Future PLA strategic procurement priorities

AndrewS · Oct 7, 2021

FairAndUnbiased said:
2. In terms of monetary cost, I believe we have a realistic reference. We don't need to guess $150 million USD. Let's look at a Mig31 as a comparison. I believe Mig31 and F35 is a good comparison due to size and role, with the high speed capability (an airframe capability question) being replaced by LO capability (also an airframe question).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that doesn't need to be too maneuverable. Mig claimed an export price of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
($400 million USD for 8x planes).
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The radar is likely $2-3 million USD. That means the airframe and 'common components' like control systems costs $40 million USD or $1.8 million per meter length of fuselage.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
at LRIP,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, $66 million USD for radar + fuselage. Let's say that the radar costs $3 million USD which is likely an underestimate. $62 million, 15.7 m fuselage, $3.9 million per m fuselage.

Let's say that the cost per fuselage length is average between Mig31 and a LRIP F35. It will be more expensive than a non LO airframe but cheaper than a LRIP US fighter due to advantages in labor cost, project management and existing tooling, the costs of the large weapons bays being the same as the cost of a small weapons bay, etc. $2.85 million USD per m of aircraft.

So a rough estimate will be $30*2.85 for fuselage + $6 million for 2x WS-10C class engines + $5 million radar. Overall cost: $101.5 million USD for LRIP.

Let's say that mass production brings its price down to more Mig-31 levels with the fuselage at $2 million per meter. Now with mass production it's in the $75 million USD range.

Let's compare to other planes.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Let's say it has
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
A JH-XX with 10000 kg payload would thus be cost competitive even if it were $275 million per plane: $550 million for 20000 kg payload delivered via LO platform. But as I estimated, it is likely to cost $70-100 million USD per plane based on a reasonable price estimate. So it is actually 2x-3x as cost effective.

3. for a "ground based intervention in support of mutual defense treaty allies against regional aggressors", a stealthy striker would play a key role in striking missile interceptors, long range radars, shipping, AWAC, tankers, etc. Being able to stop the aggressor's logistics and cargo capability, both surface and airborne, without being detected and in a time sensitive manner, is a missing capability.

$75M for a notional JH-XX (30% larger than a J-11) is far too low
That is actually cheaper than an F-35 (approx $90M) or J-16 ($80M)

An F-22 was $150M
The J-20 is supposedly $120M

Hence I think a $150M figure for a JH-XX is fair
That is double your estimate which changes the economics drastically.

Plus a JH-XX will not be procured in the numbers that the F-35 would be.
At maximum, you would be looking at a JH-7 type production run with 200-300 airframes.

FairAndUnbiased · Oct 7, 2021

AndrewS said:
$75M for a notional JH-XX (30% larger than a J-11) is far too low
That is actually cheaper than an F-35 (approx $90M) or J-16 ($80M)

An F-22 was $150M
The J-20 is supposedly $120M

Hence I think a $150M figure for a JH-XX is fair
That is double your estimate which changes the economics drastically.

Plus a JH-XX will not be procured in the numbers that the F-35 would be.
At maximum, you would be looking at a JH-7 type production run with 200-300 airframes.

I showed a source that stated $80M for LRIP F35A in wikipedia,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. I broke down the costs by fuselage cost, radar cost and engine cost, which I think is a fair way to do it instead of comparing whole plane costs.

But let's say that you are right. Even at $150 million it's still more cost effective than a B21 for LO payload delivery per unit mass if it can achieve 10000 kg payload internally - which is reasonable, since Flankers can achieve 9000 kg even with a maneuvering requirement. The B21 will have a range advantage at likely 10000 km range, but how meaningful is that for the PLAAF? If extra range is needed just add 1000 kg fuel in external drop tanks.

Let's say this is procured at 200-300 airframes like a JH-7 would be. That's still a huge amount of striking power with payload equivalent to the "large foreign naval adversary's" future high end fleet.

Hadoren · Oct 7, 2021

ZeEa5KPul said:
Asymmetric use of nuclear weapons is not an idea that originated with me. The First Offset and Russia's supposed "escalate to de-escalate" strategy are two examples off the top of my head. It's an idea that's regularly bounced around in respectable US think tanks by Very Serious People™ - so as I see it, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I absolutely agree with ZeEa5KPul.

Given how often they end up being brought up in any discussion of conflict, it's inevitable that nuclear weapons will be used in a war between the United States and China. I thus believe nuclear weapons absolutely must be discussed at length when considering any conflict.

Having a discussion about a future conflict without nuclear weapons is like having a discussion about cryptocurrency without Bitcoin.

Tactical nuclear weapons solve many problems that China has.

They hopefully can take out American aircraft carriers with ASBM. Let's be frank, does anybody believe a conventional missile flying several thousand kilometers has any chance of knocking out a carrier? Only a nuke can do so.
They knock out America's bases in Korea and Japan. This means America cannot launch effective bombing campaigns against the Chinese mainland.
They knock out America's planned small island bases.
They can knock out America's military production, such as the F-35.
They stop Australia from being annoying for the eternal future.

