J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[plawolf]

Well, the true test of whether the PLAAF or PLAN will ever adopt the JF17/FC1 is when the domestic engine becomes ready.

That would be they only reason they would hold out this long if they wanted it. That should also lower costs, so might just push the plane over the requried threashold.

The L15 is in a similar position in terms of engines, and the JL9 seemed to have gotten a huge head start on it. It could easily be that the L15 is never deployed and only offered for export. And if the PLAAF plan to use an advanced trainer to double up as a light fighter to fill the numbers, the JL9 may well fill that role instead of the L15.

I think they may well keep the J8 around for longer then people would expect. Because it keeps SAC alive, and that the J8 is actually fairly good at covering large areas quickly.

They may be rubbish against most things when they get there, but with continued radar upgrades and the sheer speed and ceiling the plane can achievem its actually suprisingly competative against 3rd and 4th gen fighters in BVR.

 

[latenlazy]

I don't believe that the JF-17 will be replacing J-7 regiments for one simple reason. Because the JF-17 uses a different engine, China can probably achieve better economies of scale producing J-11 and J-10s in tandem. Hopefully this means that cost will go down as production continues.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Well, the true test of whether the PLAAF or PLAN will ever adopt the JF17/FC1 is when the domestic engine becomes ready.

That would be they only reason they would hold out this long if they wanted it. That should also lower costs, so might just push the plane over the requried threashold.

Indeed, the FC-1 is a solid design, once we finally see an indigenous engine for it we will probably get a definitive answer once and for all if we'll ever see the FC-1 in PLAAF colours.

The L15 is in a similar position in terms of engines, and the JL9 seemed to have gotten a huge head start on it. It could easily be that the L15 is never deployed and only offered for export. And if the PLAAF plan to use an advanced trainer to double up as a light fighter to fill the numbers, the JL9 may well fill that role instead of the L15.

Many great fighter aircraft throughout history have turned out to be versatile fighter aircraft, the best example of this is the Northrop F-5 based on the T-38 Talon. So far the JL-9 has been a completely indigenous product based on the proven JJ-7 airframe, there have been proposed fighter variants of it already (the LFC-16) but so far all we have is a small model trotted out to air shows. Nobody has really heard anything from Guizhou about actually working on turning the JL-9 into a fighter, maybe AVIC doesn't want Guizhou competing with Chengdu's FC-1 for export? AS we all know the JL-9 had a huge head start over the L-15, if Guizhou was planning something, IMO we would have heard something serious by now. As for the L-15 there are rumours of countries wanting the L-15 exported as a fighter and it could certainly be up for the task but in terms of numbers, the existing J-7E/Gs have a superior service ceiling, combat radius, payload, climb rate etc. etc. these would need to be improved for the L-15 to become a true fighter.

I think they may well keep the J8 around for longer then people would expect. Because it keeps SAC alive, and that the J8 is actually fairly good at covering large areas quickly.

They may be rubbish against most things when they get there, but with continued radar upgrades and the sheer speed and ceiling the plane can achievem its actually suprisingly competative against 3rd and 4th gen fighters in BVR.

I agree, the J-8 as a high speed interceptor and naval fighter has great assets, its powerful radar, high speed and high altitude make it a great missile truck. IIRC recently during a practice several J-10s knocked out a group of bomb-laden Su-30s but one managed to get through and bomb its target. IMO a group of J-8Fs might have been able to perform better for the interception role. IMO if Shenyang went ahead and implemented the J-8Cs FBW controls and FADEC, there would be no question that the J-8 would be a viable option for years to come.

 

[Twix101]

how do you get that kind of combat radius while carrying payload and no fuel tank? Do you have an idea how fast combat radius shrinks as soon as you start adding additional weight? Where are these 300 km range SAMs? Show me. Do you understand how vulnerable the country would be if just reliant on SAMs and how effective modern air forces are at SEAD missions? You need both fighter jet and SAMs + many other things to defend air space.

Well, it is a little bit more complicated, with standard combat aircraft without weapons bays and carrying stores externally it is absolutely true, but with solely internal stores, it will cost more fuel during take-off and climbing-acceleration phase, but when it will reach its cruise speed, the aircraft will be able to keep a low instant consumption thanks to inertia.

