Future PLA combat aircraft composition

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
That is just adding another layer of complexity to the discussion, because it leads to questions like:
1. Will the J-20 only be produced for the PLAAF, or will they also in future be produced for land based PLANAF?
2. Will there even be a land based PLANAF into the medium and long term future, or will they wholly transition and expand to a carrier based airwing and divest their land based fighter capabilities to the PLAAF?
There is no navy in the world that has 100% carrier based aviation. Not even USN. PLAN will definitely not be 100% carrier based, particularly for anti-sub, recon, AWAC, etc.

For
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, plus 100+ maritime patrol planes on transport platforms and 88 AWACs.

Even during a surge there's only maximally 6-7 carriers available.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, rest of the loadout is for support planes like AWAC, helicopters, etc. They're not carrying 10 AWACs per plane.

So at minimum, half the USN tactical fleet, most of their AWACs and all of their patrol and antisub fixed wings are ground based.

Thus PLANAF has to consider ground basing for much of its aircraft the same way the USN does.
 

Maikeru

Major
Registered Member
There is no navy in the world that has 100% carrier based aviation. Not even USN. PLAN will definitely not be 100% carrier based, particularly for anti-sub, recon, AWAC, etc.

For
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, plus 100+ maritime patrol planes on transport platforms and 88 AWACs.

Even during a surge there's only maximally 6-7 carriers available.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, rest of the loadout is for support planes like AWAC, helicopters, etc. They're not carrying 10 AWACs per plane.

So at minimum, half the USN tactical fleet, most of their AWACs and all of their patrol and antisub fixed wings are ground based.

Thus PLANAF has to consider ground basing for much of its aircraft the same way the USN does.
I don't think that was Bltizo's question. Whilst most USN fighters (and AEW) are often ashore, they are ALL carrier capable. USN/USMC do not maintain purely land based fighters except for adversary training (F5s). In fact neither does the French navy. PLANAF is unusual for naval air arms in that the vast majority of its fighters (and AEW) are, at present, purely land based. FWIW I think PLANAF will gradually move to all carrier-capable fighter fleet as current designs retire - although the J11BHs and KJ500s would appear to have a lot of life left.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
There is no navy in the world that has 100% carrier based aviation. Not even USN. PLAN will definitely not be 100% carrier based, particularly for anti-sub, recon, AWAC, etc.

For
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, plus 100+ maritime patrol planes on transport platforms and 88 AWACs.

Even during a surge there's only maximally 6-7 carriers available.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, rest of the loadout is for support planes like AWAC, helicopters, etc. They're not carrying 10 AWACs per plane.

So at minimum, half the USN tactical fleet, most of their AWACs and all of their patrol and antisub fixed wings are ground based.

Thus PLANAF has to consider ground basing for much of its aircraft the same way the USN does.


Given the question that was asked by Volper ("What about a land-based variant of J-35 for PLAN land-based units? Thus J-31/J-35 is being used in PLAN while J-20 is for PLAAF.") -- I thought it was fairly obvious that his question was asking about:
"What do we think about the idea of a land based J-XY/35 variant exclusively for the PLANAF's land based fighter units, while the J-20 is exclusively for the PLAAF".
My answer in that post was written in context of the PLANAF's land based only fighter units, given that's the only reasonable interpretation of his question, and I also did specify:
"2. Will there even be a land based PLANAF into the medium and long term future, or will they wholly transition and expand to a carrier based airwing and divest their land based fighter capabilities to the PLAAF?"


Of course the PLANAF, like many other navies in the world, will operate large fleets of land based aircraft for other roles -- MPA, AEW&C, ISR/ELINT, UAVs, maritime bombers, and that their carrier airwings when they are not deployed on carriers, will of course also be deployed at land.

But I thought it would have been fairly obvious that the question was about exclusively land based only fighter aircraft for the PLANAF -- i.e.; in the same vein as current PLANAF J-10AH, J-11BH, JH-7/A, etc.