America will be bombing Chinese J-20 factories. China must find a way to attack American F-35 factories, and there's only one way. It's not fair otherwise.

I also believe that nuclear weapons won't "destroy humanity" or cause China to fall behind centuries or any of the other exaggerations that are commonly suggested. Consider that Germany and Japan recovered within less than a decade after WWII. The Chinese countryside is vast.

And it takes an awful lot of nukes to destroy a region. Here's southern Florida.

The relevant circle is the smallest dark gray one. You'd need dozens of nukes to thoroughly cover that region. That's just one state.

FangYuan · Oct 7, 2021

Hadoren said:
I also believe that nuclear weapons won't "destroy humanity" or cause China to fall behind centuries or any of the other exaggerations that are commonly suggested. Consider that Germany and Japan recovered within less than a decade after WWII. The Chinese countryside is vast.

Nuclear weapons that will destroy the entire world are legendary with a lot of hype. We often overestimate the power of nuclear weapons and underestimate the resilience of humanity and the planet. If a nuclear war occurs,it's not about the world being destroyed, it's about which country will recover faster after that.

ZeEa5KPul · Oct 7, 2021

Hadoren said:
I absolutely agree with ZeEa5KPul.

Given how often they end up being brought up in any discussion of conflict, it's inevitable that nuclear weapons will be used in a war between the United States and China. I thus believe nuclear weapons absolutely must be discussed at length when considering any conflict.

Having a discussion about a future conflict without nuclear weapons is like having a discussion about cryptocurrency without Bitcoin.

Tactical nuclear weapons solve many problems that China has.

They hopefully can take out American aircraft carriers with ASBM. Let's be frank, does anybody believe a conventional missile flying several thousand kilometers has any chance of knocking out a carrier? Only a nuke can do so.

They knock out America's bases in Korea and Japan. This means America cannot launch effective bombing campaigns against the Chinese mainland.

They knock out America's planned small island bases.

They can knock out America's military production, such as the F-35.

They stop Australia from being annoying for the eternal future.

America will be bombing Chinese J-20 factories. China must find a way to attack American F-35 factories, and there's only one way. It's not fair otherwise.

I also believe that nuclear weapons won't "destroy humanity" or cause China to fall behind centuries or any of the other exaggerations that are commonly suggested. Consider that Germany and Japan recovered within less than a decade after WWII. The Chinese countryside is vast.

And it takes an awful lot of nukes to destroy a region. Here's southern Florida.
View attachment 77971
The relevant circle is the smallest dark gray one. You'd need dozens of nukes to thoroughly cover that region. That's just one state.

I feel I need to clarify my position further. The point of my proposal isn't to use nuclear weapons gratuitously, like I think the first three of your points would be - it's to correct an asymmetry in the deliverable volume of fire. China can certainly attack US aircraft carriers, bases in allied countries, and proximate island forts effectively with conventional fire (and yes, a conventional AShBM can mission kill if not sink a carrier). Therefore I see no need to attack such targets with nuclear weapons, if only because nuclear weapons are scarcer than conventional ones in any military arsenal.

The point of my proposal is to deter war, and limit it should deterrence fail, by establishing a completely symmetric escalation ladder relative to the US. The reason is if there are any gaps in the ladder that the US can exploit, it will do so. For example, if China establishes total conventional superiority in the relevant theatres but retains its current hole-riddled nuclear posture of minimum deterrence, then the US can escalate to nuclear force and China would have no response. All of the conventional power in the world would be useless if China can't prevent that escalation.

The escalation ladder must be complete, all the way through from radio taunts during exercises in Taiwan's ADIZ to unspeakably evil atrocities for which history has no remote parallel. Once again, conventional parity - even conventional overmatch - alone is insufficient. That is the only way to establish effective, comprehensive deterrence.

If we're looking at the problem analytically, we should not constrain ourselves with artificial nuclear/conventional distinctions. To illustrate, my hypothetical "nuclear" munition to attack US military-industrial targets on the homeland would have a yield of around one kiloton. As I mentioned, that's comparable to the Beirut Explosion. Do you know how many people died in the Beirut Explosion? 218. Conversely, consider a purely conventional attack that destroys the Three Gorges Dam - how many would die in the resulting flood? I think that clearly establishes the arbitrariness of the nuclear/conventional distinction.

I would like to emphasize that this concept is a proposed solution to a single asymmetry on the escalation ladder for which there are no other adequate solutions. There are others (like naval blockades) that require their own very different solutions.

j17wang · Oct 7, 2021

ZeEa5KPul said:
I feel I need to clarify my position further. The point of my proposal isn't to use nuclear weapons gratuitously, like I think the first three of your points would be - it's to correct an asymmetry in the deliverable volume of fire. China can certainly attack US aircraft carriers, bases in allied countries, and proximate island forts effectively with conventional fire (and yes, a conventional AShBM can mission kill if not sink a carrier). Therefore I see no need to attack such targets with nuclear weapons, if only because nuclear weapons are scarcer than conventional ones in any military arsenal.