But like you said, it is still too dangerous to send aircraft up to SAM coverage gimbals.

I need to repeat myself again, China will not be able to put J-20 in service in 3 to 5 years. China does not have the money to buy and maintain large number of 4th gen plane until well into next century.

As for total number, you might only need 300 J-20, but you need a lot more cheaper planes to fill up the number. Those J-20s that might come only by 2030 are not going to be able to fly at all times, so you still need many regiments around the country.

Most importantly, PLAAF will always keep many more regiments around than needed. Whether you think it's needed or not, they will do it. J-10's newer variants will be frontline fighter jets until J-20 come around. Even when J-20 come around, they will still be the lo end of the hi-lo combo. On top of that, PLAAF does not like to disband regiments for many reasons. They are going to need an even cheaper option to replace the vast number of J-7 options around.

So this will probably hurt you, but something cheaper like JF-17 or L-15 will also be procured on top of J-10s to replace those J-7 regiments. Whether you like it or not, that will happen.


Do you see how much problem they are having with J-11B/S production right now? Even if SAC is going at its max rate, it would have to produce naval flankers for PLANAF and J-11BS for PLAAF. Does it even have any capacity left to produce more units to replace the air defense regiments? On top of that, J-11s are far more expensive than J-10s, which are still more than a match for J-11 in air superiority missions.

You need to get a reality check.


Do you realize the amount of threat that China still faces from resurgent RuAF, IAF, ROKAF and JASDF? On top of that, there is always the constant non-ending issue of Taiwan war scenario. J-11s do have longer legs, but what are you going to do with 200 km extra in range? With 3 fuel tanks + 2 PL-8 + 2 PL-12, J-10 has a combat radius of over 1000 km. With the weight savings on J-10B, its range is only going to increase. Its range is not too far away from what J-11 would have with its typical air superiority configuration.

Either way, neither are going to project to subcontinent. The only way it would be able to do that will be through aircraft carrier. That's why SAC will be dedicated to producing J-15s bye 2015.


I think those should be 250 kg. Don't think China have any lighter dumb bombs.

You're right on this, China will still have to wait before reaching US position in terms of economy, or even really surpass it in order to take account of population balance, before being able to procure sufficient number of high-end fighters compared to USAF.

 

[centrinoe]

Official PLAAF August 1st J-10 demonstration squadron video.
Filmed by PLAAF Iron Wing TV

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Roger604]

First of all, we need to stop comparing the J-20 with the J-10. The J-20 is supposed to be an AIR SUPERIORITY fighter, not a dog fighter. It is more comparable with the J-11B in its mission.

Your comparison of J-11 / J-10 to F-15 / F-16 is not correct. Exercises show that J-10 is actually superior in both BVR and WVR to J-11. However, J-11 has better range.

You are right that J-20 is an air superiority fighter. Multirole will have to fall to something else.

Second, the J-20 hasn't flown yet. Even if it flied next year, it has 5 years of flight testing ahead of it. At the earliest it will begin production in 2016. Let us remember also that the engines are far from ready. So the fully capable J-20 wont begin production until later.

J-10 flew in 1998 and was certified in 2003. That's why I gave 2013-2015. 2013 is the "optimistic" date. 2015 is the "average" date. Of course 2016 is very possible too.

Third, China cannot afford 300+ J-20s, that is a fantasy. If the J-20 is going to compete with the F-22, it is going to cost nearly as much. China has a military budget that is a fraction as large as the US. You tell me how they are supposed to buy twice as many?

Even if it costs $100 million each, 300 is only $30 billion. China's foreign exchange reserves is $2.5 trillion. Obviously you can't purchase J-20 with foreign exchange but as a point of reference China can purchase roughly 30,000 J-20 if it really wants to.

What really killed the F-22 is the cost of maintenance for stealth. China probably learned the lesson and optimized the J-20 to take this into account.

