 was designed from grounds up as a flying computer. The entire layout of aircraft was designed as such from day 1. It will take a lot of work update F-22 to have the same level of situation awareness. It didn't have EOTS and EODAS built in like F-35. The upgrade program for F-22 right now is unlikely to be that extensive considering it's expected to be retiring by 2030. That's before NGAD is expected to be ready.
Any new aircraft developed now would be following F-35s path. Similarly, J-20's avionic architecture and processing speed should also be at least 1 generation ahead of F-22.
Just because requirements were "lower" for JSF, doesn't mean JSF is less stealthy. I would argue it's more stealthy in front aspect. It's construction quality is higher. The stealth layer is more resilient.
As J-20 program proceed, it should be following JSF's footstep, not F-22.
It's so much better than everything else that USAF has no long term plan for it and is just worried about getting yelled by politicians for retiring it early . They had leave all those F-22 in the face of a huge hurricane a few years ago, because they could not fly off the ground.
it's so capable that USAF can use it barely half of time
| Fighters | 2019 Mission Capable Rate | 2020 Mission Capable Rate |
| F-15C | 70.05% | 71.93% |
| F-15D | 72.45% | 70.52% |
| F-15E | 71.29% | 69.21% |
| F-16C | 72.97% | 73.90% |
| F-16D | 70.37% | 72.11% |
| F-22A | 50.57% | 51.98% |
| F-35A | 61.6% | 76.07% |
Lessons for future PLA composition. Make sure that each fleet is large enough and have enough spares for maintenance and readiness. Building extra J-20 won't help unless they are able to fly off the ground.