J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[plawolf]

I personally feel that the J-10B is critical to PLAAF's capabilities. J-10A gave China the imputes it needed to show the world that China has the means to defend itself against today's fighter-jets of the West. PLAAF has the J-10A in good numbers and is increasing it's fleet day by day. However, there comes a time in the evolution of an Air Power like PLAAF, where the employment of next generation capability is crucial to it's survival and hold on air supremacy on China's air space.

For this reason, the J-10B, with DSI, IRST, ECM, IFR, WS-10A, VL-RCS and produced in large numbers, would give China the ability to counter multi-dimensional threats.

No power, do date, has been able to match the U.S in producing advance fighters in large numbers. The Soviet Union, was only able to produce good enough fighters, who could challenge the U.S, if deployed on overwhelming numbers. That sort of approach really didn't work out for the Soviets. However, China being able to develop fighter-jets which have capability matching the U.S fighter-jets, is a real advantage. For that reason, China ought to produce sufficient number of J-10B's, J-20s, J-11B's and F-60's to be able to withstand and hit back any aggressor.

The development of the WS-10A engines and the engines for future Y-20 military cargo is essential to China attaining total independence in building, designing and developing military jets.

Actually, I read it as being quite different.

There were many times during the cold war when soviet equipment (tanks, fighters, bombers, but never warships it has to be said) was on par or even superior to western systems.

The biggest difference was that the west talked fire and brimstone but didn't treat war as an inevitability, so while they did not neglect defense spending by any stretch of the imagination, they nevertheless did not devote the kinds of resources the soviets did into weapons production.

To put simply, the west invested in weapons as a means to deter war, whereas the soviets invested to win the war. Obviously those different objectives required very different strategies in terms of weapons procurement.

I think one of the main pitfalls the soviets got in was not in trying to keep pace with western weapons and technological developments, but rather in the ludicrously vast forces they maintained. By devoting so much resources into production and maintenance of weapons that were rendered obsolete very rapidly throughout the cold war, the soviets wasted staggering amounts of resources, and that slowly but surely drained and weakened their economy to the point where they imploded.

In China, we have a saying that roughly translates to, 'he who watches on the side sees clearest'. It is usually applied to strategy games like Chess or Go, whereby the players get so caught up in their own plans and strategies that they sometimes miss signs that a casual observer who isn't half as good a player would easily pick up on. That saying seems particularly apt here.

China, having watched from the sidelines seem to have grasped the core lesson of the downfall of the USSR far more clearly than the USA who defeated them.

China is now the one who is investing just enough to deter war, whereas the USA seem blissfully unaware that they are repeating the mistakes of the Soviets with their irrational obsession about having a stupidly oversized military at the expense of their economy.

Sure having boat loads of J10Bs, J11Bs, J20s and F60s would be awesome. But that all costs a hell of a lot of money to buy, and more to operate. The more planes you buy now, the more you have to replace a couple decades down the line.

China cannot afford to try to create a military big and powerful enough to match the US military, hell, the US cannot afford the US military.

By not pouring more resources than is strictly necessary to deter aggression into the military, China is saving more resources for R&D or investment, so that they will have more money to spend when better stuff becomes available.

The US has already fallen into the same pitfall that ultimately helped to claim the USSR whereby they are pouring far too much resources into producing way more stuff than they could possibly need. Why would China want to jump into that pit beside them?

All China needs to do is to make sure the military gap does not get so wide that the US might be tempted to use all that military might against China. So long as the gap in aggregate military power is such that it would be prohibitively costly (in lives and treasure) for the US to go to war with China, all the trillions the US pours into building tanks, fighters, bombers and ships ultimately becomes wasted resources when they are retired and scraped and need to be replaced with the newest innovations, and the more resources you pour into building more weapons, the more you end up wasting.

 

[jackliu]

Actually, I read it as being quite different.

There were many times during the cold war when soviet equipment (tanks, fighters, bombers, but never warships it has to be said) was on par or even superior to western systems.

The biggest difference was that the west talked fire and brimstone but didn't treat war as an inevitability, so while they did not neglect defense spending by any stretch of the imagination, they nevertheless did not devote the kinds of resources the soviets did into weapons production.

To put simply, the west invested in weapons as a means to deter war, whereas the soviets invested to win the war. Obviously those different objectives required very different strategies in terms of weapons procurement.

I think one of the main pitfalls the soviets got in was not in trying to keep pace with western weapons and technological developments, but rather in the ludicrously vast forces they maintained. By devoting so much resources into production and maintenance of weapons that were rendered obsolete very rapidly throughout the cold war, the soviets wasted staggering amounts of resources, and that slowly but surely drained and weakened their economy to the point where they imploded.