And there is no qusetion of 'even if' 4th generation fighers are still needed. We have already given you solid reasons why they would be, based on YOUR wildly optimistic model. I'll say it again, 2013, 10 years to make 300 planes. There's still 13 years and 13 years is 13 regiments each of J-10s and J-11s.

As I mentioned above, I'm basing this on J-10's flight test to certification dates. 2013 is optimistic. 2015 is average.

And you should justify your claim that the J-10 is a point defence fighter, not simply by repeatedly chanting it like you do the 2013-2015 J-20 service date. Do you even know what a point defence fighter means?

I never said J-10 is a point defense fighter like J-7. I said China doesn't need any more point defense fighters.

Do you understand how vulnerable the country would be if just reliant on SAMs and how effective modern air forces are at SEAD missions? You need both fighter jet and SAMs + many other things to defend air space.

I already said China needs 300 J-20 in addition to advanced S-400 class SAMs for future air defense. Well of course you needs AWACS too. I mentioned that already.

I need to repeat myself again, China will not be able to put J-20 in service in 3 to 5 years. China does not have the money to buy and maintain large number of 4th gen plane until well into next century.

Relax.... I'm just basing my figures off of J-10 flight testing and certification dates. We can agree to disagree on this. Even at the beginning of this year, if somebody had suggested J-20 prototype would be flight testing in 2010, most people would have scoffed. Yet here we are and that's a fact.

Most importantly, PLAAF will always keep many more regiments around than needed. Whether you think it's needed or not, they will do it. J-10's newer variants will be frontline fighter jets until J-20 come around. Even when J-20 come around, they will still be the lo end of the hi-lo combo.

When J-20 enters service there will lots of J-10 variants and J-11 variants around, so that's your second line right there. Obviously, you're not going to disband them. Troika, this point is addresses your concern too.

My point is that once you start making J-20, you don't need to make any more single-engined J-10s. Instead, the focus should be on long-range, multirole platforms. PLAAF can fulfill this in many different ways:

1) The J-16 stealth flanker that SAC is working on right now. It will probably end up something like the T-50, I think.

2) Something like B-2 bomber (not preferred)

3) Unmanned stealth attack aircraft like X-47B

4) Unmanned attack drone like the Pterodactyl at Zhuhai Air Show

Do you see how much problem they are having with J-11B/S production right now? Even if SAC is going at its max rate, it would have to produce naval flankers for PLANAF and J-11BS for PLAAF. Does it even have any capacity left to produce more units to replace the air defense regiments? On top of that, J-11s are far more expensive than J-10s, which are still more than a match for J-11 in air superiority missions.

Cost is a legitimate point, I agree. The comparison should be between J-10 and J-11B or later variants, not the original J-11. Same for performance comparisons. J-10 is better than J-11 for certain. But I haven't seen anything pitting J-10 against J-11B.

J-11s do have longer legs, but what are you going to do with 200 km extra in range?

If J-11B or later variants have range of 2500 km, they can do combat over Malacca Straits! See what I'm driving at now?

As comparison, Russia claims 3500 km range for Su-35. Inflated for sure, but 2000+ km should be there.

With 3 fuel tanks + 2 PL-8 + 2 PL-12, J-10 has a combat radius of over 1000 km. With the weight savings on J-10B, its range is only going to increase. Its range is not too far away from what J-11 would have with its typical air superiority configuration.

By all means if J-10 variants (like twin engined) can fly to Malacca Straits, then PLAAF should purchase more. My point is that having a long-range multirole fighter is extremely important to China for geostrategic reasons.

 

[Troika]

Even if it costs $100 million each, 300 is only $30 billion. China's foreign exchange reserves is $2.5 trillion. Obviously you can't purchase J-20 with foreign exchange but as a point of reference China can purchase roughly 30,000 J-20 if it really wants to.

Talk sense. Military build-up is not a game of civilization. You can't pay money into the production queue and have units ready. There is so much wrong with this statement I hardly know where to begin. Here's a hint. A Ford class CVN costs around 9 billion to build.

Try to learn something about what foreign exchange means, how industrial processes are planned and executed, how one builds production lines before replying, I beg of you.

As I mentioned above, I'm basing this on J-10's flight test to certification dates. 2013 is optimistic. 2015 is average.