He is of course free to correct me if he was talking about something else.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Given the question that was asked by Volper ("What about a land-based variant of J-35 for PLAN land-based units? Thus J-31/J-35 is being used in PLAN while J-20 is for PLAAF.") -- I thought it was fairly obvious that his question was asking about:
"What do we think about the idea of a land based J-XY/35 variant exclusively for the PLANAF's land based fighter units, while the J-20 is exclusively for the PLAAF".
My answer in that post was written in context of the PLANAF's land based only fighter units, given that's the only reasonable interpretation of his question, and I also did specify:
"2. Will there even be a land based PLANAF into the medium and long term future, or will they wholly transition and expand to a carrier based airwing and divest their land based fighter capabilities to the PLAAF?"


Of course the PLANAF, like many other navies in the world, will operate large fleets of land based aircraft for other roles -- MPA, AEW&C, ISR/ELINT, UAVs, maritime bombers, and that their carrier airwings when they are not deployed on carriers, will of course also be deployed at land.

But I thought it would have been fairly obvious that the question was about exclusively land based only fighter aircraft for the PLANAF -- i.e.; in the same vein as current PLANAF J-10AH, J-11BH, JH-7/A, etc.

He is of course free to correct me if he was talking about something else.
OK I misunderstood. So basically, yes, most J-35 will likely be ground based, but they'll still be carrier capable if need be. I don't think it's worth the supply chain complexity to have a ground only version, especially as the structural reinforcements required for carrier operation being removed could affect aircraft balance.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
OK I misunderstood. So basically, yes, most J-35 will likely be ground based, but they'll still be carrier capable if need be. I don't think it's worth the supply chain complexity to have a ground only version, especially as the structural reinforcements required for carrier operation being removed could affect aircraft balance.

Right, no worries.

So, regarding the "J-XY/35" thing, the question that Volper is asking, IMO is not about whether the "J-XY/35" will operate from PLANAF air bases on land.
He is asking if the "land based J-XY/35 variant" will be exclusively for the PLANAF's air bases on land, and not be operated by the PLAAF at all.

This image may be helpful --- the aircraft that Volper is talking about (and the one we've been talking about the last few pages) is the one in the red box, the "land based J-XY/35".
The "J-XY/35" is in the blue box, and it is the aircraft that made its maiden flight last year, and is the carrier compatible aircraft that is in turn derived from FC-31 V2 (and V1 before it).

FC31 JXY overview.png
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
We've had rumours of a land based variant of J-XY/35 for a while now, it's pretty much expected, and I would say right now it is as guaranteed to emerge as the J-XY/35 (carrier variant) was expected to emerge between 2019-2021.

Given the land based variant, is well, a variant/derivative of the more complex J-XY/35 which has not only already flown but is arguably a more complex and heavily engineered aircraft, it would not surprise me that the land based variant may proceed through its initial stages slightly brisker.

I am not sure about a land based PLAAF variant being guaranteed.

The J35-J20 pairing is as close a parallel to the JF17-J10 pairing as it is the J10-J11 one. Further in fact, since unlike the J10-J11 hi-lo mix, there isn’t engine compatibility to sweeten the deal.

Just because everyone in the PLAAF is clamouring to get J20s doesn’t automatically mean everyone wants a stealth, any stealth.

There will also be the question of production rates and the PLAN’s appetites and ultimate carrier fleet ambitions.

If the PLAN wants to go toe to toe with the USN, they might block out the entire J35 production run for the next decade by itself assuming around 30airframes on average per year.

Interest from the PLAAF will vary drastically between getting additional J35s in a couple years time or the early to mid 2030s.

That the PLAN will buy the J35 is guaranteed since it’s the only game in town for their carriers. But the PLAAF already have the J20 and can always invest to boost CAC J20 output more should they wish.

