H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)

Brumby said:

While I agree to ingress at sea level will degrade effective range, that itself does not necessarily exclude it as a viable option. They are not mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned this was the less important reason.

The main question is whether it gets you to your effective launch point even with the airborne sensor net. I don't see a compelling argument you are making that changes the equation.

Click to expand...

Okay, let's review again quickly the situation. The PLA is looking to hit a target 1000km away. They sortie J-16s carrying 500km range standoff weapon, and J-16 has to make it 500km to the launch distance of the standoff weapon to successfully deliver the weapon. Agreed?


An AEW&C cruising at 7000m will be able to detect a sea skimming target 370km away; and considering this is a Flanker sized aircraft laden with munitions as well, it is a fairly large sized RCS. Your Flanker+payload is not stealthy at all and it isn't an AShM either -- it's a 4th generation fighter airframe and one of the largest of its generation.

Now, if I were the opfor, I would deploy 2-3 AEW&C doing orbits at least 300km forward of my carriers and bases in the ocean. I will also deploy multiple fighter CAP flights at cruise altitude, 200km ahead of those AEW&C (500km ahead of my carriers and bases, i.e.: a 500km combat radius, which tbh is a bit conservative but for the sake of this discussion let's go with that).
(Also, my carriers and bases would of course be defended by their own surface combatant escorts and ground based radar and SAMs, respectively, but they're not part of the equation here as we are mostly talking about the role of the airborne sensor net)

The AEW&C 300km ahead of my carriers and bases would boast a radar horizon of some 370km away against sea skimming targets, and naturally my AEW&C orbits would act in a manner to overlap each other's coverage in a time sensible manner.
That gives you a 670km early warning distance against non-stealthy sea skimming targets from your carriers/bases, and more than enough time for your fighter CAP flights which are 500km ahead of your carriers and bases to move into position to use BVR weapons to intercept your heavily laden, low flying (and thus lower energy state) Flankers with their standoff payloads.


In such a situation where the airborne AEW&C and airborne CAP fighter line of the opfor is intact and not significantly degraded, I do not believe that J-16s stand a chance to reach their launch point. In fact, I believe doing so would be suicide almost every time, and that to complete such a mission against a well defended target, you require a stealth aircraft to even get within standoff range in the first place.



One other factor which is tangential to this, is that the moment your 4th gen strike fighter is detected, all of your opfor's defenses will be alerted and begin actively emitting in your direction to track both your aircraft and your payload. Somehow, even if your J-16 manages to get to 500km and launch its standoff weapon, the enemy has already been tracking you this entire time and will likely be able to track your standoff weapon as well. Additional CAP to intercept your weapon or even using ship launched SAMs guided by airborne AEW&C or fighter sensors to intercept the standoff weapon will likely occur.

Having the ability to get to your launchpoint with the least amount of warning time is desirable for any kind of weapon, including standoff weapons.

I would differ with your view as to the reason why low level ingress fell out of fashion. Manpad and anti aircraft guns became a problem. Most of the air losses from Iraqi freedom came from it and not from SAMs. The Kosovo campaign had flight restriction on allied aircraft below 10000 feet for the same reason. In the case of an engagement at sea, such problems do not exist.

Click to expand...

Considering neither Iraq or Kosovo had any form of AEW&C and certainly not modern SAMs nor modern air forces when they fought their conflicts, the relevance of the Coalition experiences to what we are talking about (a high tech, high intensity conflict) is very limited.

You have yet to demonstrate specific numbers why 4th gen aircraft using standoff weapons cannot achieve the desired end effects. It is not a 4th gen vs 5th gen conversation. It is a 4th gen with stand off delivery vs 5th gen with stand in delivery conversation.

Making a statement of strong airborne and seaborne sensors is meaningless because it is about their relevancy to the equation and not simply their presence.

Click to expand...

I agree it is a question of "4th gen +stand off delivery" vs "5th gen + stand off delivery".

But for the life of me I can't understand where your argument is coming from, because it's like saying that for a strike mission over the ocean vs a well defended foe with intact airborne AEW&C and CAP, that a sea skimming F-16 with standoff weapons can be as effective as a F-35 with standoff weapons.

Bltizo said:

As I mentioned this was the less important reason.




Okay, let's review again quickly the situation. The PLA is looking to hit a target 1000km away. They sortie J-16s carrying 500km range standoff weapon, and J-16 has to make it 500km to the launch distance of the standoff weapon to successfully deliver the weapon. Agreed?