Your dating is total hogwash. First of all, the flight test of the J-20 isn't even confirmed yet, it's not clear whether it was a high speed taxi test or flight test, or if there even WAS a test. Secondly, nice job ignoring that the J-10 was first set to fly in 1996. Thirdly, suppose it DOES fly in 2010... then it's still five years away by your ludicrously optimistic J-10 analogue (hint: the J-20 is an even bigger leap than the J-10)... and you think you can just shave two years off it? Based on what? Sheer wishful thinking?

I never said J-10 is a point defense fighter like J-7. I said China doesn't need any more point defense fighters.

Nice back-pedaling. Here is what you said:

Even if 4th generation fighters are still needed past 2013-2015 when China starts making J-20, the best solution would be J-11B and J-11BS, not J-10B. China nowadays needs fighters that are leggy. This is the chief shortcoming of J-10. China should step beyond the era of short range point defense fighters.

Heavy, long range, strategic, multirole and stealthy should be where PLAAF focuses on once J-20 enters service.

Nice strawman, by the way. The only one who brought up J-7 as a comparison to the J-10 is you.

The clear implication is that J-10 is a short range point defence fighter, or did you just string the two phrases together for kicks and there is no explicit or implicit relationship between the two? Can you stop lying? I will ask again: Do you know what a short range point defence fighter is? What are your justifications for such a claim?


And you still have failed to address any of our numbers and concerns:

When J-20 enters service there will lots of J-10 variants and J-11 variants around, so that's your second line right there. Obviously, you're not going to disband them. Troika, this point is addresses your concern too.

My point is that once you start making J-20, you don't need to make any more single-engined J-10s. Instead, the focus should be on long-range, multirole platforms. PLAAF can fulfill this in many different ways:

It has been shown that even by your most optimistic calculations there is a 13-year-gap at the barest minimum. So, your idea is that we keep only the existing fighters... and build nothing else but J-20s? And you intend to keep the PLAAF in the meantime with what? Blind refusal to look reality in the face? Just build J-11s? Just abandon the J-10 production lines a few years after setting them up? What do we do with the excess capacity at Chengdu? Build J-10s exclusively for export? Build high speed trains? This isn't Red Alert II, you can't shift the Chengdu War Factory's production from J-10 to J-11 by clicking on a different icon. Setting up an advanced production line is a multi-year, multi-billion dollar process and an enormous investment.

And don't be disingenuous... your entire debate history had been 'China needs no more than the 300 J-20s', and only after sustained fire did you concede that maybe it does need more fighters. But only Flankers. So don't try to shift the goalposts, and let's have some solid numbers.

I am afraid you really have no idea about operational planning and how to calculate the mission requirements of an armed force. Everything you have pulled out so far from totally arbitrary numbers to a continual refusal to project production numbers, operational requirements, etc, suggest that you really have no idea how to gauge what China does and does not need. Before you post again I strongly suggest you do so.

You can start by looking at the major threat axes around China, take a look at the major Chinese airbases, EW and radar centres, and then project response time, EW time, etc. Then and only then start to draw circles on the map (I know I deprecated that approach before, but it is apparent that you haven't even bothered doing that). All the time taking into account realistic readiness rates (here's a rule of the thumb for ya, if half your bombers are ever combat ready at the same time you've been doing an excellent job), alertness level etc. Oh and when you look at threat axes, take into account that while in absolute numbers they don't look so bad, Japan has a LOT less airspace to cover than China, RoK has even less, etc. So you can forget about daydreams of bombing the shit out of Singapore (tempting I know). You have to be able to defend your airspace before you can thinking about mass bomb-trucking of such far-away places (because there is no way any fighter-bomber is going to be in any shape to do anything other than that at that sort of ranges. You'd take at least one refueling to get a Su-30MKK to Singapore for any degree of meaningful on-station time)... and why bother when there are far more efficient ways of doing it?

Then and only then do you begin to realise how daunting is the threat faced by China and how any half-way realistic assessment of the PLAAF's operational needs suggests very strongly that it'll be a very long time before quality can completely replace quantity.