As such, I think the question of whether the PLAAF will ultimately buy the J35 isn’t settled yet, nor will it be settled until the PLAAF gets to fly the hell out of pre-production J35s themselves to see how it stacks against their J20. And unless the J35 straight trumps the J20, other factors like costs and delivery scheduling will also play significantly in the PLAAF’s decision making process on whether or not to buy J35s themselves.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I am not sure about a land based PLAAF variant being guaranteed.

The J35-J20 pairing is as close a parallel to the JF17-J10 pairing as it is the J10-J11 one. Further in fact, since unlike the J10-J11 hi-lo mix, there isn’t engine compatibility to sweeten the deal.

Just because everyone in the PLAAF is clamouring to get J20s doesn’t automatically mean everyone wants a stealth, any stealth.

There will also be the question of production rates and the PLAN’s appetites and ultimate carrier fleet ambitions.

If the PLAN wants to go toe to toe with the USN, they might block out the entire J35 production run for the next decade by itself assuming around 30airframes on average per year.

Interest from the PLAAF will vary drastically between getting additional J35s in a couple years time or the early to mid 2030s.

That the PLAN will buy the J35 is guaranteed since it’s the only game in town for their carriers. But the PLAAF already have the J20 and can always invest to boost CAC J20 output more should they wish.

As such, I think the question of whether the PLAAF will ultimately buy the J35 isn’t settled yet, nor will it be settled until the PLAAF gets to fly the hell out of pre-production J35s themselves to see how it stacks against their J20. And unless the J35 straight trumps the J20, other factors like costs and delivery scheduling will also play significantly in the PLAAF’s decision making process on whether or not to buy J35s themselves.

The idea of the land based J-XY/35 variant for PLAAF being "guaranteed" is basically only a result of the last year or two of gradually escalating rumours of a land based J-XY/35 being in the works and being developed for the PLA, with expectations that it would emerge starting in the last year or so.

If we didn't have those rumours, I would certainly agree with you.


But IMO we are now at a stage, where the expectations of the land based J-XY/35 variant for the PLA is at a similar stage to where J-20 was in 2009, or where the standard carrier based J-XY/35 was in 2020.
I think the discussion should be pivoting from "does a land based J-XY/35 variant make sense for the PLAAF" and slowly towards "what are the reasons that makes a land based J-XY/35 for the PLAAF a sensible procurement".

In any case, the discussion of "land based J-XY/35 versus alternatives" has been raised a few times in the PLA orbat thread in the past year or so (see linked post by me, which I still largely maintain the same positions).

I'm going to move these couple of posts to that thread as well, as future procurement and opportunity/cost discussions are best had there.

 
Last edited:

plawolf

Lieutenant General
The idea of the land based J-XY/35 variant for PLAAF being "guaranteed" is basically only a result of the last year or two of gradually escalating rumours of a land based J-XY/35 being in the works and being developed for the PLA, with expectations that it would emerge starting in the last year or so.

If we didn't have those rumours, I would certainly agree with you.


But IMO we are now at a stage, where the expectations of the land based J-XY/35 variant for the PLA is at a similar stage to where J-20 was in 2009, or where the standard carrier based J-XY/35 was in 2020.
I think the discussion should be pivoting from "does a land based J-XY/35 variant make sense for the PLAAF" and slowly towards "what are the reasons that makes a land based J-XY/35 for the PLAAF a sensible procurement".

In any case, the discussion of "land based J-XY/35 versus alternatives" has been raised a few times in the PLA orbat thread in the past year or so (see linked post by me, which I still largely maintain the same positions).

I'm going to move these couple of posts to that thread as well, as future procurement and opportunity/cost discussions are best had there.


I would not equate rumours of a land based version being developed with it being developed for the PLAAF.

There is certainly plenty of historical precedent for China to fund the development of platforms for export over domestic use. Granted 5th gen development is inordinately expensive compared to earlier gens, but we are talking about a modification on an existing design already funded by the navy. So the extra costs associated from developing a land based variant is going to be quite a bit less.

The main issue I see with the PLAAF procuring both the J20 and J35 is role. Since unlike the F35, the J35 is designed primarily for air combat over strike.