In China, we have a saying that roughly translates to, 'he who watches on the side sees clearest'. It is usually applied to strategy games like Chess or Go, whereby the players get so caught up in their own plans and strategies that they sometimes miss signs that a casual observer who isn't half as good a player would easily pick up on. That saying seems particularly apt here.

China, having watched from the sidelines seem to have grasped the core lesson of the downfall of the USSR far more clearly than the USA who defeated them.

China is now the one who is investing just enough to deter war, whereas the USA seem blissfully unaware that they are repeating the mistakes of the Soviets with their irrational obsession about having a stupidly oversized military at the expense of their economy.

Sure having boat loads of J10Bs, J11Bs, J20s and F60s would be awesome. But that all costs a hell of a lot of money to buy, and more to operate. The more planes you buy now, the more you have to replace a couple decades down the line.

China cannot afford to try to create a military big and powerful enough to match the US military, hell, the US cannot afford the US military.

By not pouring more resources than is strictly necessary to deter aggression into the military, China is saving more resources for R&D or investment, so that they will have more money to spend when better stuff becomes available.

The US has already fallen into the same pitfall that ultimately helped to claim the USSR whereby they are pouring far too much resources into producing way more stuff than they could possibly need. Why would China want to jump into that pit beside them?

All China needs to do is to make sure the military gap does not get so wide that the US might be tempted to use all that military might against China. So long as the gap in aggregate military power is such that it would be prohibitively costly (in lives and treasure) for the US to go to war with China, all the trillions the US pours into building tanks, fighters, bombers and ships ultimately becomes wasted resources when they are retired and scraped and need to be replaced with the newest innovations, and the more resources you pour into building more weapons, the more you end up wasting.

Wow, my sentiment exactly, and I see one possibility that in the future the number of air craft in USAF might shrink dramatically.

Because almost all the current existing 4th air craft in the inventory such as F-16 and F-15 were produced by the Reagan's military spending surge in the 1980s to late 1990s, last time I check, they stopped production line for F-15 almost 10 years ago, and all the F-16 being produced are for export only. So in another 10-30 years, a huge number of aircraft is going out of service simply due to the air frame being too old. And since now F-35 costs as much as F-22 right now, I have seriously doubt if they can afford to replace them on 1 to 1 basis.

That means the size of USAF might shrink dramatically, while at the same time for China the current J-10 and J-11 being produced in recent years will still have 2 more decades of life left, also the 5th gen production line should be come online as well.

However for US navy, I think things might not look at bad, they are still producing Burkes at a good sustainable rate, and those ships have a very long life time.

 

[Dizasta1]

Actually, I read it as being quite different.

There were many times during the cold war when soviet equipment (tanks, fighters, bombers, but never warships it has to be said) was on par or even superior to western systems.

The biggest difference was that the west talked fire and brimstone but didn't treat war as an inevitability, so while they did not neglect defense spending by any stretch of the imagination, they nevertheless did not devote the kinds of resources the soviets did into weapons production.

To put simply, the west invested in weapons as a means to deter war, whereas the soviets invested to win the war. Obviously those different objectives required very different strategies in terms of weapons procurement.

I think one of the main pitfalls the soviets got in was not in trying to keep pace with western weapons and technological developments, but rather in the ludicrously vast forces they maintained. By devoting so much resources into production and maintenance of weapons that were rendered obsolete very rapidly throughout the cold war, the soviets wasted staggering amounts of resources, and that slowly but surely drained and weakened their economy to the point where they imploded.

In China, we have a saying that roughly translates to, 'he who watches on the side sees clearest'. It is usually applied to strategy games like Chess or Go, whereby the players get so caught up in their own plans and strategies that they sometimes miss signs that a casual observer who isn't half as good a player would easily pick up on. That saying seems particularly apt here.

China, having watched from the sidelines seem to have grasped the core lesson of the downfall of the USSR far more clearly than the USA who defeated them.

China is now the one who is investing just enough to deter war, whereas the USA seem blissfully unaware that they are repeating the mistakes of the Soviets with their irrational obsession about having a stupidly oversized military at the expense of their economy.

Sure having boat loads of J10Bs, J11Bs, J20s and F60s would be awesome. But that all costs a hell of a lot of money to buy, and more to operate. The more planes you buy now, the more you have to replace a couple decades down the line.

China cannot afford to try to create a military big and powerful enough to match the US military, hell, the US cannot afford the US military.

By not pouring more resources than is strictly necessary to deter aggression into the military, China is saving more resources for R&D or investment, so that they will have more money to spend when better stuff becomes available.

The US has already fallen into the same pitfall that ultimately helped to claim the USSR whereby they are pouring far too much resources into producing way more stuff than they could possibly need. Why would China want to jump into that pit beside them?