An AEW&C cruising at 7000m will be able to detect a sea skimming target 370km away; and considering this is a Flanker sized aircraft laden with munitions as well, it is a fairly large sized RCS. Your Flanker+payload is not stealthy at all and it isn't an AShM either -- it's a 4th generation fighter airframe and one of the largest of its generation.

Now, if I were the opfor, I would deploy 2-3 AEW&C doing orbits at least 300km forward of my carriers and bases in the ocean. I will also deploy multiple fighter CAP flights at cruise altitude, 200km ahead of those AEW&C (500km ahead of my carriers and bases, i.e.: a 500km combat radius, which tbh is a bit conservative but for the sake of this discussion let's go with that).
(Also, my carriers and bases would of course be defended by their own surface combatant escorts and ground based radar and SAMs, respectively, but they're not part of the equation here as we are mostly talking about the role of the airborne sensor net)

The AEW&C 300km ahead of my carriers and bases would boast a radar horizon of some 370km away against sea skimming targets, and naturally my AEW&C orbits would act in a manner to overlap each other's coverage in a time sensible manner.
That gives you a 670km early warning distance against non-stealthy sea skimming targets from your carriers/bases, and more than enough time for your fighter CAP flights which are 500km ahead of your carriers and bases to move into position to use BVR weapons to intercept your heavily laden, low flying (and thus lower energy state) Flankers with their standoff payloads.

Click to expand...

1. E-2 and the CAP gap

A J-16 can launch VLRAAMs with a range of 300km+
So I imagine a J-16 would fly under the radar horizon until the E-2 detects it at 370km.
Then the J-16 would perform a rapid afterburner climb until it reaches 15km altitude and launches the VLAARMs at the E-2.
And in front of the J-16s would be some J-20s, waiting to pounce on opposing fighters who have to go to afterburner (producing a huge thermal signature) in order to chase down the J-16.
Plus is it actually possible for a fighter jet to shoot down a J-16 at an altitude of 15km?

So it seems to me that a fighter CAP operating 200km in front of an E-2 isn't going to work.

2. Land Targets

But let's say E-2s operate 300km in front, with fighters another 200km ahead, look at the target set in the 1st Island Chain.

These are the available land targets and their distances.

2a. It's 500km from Shandong to Seoul
2b. It's 650km from Zhejiang to Okinawa
2c. It's 800km from Shanghai to the 2 airbases on the Japanese home island of Kyushu

A future Chinese Air Force should be able to achieve (at least temporarily) air superiority at a distance of 300km from mainland China.
That would allow a J-16 to safely launch a notional 500km standoff missile at a land target.
So a J-16 should be cheaper and have a better payload than a stealthy JHXX.

Plus China could also have land-based SAMs and radars with a range of 400km.
Which forces an E-2 to operate closer to its airbase, instead of pushing out 300km.

3. Sea Targets

This is where a JHXX antiship strike could potentially be a lot more useful than a J-16.
Because the distances could be 1000km and the exact location of the mobile target is unknown.

But given the payload limitations of a JHXX, you would need a lot of aircraft to ensure enough missiles were launched.
And it takes time to organise and get all those aircraft into the air.
Then to conduct a battle for control of the air, and then reacquire the target again.

So it seems to me that hypersonic DF-17 and DF-100 missiles launched from mainland China would be a better option.
The missiles are more expensive, but it's a lot easier than organising a massive airstrike and obtaining air superiority.

AndrewS said:

1. E-2 and the CAP gap

A J-16 can launch VLRAAMs with a range of 300km+
So I imagine a J-16 would fly under the radar horizon until the E-2 detects it at 370km.
Then the J-16 would perform a rapid afterburner climb until it reaches 15km altitude and launches the VLAARMs at the E-2.
And in front of the J-16s would be some J-20s, waiting to pounce on opposing fighters who have to go to afterburner (producing a huge thermal signature) in order to chase down the J-16.
Plus is it actually possible for a fighter jet to shoot down a J-16 at an altitude of 15km?

So it seems to me that a fighter CAP operating 200km in front of an E-2 isn't going to work.

Click to expand...

Well, what you are describing is the PLA taking efforts to try and degrade the airborne sensor net and fighter CAP of the opfor before or during sending in strike fighters.