With already an established heavyweight air dominance 5th gen, why does the PLAAF want a medium weight air dominance 5th gen as well? Let’s not forget about the air combat focused loyal wingman programme as well.

That would be a hell of a lot of the PLAAF’s budget devoted to air combat primarily. With limited to no ground attack capability.

As the Ukraine war is showing, having control of the skies but limited ground attack capabilities is very suboptimal.

Given how much the PLAAF has and will continue to invest in J20s and loyal wingmen drones for air combat. If they really are to fork out the funds for a second manned stealth, one would think the primary role of that second stealth would be strike. But that’s not really on the cards for even the most radical redesign of the J35 on account of its twin engine design, which will significantly limit internal weapons bay volume and depth.

Maybe that’s what the rumoured JHXX is for. But that’s another major procurement commitment eating up the PLAAF budget and it would be quite something to suggest the PLAAF can fund the development and procurement of 3 manned 5th gens all at the same time!

And that’s before we even throw in other big ticket items like H20, Y20, AWACS, tankers, drones, helicopters, 6th gen development and next gen missiles and maybe even direct energy weapons etc.

All that is to say the PLAAF already have more than enough on its plate. Is it really going to commit to a second manned air dominance 5th gen fighter as well? Sure more is better, but not even China can escape the mundane realities of budget constraints and opportunity costs. Where is the PLAAF going to find the budget for all this? And if they are not going to get an additional vast budget increase (since we already know their announced future budget increase, and it’s modest), what will they be giving up for the J35?

Because if the Ukraine war has taught the world one thing, it’s that you cannot skimp on ‘consumables’ like PGMs to fund fixed asset acquisitions like the Russians did. I don’t think the PLAAF is guilty of that, but I’m pretty sure they will be looking at their existing PGM inventories with fresh eyes all the same in light of the VVS performance and may well decide the need a lot more PGMs just to be safe. Which will be more budgetary pressure.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I would not equate rumours of a land based version being developed with it being developed for the PLAAF.

I'm not equating "rumours of a land based version being developed" with it "being developed for the PLAAF".

I'm saying that the "rumours we have of a land based version being developed, state or hint it is being developed for the PLAAF".
A few examples:


There is certainly plenty of historical precedent for China to fund the development of platforms for export over domestic use. Granted 5th gen development is inordinately expensive compared to earlier gens, but we are talking about a modification on an existing design already funded by the navy. So the extra costs associated from developing a land based variant is going to be quite a bit less.

Certainly they've funded development of platforms for export, but those are usually relatively minor avionics or internal subsystem changes for export, and nothing near the complexity of funding a full scale 5th generation fighter's development, where the system integrations cost and time and aerospace resources can be as expensive or moreso, than the airframe itself.


The main issue I see with the PLAAF procuring both the J20 and J35 is role. Since unlike the F35, the J35 is designed primarily for air combat over strike.

With already an established heavyweight air dominance 5th gen, why does the PLAAF want a medium weight air dominance 5th gen as well? Let’s not forget about the air combat focused loyal wingman programme as well.

That would be a hell of a lot of the PLAAF’s budget devoted to air combat primarily. With limited to no ground attack capability.

As the Ukraine war is showing, having control of the skies but limited ground attack capabilities is very suboptimal.

Given how much the PLAAF has and will continue to invest in J20s and loyal wingmen drones for air combat. If they really are to fork out the funds for a second manned stealth, one would think the primary role of that second stealth would be strike. But that’s not really on the cards for even the most radical redesign of the J35 on account of its twin engine design, which will significantly limit internal weapons bay volume and depth.

Maybe that’s what the rumoured JHXX is for. But that’s another major procurement commitment eating up the PLAAF budget and it would be quite something to suggest the PLAAF can fund the development and procurement of 3 manned 5th gens all at the same time!

And that’s before we even throw in other big ticket items like H20, Y20, AWACS, tankers, drones, helicopters, 6th gen development and next gen missiles and maybe even direct energy weapons etc.