Hell, just look at the USAF.

 

[Roger604]

^ I'm not going to respond in detail to your post since it contains very little cogent argument is more like a long ramble. But I'll address two points for clarification.

It has been shown that even by your most optimistic calculations there is a 13-year-gap at the barest minimum.

Er.... no..... that is based on your calculation which assumes a low rate of production at the beginning but then misleadingly applies that rate to the whole period of production.

And don't be disingenuous... your entire debate history had been 'China needs no more than the 300 J-20s', and only after sustained fire did you concede that maybe it does need more fighters. But only Flankers. So don't try to shift the goalposts, and let's have some solid numbers.

I said advanced SAMs, together with J-20, AWACS and drones is sufficient for air defense. I didn't say this was all the fighters China needs since not all fighters are used for air defense. Please read carefully before ranting, thanks for your cooperation.

 

[dingyibvs]

Roger, if it took the J-10 5 years from first flight to IOC and it skipped the biggest bottle neck of all in the Chinese aerospace industry--the engine, then why do you think the J-20 with indigenous engines would be a whopping 40% faster and at the worst equal? The first flight isn't going to be until next year, that makes 2016 the earliest likely date for IOC and 2018 the most likely.

 

[Troika]

^ I'm not going to respond in detail to your post since it contains very little cogent argument is more like a long ramble. But I'll address two points for clarification.

Nice dodge. From now on I'll just post 'since you talk total rot it is unnecessary to address any of your claims'. The only difference is I'd actually be right.

For the sake of posterity, I'll repeat the claims you completely failed to address:

-Your apparent lack of understanding of what a point defence fighter is
-You lying about your claims
-Your inability to grasp production rates is not the same as having 3 trillion credits
-Your supremely optimistic assessment of service date... earlier than every other open source assessment including interviews with high-ranking officials, as well as assessment based on service time of 5th generation fighters
-Your insistence that test flight has happened based on nothing
-Your combat radius figures... again without proof.. of a fighter that hadn't even had first flight yet, nevermind in service. Which is a nice thing since we still aren't sure the combat radius of the J-10 in most configuration plus loiter time figures.
-Your claims on the PLAAF's missions and postures... apparently based on nothing more than wishful thinking and vague allusion about striking Malacca... and from there your assessment of PLAAF procurement needs.

There are more, but I think that's enough to be getting on with. And you have the nerve of accusing me of ranting? A post isn't a rant just because your attention span is too short to cover it. And no, if you are unable to address any of the points, hat doesn't make it a rant either.

Er.... no..... that is based on your calculation which assumes a low rate of production at the beginning but then misleadingly applies that rate to the whole period of production.

Sure, it's based on my model, because you've been too lazy to provide one and kept throwing the number 300 about without the barest pretense of actually studying when and how the J-20 will become available and how that affects the PLAAF's force disposition in the mean time.

What, you think China can build more than a regiment of J-20 a year? As soon as certification is done? And your justification for this claim is... what? I don't think you understand the concept of 'burden of proof'.

I said advanced SAMs, together with J-20, AWACS and drones is sufficient for air defense. I didn't say this was all the fighters China needs since not all fighters are used for air defense. Please read carefully before ranting, thanks for your cooperation.

:rofl: You will dig these holes for yourself, won't you? Please try to remember this is a forum, and people can go back and check for yourself what you said.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=130520

Even if 4th generation fighters are still needed past 2013-2015 when China starts making J-20, the best solution would be J-11B and J-11BS, not J-10B. China nowadays needs fighters that are leggy. This is the chief shortcoming of J-10. China should step beyond the era of short range point defense fighters.

Heavy, long range, strategic, multirole and stealthy should be where PLAAF focuses on once J-20 enters service.

Where's the 'for air defence only' part? Do you know what 'even if' means?

But really, this is entirely irrelevant anyway as this thread lately has been you going 'J-20' and everybody else telling you that 300 is not enough, even for defence alone. And let's not go int your fantasy scenario of hordes of UCAV and super-long-range SAMs (which for some reason you think is how NATO conducts its IADS... once more showing your astounding lack of understanding of the issue).