I don't have an issue with that, however keep in mind we are talking about what JH-XX offers which J-16 does not, and my argument was that JH-XX offers the ability to conduct such a strike even if the opfor's airborne sensor net and fighter CAP was still not-degraded.

Furthermore, in an environment when the opfor's airborne sensor net and fighter CAP has been degraded, the ability of JH-XX to successfully complete the mission will still be higher than that of a J-16 as well.

2. Land Targets

Click to expand...

But let's say E-2s operate 300km in front, with fighters another 200km ahead, look at the target set in the 1st Island Chain.

These are the available land targets and their distances.

2a. It's 500km from Shandong to Seoul
2b. It's 650km from Zhejiang to Okinawa
2c. It's 800km from Shanghai to the 2 airbases on the Japanese home island of Kyushu

A future Chinese Air Force should be able to achieve (at least temporarily) air superiority at a distance of 300km from mainland China.
That would allow a J-16 to safely launch a notional 500km standoff missile at a land target.
So a J-16 should be cheaper and have a better payload than a stealthy JHXX.

Plus China could also have land-based SAMs and radars with a range of 400km.
Which forces an E-2 to operate closer to its airbase, instead of pushing out 300km.

Click to expand...

You're taking the discussion a bit too literally here, the 1000km number was rather arbitrary and it goes without saying the PLA has a wide variety of options to conduct strikes within 1000km.

The 1000km number was only to illustrate why a 4th gen strike fighter carrying a standoff payload doing a low altitude ingress profile against a well defended enemy with an airborne sensor net and fighter CAP is still non-survivable, and to show why it would still require a stealthy aircraft to conduct a mission under those parameters.

3. Sea Targets

This is where a JHXX antiship strike could potentially be a lot more useful than a J-16.
Because the distances could be 1000km and the exact location of the mobile target is unknown.

But given the payload limitations of a JHXX, you would need a lot of aircraft to ensure enough missiles were launched.
And it takes time to organise and get all those aircraft into the air.
Then to conduct a battle for control of the air, and then reacquire the target again.

So it seems to me that hypersonic DF-17 and DF-100 missiles launched from mainland China would be a better option.
The missiles are more expensive, but it's a lot easier than organising a massive airstrike and obtaining air superiority.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that strikes against naval targets could be done by long range missiles as well.
I think that naval strikes should really be done in a multidomain manner that includes long range missiles, on-call airborne platforms loitering in airspace equipped with missiles of their own, as well as naval action groups (including CSGs and submarines and surface combatants), and that against an opposing naval group optimally the goal would be to coordinate as many of those munitions together in close timing as possible to saturate their defenses.


But this is deviating a bit away from the point -- which was that specifically we were talking about why 4th gen strike fighters with standoff weapons (flying at low altitude) is still not survivable against a well defended enemy. I'm saying that you need a stealth aircraft to be survivable.

Bltizo said:

Well, what you are describing is the PLA taking efforts to try and degrade the airborne sensor net and fighter CAP of the opfor before or during sending in strike fighters.

I don't have an issue with that, however keep in mind we are talking about what JH-XX offers which J-16 does not, and my argument was that JH-XX offers the ability to conduct such a strike even if the opfor's airborne sensor net and fighter CAP was still not-degraded.

Furthermore, in an environment when the opfor's airborne sensor net and fighter CAP has been degraded, the ability of JH-XX to successfully complete the mission will still be higher than that of a J-16 as well.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that the JHXX would be more survivable than a J-16. But it doesn't look like it is worth the cost of an entirely new JHXX programme with a MTOW of 70tonnes

You're taking the discussion a bit too literally here, the 1000km number was rather arbitrary and it goes without saying the PLA has a wide variety of options to conduct strikes within 1000km.

The 1000km number was only to illustrate why a 4th gen strike fighter carrying a standoff payload doing a low altitude ingress profile against a well defended enemy with an airborne sensor net and fighter CAP is still non-survivable, and to show why it would still require a stealthy aircraft to conduct a mission under those parameters.

Click to expand...

For land targets <1000km, the range is really important in how it changes the calculation between stealth and non-stealth strike fighters.

At 650km between Zhejiang and Okinawa, the Chinese Air Force should be able to defeat the defending airborne network above Okinawa. That means the Chinese battle network extends right up to Okinawa. In such a situation, 4th generation J-16 is undoubtedly better than a 5th gen JHXX, for delivering airstrikes.

If you're looking at targets some 1000km away, realistically, these are all going to be naval targets.

