Future PLAAF fleet procurement and composition

AndrewS said:

So by 2035, that would be:

6th Gen: 200+
J-20: 1200-1400
J-35: 900+
J-15/J-16: 600+

That is already 2900+ aircraft, which implies the fleet growing in size by an average of ~100 aircraft per year.

But I think such a 2035 fleet looks too skewed towards 5th/6th Gen aircraft, and there is still a role for 220 J-10C and 220 J-11BG (such as missile trucks, bomb trucks, defensive air, offensive air next to Chinese borders, etc)

Click to expand...

This somewhat goes back to the question of what the goals of the PLA are.

I don't think the PLA are under any illusions about the importance of air power, and if the aim is to comprehensively compete in high end air combat against the likely capabilities that will be present in the region, skewing heavily to 5th and 6th generation platforms seems like an obvious necessity to be honest.


Keeping 4th/4.5th gen platforms around is unnecessary if the industry and funding to support their replacement with 5th/6th gen is there, because as previously I wrote, you are already paying for the pilots and ground personnel anyway.

AndrewS said:

So by 2035, that would be:

6th Gen: 200+
J-20: 1200-1400
J-35: 900+
J-15/J-16: 600+

That is already 2900+ aircraft, which implies the fleet growing in size by an average of ~100 aircraft per year.

But I think such a 2035 fleet looks too skewed towards 5th/6th Gen aircraft, and there is still a role for 220 J-10C and 220 J-11BG (such as missile trucks, bomb trucks, defensive air, offensive air next to Chinese borders, etc)

Click to expand...

Unmanned platforms will largely handle these bombing missions, while air-to-air tasks will be left to the J-16 and J-35.

After all, it's 2035. These aircraft may still exist, but they serve primarily as strategic redundancy than for specific mission roles. If the PLAAF doesn't increase its size, they will be retired even sooner.

Blitzo said:

This somewhat goes back to the question of what the goals of the PLA are.

I don't think the PLA are under any illusions about the importance of air power, and if the aim is to comprehensively compete in high end air combat against the likely capabilities that will be present in the region, skewing heavily to 5th and 6th generation platforms seems like an obvious necessity to be honest.

Click to expand...

Blitzo said:

Keeping 4th/4.5th gen platforms around is unnecessary if the industry and funding to support their replacement with 5th/6th gen is there, because as previously I wrote, you are already paying for the pilots and ground personnel anyway.

Click to expand...

That 2035 orbat would comprise 2300+ Chinese 5th/6th Gen aircraft.
Given the likely capabilities of the opposition in the 1st Island Chain in 2035, air superiority would be a given on Day 1 and in a long-war scenario.

And in such a scenario, there will be a lot of demand for heavy bomb/missile truck sorties.
For this, 5th/6th gens are suboptimal compared to 4.5 Gens
The Flanker airframes are better suited for this and have already been paid for.
So why not keep the J-11B around, given that there presumably would only be 600 J-15/J-16.

---

Also consider that if we're talking about an additional 1900+ Chinese 5th/6th Gen aircraft in the next 10 years, it makes sense to have a lot of them operate on carriers instead of being land-based.

Let's say the Chinese Navy does add 6 new aircraft carriers by 2035, which the Lowy Institute and the AEI/Foreign Affairs magazine is now repeating. If all the carriers switch to 5th/6th Gen, then the overall split could be:

a) ~500 naval aircraft
b) 1400+ land-based aircraft

The 1st Island Chain should still be easily secured for both Day 1 and a long-war scenario.
But now, the Chinese Navy should also win blue-water naval battles past the 2nd Island Chain, on both Day 1 and in a long-war scenario.

---

And remember that in terms of this 2035 force structure:
1. the Chinese Navy would be comparable or slightly smaller than the US Navy
2. the Chinese Air Force would be (at most) 66% larger than the US Air Force

This should be affordable, given that the latest price surveys indicate the Chinese economy is now twice the size of the USA.

---

I've long said that it would be a mistake for the US to adopt a hostile containment policy, instead of engagement

AndrewS said:

That 2035 orbat would comprise 2300+ Chinese 5th/6th Gen aircraft.
Given the likely capabilities of the opposition in the 1st Island Chain in 2035, air superiority would be a given on Day 1 and in a long-war scenario.

And in such a scenario, there will be a lot of demand for heavy bomb/missile truck sorties.
For this, 5th/6th gens are suboptimal compared to 4.5 Gens
The Flanker airframes are better suited for this and have already been paid for.
So why not keep the J-11B around, given that there presumably would only be 600 J-15/J-16.

Click to expand...

I think you're being a little bit overoptimistic as to the PLA's ability to have air superiority on day 1.

As for the bomb truck role; technically there's nothing stopping 5th gens from also adopting that role, not to mention they should have a fair few number of higher end UCAVs that can do the strike role as well.

The reason why keeping 4.5th gens around is a bad idea (if they have the industry and funds to replace them with 5th gens or beyond), is because they are basically only viable for the bomb truck role or doing homeland air patrol roles. But those roles are only really viable if they are capable of attaining air superiority to begin with in the region, and attaining air superiority in the region is both the hardest part and also the part where having excessive overmatch is most sensible if not desirable.

One should consider what sort of force is needed such that they can attain air superiority even if things do not go perfectly for them in the fog of war.
Let's say they roll a 2 on the six faced dice in the opening rounds of a conflict -- what is the force that they may demand, so that even if they roll a 2, they are still capable of achieving victory.
Then, use that as the baseline for the type of capability they need.

AndrewS said:

---

Also consider that if we're talking about an additional 1900+ Chinese 5th/6th Gen aircraft in the next 10 years, it makes sense to have a lot of them operate on carriers instead of being land-based.