All China needs to do is to make sure the military gap does not get so wide that the US might be tempted to use all that military might against China. So long as the gap in aggregate military power is such that it would be prohibitively costly (in lives and treasure) for the US to go to war with China, all the trillions the US pours into building tanks, fighters, bombers and ships ultimately becomes wasted resources when they are retired and scraped and need to be replaced with the newest innovations, and the more resources you pour into building more weapons, the more you end up wasting.

I agree with your analysis PLA-Wolf ........ However, my point was more on the lines of "Proportionate Military Build Up". Which is that China isn't meant to match America fighter for fighter, tank for tank and carrier for carrier. Rather that China should build up proportionate military strength, to counter or deter, American threat.

This also means that China should not build 900-1000 J-10 fighters, rather proportionate to the U.S, China should at least have 500-600 of the J-10B Vigorous Dragons. The same goes for J-20s, F-60s, J-11Bs, J-15s, J-16s and H-6Ks. A proportionate force, would not only NOT break the bank, but would also put the adversary on the back foot. This applies in all fields of the military, be they Destroyers, Submarines, Aircraft Carriers, Tanks, Artillery Guns and so on.

Have technologically advance equipment, but in proportionate numbers to your adversary or threat.

It is perhaps Pakistan, who would look to acquire advance military hardware, in fewer numbers. Where Pakistan faces overwhelming enemy strength, indian air force would have, by 2025, around (290) Su-30MK Flankers, (250) PAK-FA Stealth Fighters, (200) Rafale F3s, (50) Mirage-2000s, (60) MiG-29 UPGs and may be, just maybe (200) LCA Tejas. That's a 1100 fighter fleet in total, which Pakistan would only be countering with (40) J-10Bs, (70) F-16s and (250) JF-17 Thunders. That's a quarter of the force (360) strength that they would have to counter the indians and which is applies to Pakistan, simply because we don't have the resources to build up a proportionately adequate force that one would require to deal with the indians.

Under ideal conditions, a proportionate force to counter an adversary with over 1100 fighters in its fleet, would be at least a force of 500 fighters.

So that's the point I was trying to make, PLA-Wolf!

 

[kroko]

Like I said !!! ... 1031 received some modifications ....

hmm. why does the J-10B is using AL-31 engines ?? dont tell that its because it is the prototype. If more AL-31 equiped J-10B show up, that could indicate problems with WS-10.

 

[Lion]

hmm. why does the J-10B is using AL-31 engines ?? i wonder if china is still having considerable difficulty with WS-10...

Read earlier post and understand what is 1031. Why didn't you question J-16 and J-11BS who both come out with WS-10A engine?

I believe Chengdu indeed has difficulties getting WS-10A from rival Shenyang Liming. You see Shenyang J-11B, J-11BS , J-15 and J-16 new airframe are currently receiving WS-10A engine. Apparently, they have no problem receiving domestic engines from engine company under the same umbrella group.

Just like Honda civic will not have a problem getting a V-tec engine. But a rival like MAzda will problem getting it.

If new plane like J-11BS and J-16 are getting AL-31 engine and , yes. I believe your doubt will be valid. But apparently, its more of a competition problem than engine problem.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Is there really that much rivalry between the two companies? One of the criticisms of China is that because the government controls everything there's no competition thus does not help in advancing technology. It sounds to me it's just like what happens in the US between military contractors.

 

[plawolf]

I agree with your analysis PLA-Wolf ........ However, my point was more on the lines of "Proportionate Military Build Up". Which is that China isn't meant to match America fighter for fighter, tank for tank and carrier for carrier. Rather that China should build up proportionate military strength, to counter or deter, American threat.

This also means that China should not build 900-1000 J-10 fighters, rather proportionate to the U.S, China should at least have 500-600 of the J-10B Vigorous Dragons. The same goes for J-20s, F-60s, J-11Bs, J-15s, J-16s and H-6Ks. A proportionate force, would not only NOT break the bank, but would also put the adversary on the back foot. This applies in all fields of the military, be they Destroyers, Submarines, Aircraft Carriers, Tanks, Artillery Guns and so on.

Fair points, but there are a few other things to consider.

Firstly, the PLAAF already have a substantial 3th generation fleet. I have long since lost count, but I think the PLAAF and PLANAF together should have around 400 Flankers and maybe 200 odd J10A/S. Add in another 250 or some JH7/JH7As and that's quite a considerable force without even counting the hundreds of late blk J7s and J8s.