I agree with you that strikes against naval targets could be done by long range missiles as well.
I think that naval strikes should really be done in a multidomain manner that includes long range missiles, on-call airborne platforms loitering in airspace equipped with missiles of their own, as well as naval action groups (including CSGs and submarines and surface combatants), and that against an opposing naval group optimally the goal would be to coordinate as many of those munitions together in close timing as possible to saturate their defenses.


But this is deviating a bit away from the point -- which was that specifically we were talking about why 4th gen strike fighters with standoff weapons (flying at low altitude) is still not survivable against a well defended enemy. I'm saying that you need a stealth aircraft to be survivable.

Click to expand...

Yes, but what i see is that in the land attack scenarios, the distances (<800km) means the opposing airborne battle networks are too close to each other. So the bigger battle network can dismantle the smaller battle network or push it back.

So we see Chinese land-based SAM components and greater numbers of fighters don't allow their opponent to deploy their airborne battle network properly. Deploying E-2s 300km in front means they are really vulnerable to Chinese fighters. That forces the E-2s closer to their bases.

So what I'm saying is that Chinese aircraft launching standoff missile airstrikes against land targets don't need stealth, because they will be covered the entire time in airspace solely controlled by the airborne Chinese battle network.

AndrewS said:

I don't disagree that the JHXX would be more survivable than a J-16. But it doesn't look like it is worth the cost of an entirely new JHXX programme with a MTOW of 70tonnes

Click to expand...

Well that's the question of what defines "necessity" here, which as I expanded on in a previous post 1538, stated:
Question two: could the PLA seek to procure a hypothetical JH-XX?

IMO the answer to this question is "yes, depending on a number of other factors".
Those other factors include:
- the exact capability/mission profile of what a hypothetical JH-XX might be
- the overall funding and resources that the PLA has (or will have in future) at large
- the procurement size that the PLA will want for their stealth combat aircraft whose existence is confirmed (J-20) or near confirmed (H-20), both of which may be able to fill some of the roles that a hypothetical JH-XX can do -- but where the introduction of JH-XX could still provide a significant and unique capability which may be worth the investment into another platform and its own unique logistics and support chain.

For land targets <1000km, the range is really important in how it changes the calculation between stealth and non-stealth strike fighters.

At 650km between Zhejiang and Okinawa, the Chinese Air Force should be able to defeat the defending airborne network above Okinawa. That means the Chinese battle network extends right up to Okinawa. In such a situation, 4th generation J-16 is undoubtedly better than a 5th gen JHXX, for delivering airstrikes.

If you're looking at targets some 1000km away, realistically, these are all going to be naval targets.

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with you here, but the 1000km number was only an arbitrary example for why a J-16 operating to strike a target at that range is still not survivable.

Yes, but what i see is that in the land attack scenarios, the distances (<800km) means the opposing airborne battle networks are too close to each other. So the bigger battle network can dismantle the smaller battle network or push it back.

So we see Chinese land-based SAM components and greater numbers of fighters don't allow their opponent to deploy their airborne battle network properly. Deploying E-2s 300km in front means they are really vulnerable to Chinese fighters. That forces the E-2s closer to their bases.

So what I'm saying is that Chinese aircraft launching standoff missile airstrikes against land targets don't need stealth, because they will be covered the entire time in airspace solely controlled by the airborne Chinese battle network.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that non-stealthy aircraft such as J-16s and even H-6Ks can have the requisite payload and/or range to launch against targets <800km in a manner that reduces their exposure to risk if they operate within or very near the PLA's airspace that they're able to control.
Within 800km, the prospect of using J-20s to strike better defended targets is also relatively viable.

But it will be a matter of how successful and how quickly could the PLA be able to defeat the opfor's airborne sensor and CAP network in that distance -- and whether it would make more sense to invest more money into increased air to air capabilities or a stealthy air to ground capability (or both!) in context of the PLA's overall strategic air situation.

===

My point isn't to say that the PLA will seek to procure JH-XX, but rather that the PLA could or could not procure it depending on the exact opportunity-cost in the overall context of what the PLA is buying in the future.
I.e.: that there are reasonable arguments for and against it, and that I don't think we can make any arguments strongly for or strongly against.

@Bltizo

I'm confident in saying that the JH-XX simply isn't worth the opportunity cost for the next 10+ years.
That comes from the Chinese strategic outlook and the resulting self-imposed budget constraint of 2% of GDP on military spending versus the military balance in the Western Pacific.