The point of my proposal is to deter war, and limit it should deterrence fail, by establishing a completely symmetric escalation ladder relative to the US. The reason is if there are any gaps in the ladder that the US can exploit, it will do so. For example, if China establishes total conventional superiority in the relevant theatres but retains its current hole-riddled nuclear posture of minimum deterrence, then the US can escalate to nuclear force and China would have no response. All of the conventional power in the world would be useless if China can't prevent that escalation.

The escalation ladder must be complete, all the way through from radio taunts during exercises in Taiwan's ADIZ to unspeakably evil atrocities for which history has no remote parallel. Once again, conventional parity - even conventional overmatch - alone is insufficient. That is the only way to establish effective, comprehensive deterrence.

If we're looking at the problem analytically, we should not constrain ourselves with artificial nuclear/conventional distinctions. To illustrate, my hypothetical "nuclear" munition to attack US military-industrial targets on the homeland would have a yield of around one kiloton. As I mentioned, that's comparable to the Beirut Explosion. Do you know how many people died in the Beirut Explosion? 218. Conversely, consider a purely conventional attack that destroys the Three Gorges Dam - how many would die in the resulting flood? I think that clearly establishes the arbitrariness of the nuclear/conventional distinction.

I would like to emphasize that this concept is a proposed solution to a single asymmetry on the escalation ladder for which there are no other adequate solutions. There are others (like naval blockades) that require their own very different solutions.

Completely agree. The only thing I would add is that there is nothing evil at all about the use of nuclear warheads against american cities. America after all is the only country in human history to have used nuclear weapons, and they have never used it on any military targets, only civilian ones.

Feel to correct me if I am wrong, but I am confident I am 100% correct.

AndrewS · Oct 7, 2021

I'm somewhat more optimistic on the US and China managing to avoid a nuclear exchange during a war.

Before we get to that point, I would have expect the Chinese Army and the US Army to be locked in a land war on the Korean Peninsula, which favours the Chinese Army

Perhaps North Korea starts the war, knowing that China has to intervene, otherwise the US Army ends up next to China's borders.
Perhaps China starts it, knowing that North Korea can't let China lose, otherwise North Korea will be utterly alone and likely to be next.

But no matter how it starts, you end up with a situation where there is either a stalemate or a Chinese victory, which then provides an off-ramp for an end to the war. Think the Korean War Version 2.0

Yes, China is likely to suffer heavier casualties, but China does have a far larger population to absorb these.
We saw China accept this during the Korean War and with the Soviets against Nazi Germany.

Plus it's interesting that a movie has been recently released called the Battle of Lake Changjin which is likely to be the biggest movie in China this year. Basically it is about the Chinese Army suffering heavy losses to defeat the US Army in North Korea, next to the Chinese border. Make what you will of this storyline.

But more broadly speaking, even if the US and China remain at peace, it is preparing the Chinese population for an enduring strategic competition against the US. But if China succeeds in its development goals, it would have an economy 2x the size of the US by 2030-2035.

In such a scenario, China would likely have economic and militarily primacy in the Western Pacific.

ZeEa5KPul · Oct 7, 2021

j17wang said:
Completely agree. The only thing I would add is that there is nothing evil at all about the use of nuclear warheads against american cities. America after all is the only country in human history to have used nuclear weapons, and they have never used it on any military targets, only civilian ones.

Feel to correct me if I am wrong, but I am confident I am 100% correct.

I prefer not to go into such value judgements here. I just used "evil" to emphasize the point that the escalation ladder should be covered top to bottom.

Maikeru · Oct 7, 2021

AndrewS said:
I think we've already seen SSNs and ICBMs put as priorities.

There's not 1, but 2 huge submarine assembly halls which have recently been built.

Along with 300-odd new ICBM silos currently under construction.

Then it should be Y-20U tankers to extend the range of Chinese air ops.

I am aware of the Huludao sub halls and the silos. Like most of us here I am waiting to see if the parts we saw going into the first hall earlier this year come out as the first Type 09V, and if the silos get filled and if so, with what? Seems a bit of a waste to put road-mobile DF41s in them.

AndrewS · Oct 7, 2021

Maikeru said:
I am aware of the Huludao sub halls and the silos. Like most of us here I am waiting to see if the parts we saw going into the first hall earlier this year come out as the first Type 09V, and if the silos get filled and if so, with what? Seems a bit of a waste to put road-mobile DF41s in them.

Why do you think it be a waste to put DF-41s in the silos? It's the only solid fuelled ICBM that has the range to cover all the US

Future PLA strategic procurement priorities

AndrewS

Brigadier

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier

Hadoren

Junior Member

FangYuan

Junior Member

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel

j17wang

Senior Member

AndrewS

Brigadier

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel

Maikeru

Major

AndrewS

Brigadier