Let's say the Chinese Navy does add 6 new aircraft carriers by 2035, which the Lowy Institute and the AEI/Foreign Affairs magazine is now repeating. If all the carriers switch to 5th/6th Gen, then the overall split could be:

a) ~500 naval aircraft
b) 1400+ land-based aircraft

The 1st Island Chain should still be easily secured for both Day 1 and a long-war scenario.
But now, the Chinese Navy should also win blue-water naval battles past the 2nd Island Chain, on both Day 1 and in a long-war scenario.

Click to expand...

Please shut up about adding six new carriers by 2035.
Stop writing about it as if it is a reasonable prediction at this point in time.
Stop inserting it into posts as if it is a reasonable point to make, because right now it isn't.

It was written by the CMPR recently and the fact it's been repeated by other outelts doesn't make it anymore credible.

AndrewS said:

And remember that in terms of this 2035 force structure:
1. the Chinese Navy would be comparable or slightly smaller than the US Navy
2. the Chinese Air Force would be (at most) 66% larger than the US Air Force

This should be affordable, given that the latest price surveys indicate the Chinese economy is now twice the size of the USA.

---

I've long said that it would be a mistake for the US to adopt a hostile containment policy, instead of engagement

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the prior points.

Blitzo said:

The reason why keeping 4.5th gens around is a bad idea (if they have the industry and funds to replace them with 5th gens or beyond), is because they are basically only viable for the bomb truck role or doing homeland air patrol roles. But those roles are only really viable if they are capable of attaining air superiority to begin with in the region.

Click to expand...

Maintenance/over all sorties cost for 5th gen is generally much higher than that of 4.5th gen though. I think that interception of massed cruise missiles/drones may present as big of, if not greater challenge than contesting enemy aircraft.

siegecrossbow said:

Maintenance/over all sorties cost for 5th gen is generally much higher than that of 4.5th gen though. I think that interception of massed cruise missiles/drones may present as big of, if not greater challenge than contesting enemy aircraft.

Click to expand...

Though in the context of upgraded J-11s and J-10As, the cost of keeping them around past their prime spikes given both has been out of production for years making spare parts and maintenance very difficult past ~2030 as most of the fleet hits 20 years.

Tomboy said:

Though in the context of upgraded J-11s and J-10As, the cost of keeping them around past their prime spikes given both has been out of production for years making spare parts and maintenance very difficult past ~2030 as most of the fleet hits 20 years.

Click to expand...

Those aren’t really 4.5th gen are they? My point is that there may be an ecosystem for J-16/F-15EX for sometime to come.

siegecrossbow said:

Maintenance/over all sorties cost for 5th gen is generally much higher than that of 4.5th gen though. I think that interception of massed cruise missiles/drones may present as big of, if not greater challenge than contesting enemy aircraft.

Click to expand...

Not really, the cost and maintainability (and availability) also depends on availability of spare parts and the logistics chain. For 4.5th gen aircraft that have been out of production (by 2035) for a decade or more depending on type, it may well make sense to sunset some of them especially if they have 5th gens in active or recent production and especially if they are produced in high three digits or low four digits.
(For J-35/A for example, the combined fleet size of those two main variants produced by 2035 may approach double the number of vanilla J-16s built in total to date!)

Furthermore, even with the greater complexity of 5th gens, the fact that they are much more capable than 4.5th gens means that you are also getting much more capability for your buck.


That isn't to say that funding and industry shouldn't be viewed as constraints -- but what I am saying is if there was any "domain" to splurge and attain vast overmatch on and glut out on, it would be the forces relevant to attaining and sustaining air superiority.


I have nothing against intercepting cheap drones, but that can be done by loading J-35/A or J-20/A/S and any remaining 4.5th gens with guided rockets pods externally on the wings in addition to their regular IWB AAM payload (as well as pursuing better ground based air defense)

I believe the "maintainance cost" of 5th gens has been overblown because of the circumstance of their existence upto now.

F-22 spearheaded breakthrough technologies without the necessary scale for maintanence costs to be universalized (both for the planes and the infrastructure). It had a boutique production run, which hurt parts aquisition for maintainance afterwards. And we have to keep in mind its simply getting old and cost of keeping them around will keep increasing.
F-35 is a bigger culprit in this even though it doesn't have the numerical problems of the F-22. This falls squarely on Lockheed who have deliberately sought to replicate the shortcomings of the F-22's supplychain for monetary gain.

Sustained large volume production and ensuring a robust supplychain for parts and materials, with widespread and adequate infrastructure for maintainence (which will be a one time cost and can be rolled in as upgrades for existing air bases as they are inaugurated to fifth gen operation) then, 5th gens can be a lot closer to the maintainace costs of 4.5th gens. The margin of difference will be acceptable given the increase in capability.


Part of this "high cost of maintaince" thing has, in my opinion, become a way to "mystify (in the marxist sense of the word)" 5th gens. Makes it sound like 5th gens spawn out of the aether demanding extra money, forgetting that at the end of the day its just another thing made in a factory - and has the same constraints and opportunities as any other "thing made in a factory".

All this to say, if you want an all 5th gen fleet, both aquisition cost and maintainance cost will be a concern, but not a hinderance.

I must say, these highly speculative extrapolations of potential production numbers based on assumptions "out of the blue" are getting on my nerves in the "PLA Air Force news, pics and videos" thread. And since we already have a much better one for this, I've decided to transfer all the recent discussions about how many 4th, 4.5th, and 5th generation fighters might be built, and whatever else, into this one even more so, especially since the original thread is a "news" thread!

Therefore, all of you who want to continue speculating... here's your playground!