For the most common scenarios within the 1st Island Chain (which is the highest priority), I just don't see the JHXX being better than a J-16/JH-7 or a standoff missile launched from a truck on mainland China.

Plus additional J-20 would be far more important than the JH-XX, because the J-20s will be key to defending the Chinese airborne battle network and dismantling an opponents. And if the opposing battle network is dismantled, an airstrike composed of non-stealthy aircraft isn't an issue.

---

If I had to imagine the optimum airstrike on an airbase (600km-1200km from mainland China) in the face of an opposing battle network, it would look something like:

1. DF-100 / DF-17 / DF-16 to close the runways and hit parked aircraft.
2. KJ-500 for C&C at the rear
3. J-16 with VLAARMs to target airborne E-2s
4. J-20 further in front, to target opposing fighters and the E-2s
5. EW/SEAD aircraft (J-20/J-16?) to take out the SAM defences on land.
6. Then JH-7 with long-range supersonic standoff land-attack missiles.
7. Truck-launched CJ-10 missiles to hit the remaining undamaged land targets.
The CJ-10s are slow and expendable. So they would near the front of the airstrike, which tempts opposing fighters to expend missiles and also expose themselves.

AndrewS said:

@Bltizo

I'm confident in saying that the JH-XX simply isn't worth the opportunity cost for the next 10+ years.
That comes from the Chinese strategic outlook and the resulting self-imposed budget constraint of 2% of GDP on military spending versus the military balance in the Western Pacific.

For the most common scenarios within the 1st Island Chain (which is the highest priority), I just don't see the JHXX being better than a J-16/JH-7 or a standoff missile launched from a truck on mainland China.

Plus additional J-20 would be far more important than the JH-XX, because the J-20s will be key to defending the Chinese airborne battle network and dismantling an opponents. And if the opposing battle network is dismantled, an airstrike composed of non-stealthy aircraft isn't an issue.

---

If I had to imagine the optimum airstrike on an airbase (600km-1200km from mainland China) in the face of an opposing battle network, it would look something like:

1. DF-100 / DF-17 / DF-16 to close the runways and hit parked aircraft.
2. KJ-500 for C&C at the rear
3. J-16 with VLAARMs to target airborne E-2s
4. J-20 further in front, to target opposing fighters and the E-2s
5. EW/SEAD aircraft (J-20/J-16?) to take out the SAM defences on land.
6. Then JH-7 with long-range supersonic standoff land-attack missiles.
7. Truck-launched CJ-10 missiles to hit the remaining undamaged land targets.
The CJ-10s are slow and expendable. So they would near the front of the airstrike, which tempts opposing fighters to expend missiles and also expose themselves.

Click to expand...

I think in the medium term future (15-20 years) if/when sufficient J-20s and H-20s are built, a JH-XX like platform may not be worth the opportunity cost.


However I do believe in the value of a dedicated stealthy aircraft dedicated to the strike role that is at least capable of hitting regional targets -- i.e.: at least H-20 or JH-XX.
Between the two, obviously H-20 has the ability to hit targets at greater distances as well and carries a bigger payload, so IMO if the PLA had to choose between H-20 and JH-XX I think H-20 would be the better platform to commit to.


The reason why I believe a having a dedicated stealthy strike aircraft is important is because even against regional targets where the PLA may be capable of having a fighting chance to assault an opfor's defense network with their own system of systems approach to enable non-stealthy aircraft to conduct standoff strikes, it is far more desirable to be able to outmatch the opfor if possible by having a large force of stealthy strike aircraft capable of striking a wide range of targets even if your system of systems offensive against the opfor's defenses are not successful. Doing so also of course means you get to preserve more of your own aircraft and systems and munitions against the opfor's defenses without having to fight them at full strength, because your stealthy strikers have already hit a range of key targets that should already have degraded the opfor's ability to mount a more organized defense which in turn should allow your forces to have increased survivability.

In other words, I think what a force of stealthy strike aircraft provides the PLA is the ability to conduct a more successful "guarantee" of conducting strike against a wide range of opfor targets regardless of the success of the PLA's system of systems assault of the opfor's defenses. The use of stealth aircraft and their ability to greatly contribute to the system of systems offensive against the enemy opfor's defenses cannot be understated either.