Assuming the J20 starts entering service around 2016-18, that they start J10B production tomorrow, and they continue to produce J11s and J10Bs at current rates and that's another 100-150 of each type added to the fleet to give a combined Flanker and J10 fleet of around 800-900 planes. Does the PLA really need another 350-450 J10Bs on top of all that?

Assuming the PLA ultimately gets 300-400 J20s and maybe 450-600 F60s, all the J7s and J8s are retired by then and total JH7 fleet goes up to 300 and stays at that level, you are looking at a total combat fleet of around 2,000 planes (assuming some of the earliest J11s and J10s are retired by then), maybe half of which are 5th gens. That's before we think about training aircraft like JL8s, JL9s and L15s, and in totality, that is also probably well beyond the PLA's budget. Remember that the PLA has a budget and the more J11s and J10s they buy now, odds are, the fewer J20s and F60s they can afford when they become available.

The USAF might ultimately get most of the F35s promised, but even if they do, the USAF does not have the bases in the region to fly those fighters from, and the few bases they do have in range will be overwhelmed by cruise and ballistic missiles in the opening moments of any war that the more planes the USAF station there, the more they will loose on the ground. The US will be relying principally (if not exclusively) on naval aviation in any war with China. 300 J20s alone would probably be more than a match for them, add in all the other stuff and we are rapidly getting into overkill territory.

The PLA does not need that many more 3rd gen fighters, what they have should be more than enough to maintain effective deterrence until the J20 and F60 start to come online in numbers. With that in mind, I think the PLA would be perfectly justified to feel that they could, and should just wait for the J20 to become operational before making large purchases.

I foresee maybe 2-4 years more of fleet expansion as the PLA finally phase out all the J7s and J8s, and start to build up their carrier aviation fleets, but after that, new J11 and J10 production will mainly be for replacement of the earliest J11s and J10s. If they decide to do even that and depending on the progress of the J20 and F60. If the Chinese 5th gens progress smoothly, the PLA may well forgo buy more J11s and J10s for replacements and equip the regiments whose early blk J11s and J10s are due to be retired with J20s directly (or give them hand-me-down J11s and J10s from the first regiments to convert to J20s).

Have technologically advance equipment, but in proportionate numbers to your adversary or threat.

Exactly, but when you do some quick maths, it looks like buying J10Bs in the kind of numbers you are suggesting would be going way beyond proportionate or necessary.

It is perhaps Pakistan, who would look to acquire advance military hardware, in fewer numbers. Where Pakistan faces overwhelming enemy strength, indian air force would have, by 2025, around (290) Su-30MK Flankers, (250) PAK-FA Stealth Fighters, (200) Rafale F3s, (50) Mirage-2000s, (60) MiG-29 UPGs and may be, just maybe (200) LCA Tejas. That's a 1100 fighter fleet in total, which Pakistan would only be countering with (40) J-10Bs, (70) F-16s and (250) JF-17 Thunders. That's a quarter of the force (360) strength that they would have to counter the indians and which is applies to Pakistan, simply because we don't have the resources to build up a proportionately adequate force that one would require to deal with the indians.

Under ideal conditions, a proportionate force to counter an adversary with over 1100 fighters in its fleet, would be at least a force of 500 fighters.

So that's the point I was trying to make, PLA-Wolf!

Aye, but I somehow doubt that the IAF will be able to deploy all of it's 1,100 fighters against Pakistan if push really came down to shove. I can easily foresee a significant proportion, if not the majority of the IAF fleet being tied down on India's eastern boarder as the PLAAF deploys large forces to Tibet if war broke out between India and Pakistan.

I can also easily see the PAF having way more than the 40 J10Bs on the books available for deployment if all out way breaks out with India, so I think the PAF might be able to fare much better than what the fanboys tend to assume.

I think perhaps you might be letting your emotions color your judgement slightly. Sure, China buying hundreds of J10Bs would very much take the gloss (and bragging rights) off of India's recent decision to buy Rafales, however, the PLA does not really see India as a significant enough of a threat to warrant special treatment when defense procurement plans are concerned.

The PLA is only focused on maintaining a credible deterrence against America, and they feel (correctly in my view) that any force they build up that can do that would be able to handle the Indians easily enough without needing to specially taylor procurement.

Let the Indian fanboys brag about their shiny new Rafales for now. In reality, with past form to go by, by the time those Rafale start flying in IAF colors, the J20 will probably not be far from deployment.

 

[no_name]

What if they simply replace old J-10 with J-10B as they are retired?

 

[Deino]

But why shoud they replace "older" J-10A if the PLAAF is still flying about 800 J-7 or much eralier versions ??

 

[plawolf]

What if they simply replace old J-10 with J-10B as they are retired?

Those J10s should be good for 25-30+ years. It will be a while yet before they need to think about replacing them.