All that is to say the PLAAF already have more than enough on its plate. Is it really going to commit to a second manned air dominance 5th gen fighter as well? Sure more is better, but not even China can escape the mundane realities of budget constraints and opportunity costs. Where is the PLAAF going to find the budget for all this? And if they are not going to get an additional vast budget increase (since we already know their announced future budget increase, and it’s modest), what will they be giving up for the J35?

Because if the Ukraine war has taught the world one thing, it’s that you cannot skimp on ‘consumables’ like PGMs to fund fixed asset acquisitions like the Russians did. I don’t think the PLAAF is guilty of that, but I’m pretty sure they will be looking at their existing PGM inventories with fresh eyes all the same in light of the VVS performance and may well decide the need a lot more PGMs just to be safe. Which will be more budgetary pressure.


I think these are all good points, in regards to the stealthy strike capability of the aircraft.

I do also agree that substantial stealthy strike capabilities is important -- though I think in terms of carrying "larger diameter" weapons, that role will be given to H-20, stealthy UCAVs, and/or a hypothetical JH-XX instead.


For J-XY/35 (both the confirmed carrier based variant and the rumoured/expected land based variant), it has been spoken of as having the same weapons bay dimensions as J-20, so both will feature common loadouts for their internal weapons bay, of which two strike weapon types have distinction:
- And both J-20 and the J-XY/35 in turn, have been rumoured to be capable of carrying four 500kg stand off air launched cruise missiles. This actually all intuitively makes sense, as such a weapon would be in a similar class to Kh-59MK2 or a slightly modified geometry JSM, which would be well within the dimensions of J-20's weapons bay dimensions. The ability to carry four standoff stealthy cruise missiles within the ventral bay is no small feat, and would match what Su-57 could carry (four Kh-59MK2s) and actually exceed the maximum load of standoff cruise missiles that F-35A/C can carry (two JSMs)
- Small diameter bomb type weapons for J-20 should be either actively being developed, if not actively being procured. Similarly, based on what we know of J-20's weapons bay dimensions (approximate estimates), it should be able to carry the same number of SDB type weapons as the F-22. That is to say, a maximum of 12 SDB type weapons if fully loaded, or alternatively a mix of SDBs and future BVRAAMs (the new BVRAAM which J-20 will be capable of carrying six internally with), trading two SDBs for one BVRAAM. For J-20 and J-XY/35, up to 12 SDB type weapons in the ventral bay, or a mixture of those with new gen BVRAAMs, is quite formidable as well

The types of weapons that J-20 and J-XY/35 will not be able to field, are larger diameter munitions -- that is to say, 1000kg class weapons. For the F-35, this mostly comes down to 1000kg class JDAMs (F-35 is actually unable to internally fit JASSM), and the geometry of F-35's weapons bay geometry means that the ability to fit larger diameter weapons is basically confined to relatively wide, and relatively short unpowered PGMs.
While it would be "desirable" for J-20 and J-XY/35 to be also capable of carrying such weapons, I think having the option to internally carry up to four standoff stealthy cruise missiles, OR up to twelve SDB type weapons, would provide both the aircraft types/families to have quite capable strike capabilities to begin with.
In short, I actually do not think the weapons bay geometry of J-20 and J-XY/35 to actually be that limited, because they should be able to carry the most important types.

Other targets requiring larger munitions (either in payload or in range) would be serviced by H-20 or stealthy UCAVs.
 

A.Man

Major
Just for Your Information: An Estimate of the Chinese Fighter Jets

J-11A/Su-27SK: 120;
Su-27UBK: 20;
J-11B: 158;
J-11BS: 107;
Su-30MKK/Su-30MK2: 100 (76+24);
Su-35: 24;
J-10A: 238;
J-10B: 58;
J-10C: 60;
J-10S: 106;
J-16: 210;
J-15: 80;
JH7/JH-7: 280;
J-20: 105.

Total: 1866 (Some Loses not Excluded)
 
Top