Bltizo said:

Okay, let's review again quickly the situation. The PLA is looking to hit a target 1000km away. They sortie J-16s carrying 500km range standoff weapon, and J-16 has to make it 500km to the launch distance of the standoff weapon to successfully deliver the weapon. Agreed?

Click to expand...

Agree.

Bltizo said:

An AEW&C cruising at 7000m will be able to detect a sea skimming target 370km away; and considering this is a Flanker sized aircraft laden with munitions as well, it is a fairly large sized RCS. Your Flanker+payload is not stealthy at all and it isn't an AShM either -- it's a 4th generation fighter airframe and one of the largest of its generation.

Now, if I were the opfor, I would deploy 2-3 AEW&C doing orbits at least 300km forward of my carriers and bases in the ocean. I will also deploy multiple fighter CAP flights at cruise altitude, 200km ahead of those AEW&C (500km ahead of my carriers and bases, i.e.: a 500km combat radius, which tbh is a bit conservative but for the sake of this discussion let's go with that).
(Also, my carriers and bases would of course be defended by their own surface combatant escorts and ground based radar and SAMs, respectively, but they're not part of the equation here as we are mostly talking about the role of the airborne sensor net)

The AEW&C 300km ahead of my carriers and bases would boast a radar horizon of some 370km away against sea skimming targets, and naturally my AEW&C orbits would act in a manner to overlap each other's coverage in a time sensible manner.
That gives you a 670km early warning distance against non-stealthy sea skimming targets from your carriers/bases, and more than enough time for your fighter CAP flights which are 500km ahead of your carriers and bases to move into position to use BVR weapons to intercept your heavily laden, low flying (and thus lower energy state) Flankers with their standoff payloads.


In such a situation where the airborne AEW&C and airborne CAP fighter line of the opfor is intact and not significantly degraded, I do not believe that J-16s stand a chance to reach their launch point. In fact, I believe doing so would be suicide almost every time, and that to complete such a mission against a well defended target, you require a stealth aircraft to even get within standoff range in the first place.

Click to expand...

Whilst the details are different between what you outlined they essentially reflect similar description of a specific ingress against a defended target.

In post #1534, this is what I said
"Typically F-18s CAP are maintained at 650kms ring around the target. A JH-XX might be detected at 750 kms (650+100) or a J-16 at 850 kms (650+200). In either case, the launch distance is more than 400 kms for the deployment of the YJ-12"

I agree that a VLO platform will achieve greater penetrative distances vs a non VLO platform prior to detection. The disagreement is whether the former provides sufficient edge because we are still dealing with long range stand off distances. If either platform cannot get to within weapons launch point, the type of platform becomes irrelevant A significant factor is how dense and effective is the CAP. In any case, a H-20 could deliver the same mission requirement.

Bltizo said:

One other factor which is tangential to this, is that the moment your 4th gen strike fighter is detected, all of your opfor's defenses will be alerted and begin actively emitting in your direction to track both your aircraft and your payload. Somehow, even if your J-16 manages to get to 500km and launch its standoff weapon, the enemy has already been tracking you this entire time and will likely be able to track your standoff weapon as well. Additional CAP to intercept your weapon or even using ship launched SAMs guided by airborne AEW&C or fighter sensors to intercept the standoff weapon will likely occur.

Having the ability to get to your launchpoint with the least amount of warning time is desirable for any kind of weapon, including standoff weapons.

Click to expand...

Going up against a carrier battle group or a modern IADS is not simple and the conversation is not merely a platform conversation but an integrated system of systems conversation. The US approach in direction is not platform centric but to integrate a set of systems in the package. MALDs and its variants will be actively used just as the Europeans are actively looking at EW variant of Spear.

it is the reason why the US NGF timeline continues to be pushed back. The road ahead is not sufficiently clear that being platform centric is the solution. It is the reason why I question the JH-XX's fit in the scheme of things especially there are alternatives like J-20 (modified) and the H-20 program.

Bltizo said:

Considering neither Iraq or Kosovo had any form of AEW&C and certainly not modern SAMs nor modern air forces when they fought their conflicts, the relevance of the Coalition experiences to what we are talking about (a high tech, high intensity conflict) is very limited.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what point you are attempting to make.

I have read reports on Kosovo, Iraqi air campaign, Libya air campaign and the most recent strikes on Syrian. Going up against SAMs is not easy especially against an adversary who is very discipline in their application of air defenses (Kosovo); inevitable losses against a major player (Iraq) and healthy respect against modern SAMs by using stand off munitions (Syria).

Bltizo said:

I agree it is a question of "4th gen +stand off delivery" vs "5th gen + stand off delivery".

But for the life of me I can't understand where your argument is coming from, because it's like saying that for a strike mission over the ocean vs a well defended foe with intact airborne AEW&C and CAP, that a sea skimming F-16 with standoff weapons can be as effective as a F-35 with standoff weapons.

Click to expand...

Please refer to my comments above in relation to my earlier post #1534. My point is stand off range mitigates the lack of stealth. Is stealth and standoff delivery the solution? My understanding is that it is not the US approach. If the JH-XX has a place in the equation even in the midst of the H-20 and J-20 then make that argument.

As to your point about the F-16 vs F-35, I would say that the USN has been rather ambivalent about the F-35C and seems to support the approach of using the F-18 to deliver stand off munitions e.g. LRASM while supported by Growlers. Typically, effective jamming is expected to half the detection ranges of your adversary's sensors. The next generation jammer (NGJ) is expected to keep such capabilities against current and future developments.

Brumby said:

Agree.


Whilst the details are different between what you outlined they essentially reflect similar description of a specific ingress against a defended target.

In post #1534, this is what I said
"Typically F-18s CAP are maintained at 650kms ring around the target. A JH-XX might be detected at 750 kms (650+100) or a J-16 at 850 kms (650+200). In either case, the launch distance is more than 400 kms for the deployment of the YJ-12"

I agree that a VLO platform will achieve greater penetrative distances vs a non VLO platform prior to detection. The disagreement is whether the former provides sufficient edge because we are still dealing with long range stand off distances. If either platform cannot get to within weapons launch point, the type of platform becomes irrelevant A significant factor is how dense and effective is the CAP. In any case, a H-20 could deliver the same mission requirement.

Click to expand...

I agree that H-20 could deliver the same mission (likely along with J-20 as well, both covering different ends of the stealthy strike specturm in terms of payload size and range). Throughout most of my posts over the last few pages I've been pretty consistent in saying that I don't think JH-XX for the PLA is a "must have" and that it is subject to opportunity-cost and dependent on

I'll address 1534 below, later.

Going up against a carrier battle group or a modern IADS is not simple and the conversation is not merely a platform conversation but an integrated system of systems conversation. The US approach in direction is not platform centric but to integrate a set of systems in the package. MALDs and its variants will be actively used just as the Europeans are actively looking at EW variant of Spear.

it is the reason why the US NGF timeline continues to be pushed back. The road ahead is not sufficiently clear that being platform centric is the solution. It is the reason why I question the JH-XX's fit in the scheme of things especially there are alternatives like J-20 (modified) and the H-20 program.

Click to expand...

Of course assaulting a CSG or modern IADS will be system of systems, no disagreement there.
Just to clarify ---- this discussion around JH-XX is not to suggest that it is some sort of single platform that will be silver bullet or anything -- naturally it will be used in a system of system manner along with the PLA's other systems in whatever combination of kinetic, EW and other domains that will be necessary to complte the mission


As I've written above and also in other replies, I do not consider JH-XX to be a "must have" for the PLA because I think its role could be done by a combination of J-20 and H-20.
Whether the PLA will procure JH-XX will depend on what I wrote in 1538, specifically this part:

Question two: could the PLA seek to procure a hypothetical JH-XX?

IMO the answer to this question is "yes, depending on a number of other factors".
Those other factors include:
- the exact capability/mission profile of what a hypothetical JH-XX might be
- the overall funding and resources that the PLA has (or will have in future) at large
- the procurement size that the PLA will want for their stealth combat aircraft whose existence is confirmed (J-20) or near confirmed (H-20), both of which may be able to fill some of the roles that a hypothetical JH-XX can do -- but where the introduction of JH-XX could still provide a significant and unique capability which may be worth the investment into another platform and its own unique logistics and support chain.

I am not sure what point you are attempting to make.

I have read reports on Kosovo, Iraqi air campaign, Libya air campaign and the most recent strikes on Syrian. Going up against SAMs is not easy especially against an adversary who is very discipline in their application of air defenses (Kosovo); inevitable losses against a major player (Iraq) and healthy respect against modern SAMs by using stand off munitions (Syria).

Click to expand...

The reason I point that out was because my argument for why low altitude penetration profiles went out of vogue against high capability opfors (NATO and Warsaw pact respectively, versus each other) in the late cold war is due to the increase in capbaility of their airborne sensor net and look down radars.

You brought up Kosovo and Iraq saying that the coalition avoided going low altitude due to the risk of manpads and AAA.
I'm saying neither Kosovo nor Iraq had the sort of capabilities that NATO or the Warsaw pact in the late cold war which made low altitude penetration attack profiles obsolescent.

Please refer to my comments above in relation to my earlier post #1534. My point is stand off range mitigates the lack of stealth. Is stealth and standoff delivery the solution? My understanding is that it is not the US approach. If the JH-XX has a place in the equation even in the midst of the H-20 and J-20 then make that argument.

Click to expand...

I thought my previous post about radar horizon offered by AEW&C addressed this post that you made.
But I'll go into some more detail.

Specifically, this part is what is incorrect in your equation: "the type of launch platform is irrelevant because, the earth's curvature will limit any detection to less than 50 kms"

As I wrote previously, the radar horizon of an AEW&C operating at standard mission altitude (an E-2 like platform will be about 7000m) will provide a radar horizon of some 370km.
For the defenders, having a couple of E-2s in orbit and a number of fighters doing CAP (let's say 650km), the J-16 has nowhere to hide from the E-2s. It is 4th generation, non-stealthy, externally loaded as well. The moment it gets within the radar horizon of the E-2, it's going to be intercepted by fighter CAP.

I believe a stealthy platform (whether JH-XX or H-20 or J-20) will have a much higher index of success because the detection ranges from AEW&C will be significantly lower, in turn making the ability of the opfor to organize its fighter CAP to intercept you to be much reduced, and allowing you to potentially get to your launch point with greater success.

The difference in this capability of a stealth platform vs a 4th gen nonstealthy platform is of course dependent on what the physical difference in detection range vs the opfor's AEW&C (and fighter CAP active radar as well) is, and I don't know what the exact difference may be, but I believe it is not insignificant.

As to your point about the F-16 vs F-35, I would say that the USN has been rather ambivalent about the F-35C and seems to support the approach of using the F-18 to deliver stand off munitions e.g. LRASM while supported by Growlers. Typically, effective jamming is expected to half the detection ranges of your adversary's sensors. The next generation jammer (NGJ) is expected to keep current such capabilities against current and future developments.

Click to expand...

Well, comparing the F-16 with F-35 I was of course thinking of the F-35A (given the USN doesn't operate F-16s).
As for the use of the F-35 launching standoff weapons -- the joint strike missile is very much pitched for the F-35A and F-35C and is being procured by a few nations already.

The US military's doctrine or experience of stealth aircraft to deliver different munitions types doesn't mean it is immediately applicable to the PLA, considering the differences in overall force balance each side faces versus their likely adversaries. There are also differences in geographical disposition, not to mention the overall size of their existing air forces, stealth aircraft fleets, and ability to project power and so on.

Also, I absolutely agree that jamming is important and I'm not suggesting that the PLA wouldn't include some kind of jamming component as part of a strike package.
However, I am saying that the capability of the opfor the PLA faces means I think they will need a stealth platform + standoff weapon to have the highest chance of delivering a payload, and that 4th gen platform + standoff weapons has a much lower chance of success. (assuming both have the same level of jamming support and everything else being held constant)

Whether that stealth platform is JH-XX or H-20 or J-20 or any combination of those three is of course another matter, and as I previously wrote it is dependent on the PLA's overall assessment of its opportunity cost of procurement.

@blitzo

I think in the medium term future (15-20 years) if/when sufficient J-20s and H-20s are built, a JH-XX like platform may not be worth the opportunity cost.

Click to expand...

If we're looking at 10-15 years in the future, the Chinese military will likely have a requirement for almost every aircraft type in sufficient numbers to justify a completely new class of aircraft.

At the same time, there should be ample funding available to pursue each of these niche capabilities, so they also pass an opportunity cost analysis.

Eg. After 10 years, I reckon there will be a minimum of 400 J-20. But then each additional J-20 only results in a marginal increase in capability.

So by that point, 150+ JHXX regional stealth bombers for naval targets should have a greater cost-benefit ratio than additional J-20.

---
There's a similar calculation for the J-31 mediumweight stealth fighters.

In 5 years, I expect 180+ J-20 in service. Then they would start looking to procure a cheaper J-31 for less demanding air-to-air tasks. And I see a definite requirement for a minimum of 400 J-31 overall.