I would respectfully disagree with you on that PLA-Wolf,
Hey, no need to be so polite.
I wouldn't count the J-7s and J-8s as being of any benefit for the PLAAF, against an adversary-group which has the likes of F-15E Strike Eagles, F-16C/D Blk-50 Falcons, F-2 (Jap-Vipers), F-15K Slam Eagles and of course, the F-22A Raptors, in it's ranks. That's over 600 fighter-jets (J-7s & J-8s), which wouldn't even put a dent in the adversary's fighter-fleet.
Well I think I would have to respectfully disagree with that assessment.
While it is true that one-on-one, the likes of the J7 or J8 have gaping deficiencies that any good adversary would exploit to the full and would have little chance against the types you listed, however, in any realistic war scenario, they both have their uses.
The J8II handles like a DC9 in WVR, but it has a very respectable service ceiling and top speed. With the newest J8s getting a modern PD radar with PL12s, their BVR capabilities is nothing to sniff at, and I would consider it a serious threat to anything other than 5th gens in terms of BVR.
It is worth noting that the only air to air loss the US suffered since Vietnam was to an adversary with good speed but poor turning capabilities. The J8II cannot match the Mig25 for dash speed, but it has far better radar and missiles than the Iraqi Mig25 that downed that F18.
Wrt to the J7, the latest versions with the double delta wing is as good as the Blk 15 F16 (the most agile of F16 Blks) in terms of WVR in many aspects, and not far off it in the remaining fields. With HMS + off broadside PL8s, they should at the very least be as formidable as early Block in WVR.
One of the most interesting things that he USAF learnt during the IAF's participation at Red Flag a couple years back was just how hard it was to even detect a small target like the Mig21 Bison when it is equipped with modern EW pods. Polish Air Force Mig21s also have some joy against F16s during a recent exercise, so the Mig21 is far from useless even against 3rd gen fighters, and the J7E is a far more capable dogfighter than the Bison or Mig21s the Polish pilots flew.
The PLAAF has not shown their J7s with dedicated jamming pods, but they have invested significantly in dedicated jamming aircraft in both the High New series and with JH7As. Factor in PLAAF BVR capable fighters engaging the enemy at BVR while J7s dash in and there is a decent chance for J7s to get into WVR, where they should give as good as they get against any of the types you listed.
worth noting is that the F-15K's radar, The APG-63(V)1 radar has common digital processing equipment with the APG-63(V)3 AESA radar, and thus is upgradable to an AESA radar via antenna replacement.
The USAF's F-15E Strike Eagles and F-15C Eagles are now equipped with AESA radars, or at least a good part of the fleet has achieved the AESA capability. Most of the units with AESA radar, are strategically deployed in the Pacific Region, which includes Hawaii, Japan and South Korea. This, added to the fact that USAF has also deployed F-22A Raptors in Alaska and Hawaii, and a contingent of F-22A Raptors is currently deployed at Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan. This sort of strategic deployment of fleet's fighter-jets, equipped with AESA radars and Stealth Fighters, doesn't bode well for the likes of J-7s and J-8s.
A calculated estimate puts around 90-100 AESA radar equipped F-15Es/Cs and F-22A Raptors, in the Pacific region. This is not including the South Korean F-15Ks, F-16 Blk-50s and the Japanese F-15Js and F-2s. The combined strength of America, South Korea and Japan puts around 600-700 Gen-4++ fighter-jets, pitted against China and Russia. And that does not look good on paper, where neither China or Russia have any or enough fighter-jets, equipped with AESA radars, or any Stealth Fighters, in the region.
Firstly, I think you might be overplaying the advantage AESA offers, especially when both sides will have AWACS and EW aircraft support.
The detection range and LPI advantages an AESA offers over conventional PD radars is largely rendered moot when AWACS will detect the AESA equipped fighters beyond even their enhanced detection capabilities. Thus the AESA equipped planes would not be able to exploit their detection range advantage to get into a more favourable position before being detected (or avoiding detection altogether) by PD radar equipped fighters, and any BVR contest will be largely decided by the service ceiling, dash speed, missile performance and EW capabilities of the fighters instead of their radars.
It should be noted that the superior agility of 3rd gen fighters should give them a better chance of escaping incoming missiles compared to the J8, but then the high speed of the J8 should also give it a better chance of outrunning incoming missiles if they turn in time. But regardless, the difference between an AESA equipped F16/F15 and a PL12 equipped J8II would not be as great as many may think if both sides had AWACS support.
Secondly, I would very much doubt that South Korea would want to get involved in any scrap between China and the US as that would almost certainly restart the Korean War, and the first thing that would happen if that were to transpire is Seoul getting flattened by North Korean artillery.
The Japanese might not have the same concerns, but their bases as too far away to be of much use to anything except support aircraft like AWACS and tankers.
, my friend, I would not be counting the J-7s or J-8s in any category.
Indeed, the J7 and J8 are not in the same category as the types you have listed, but they can still give them a good run for their money in the right fields.
your question, I ask you this ....... Can the AESA radar be retrofitted on the J-10A's or Su-27SK/MKK/MK2's? If so, then I don't see the point of producing J-11Bs and J-10Bs, other than for export purposes. However, if these fighter-jets cannot have the AESA radars retrofitted on them, then China would have legitimate reason to develop an advance variant of the J-10 fighter-jet, and incorporate additional features such as the IRST, DSI, ADV-EW suite and a high-performance WS-10A Taihang engine. The same goes for the J-11B's as well, since both fighter-jets would form the backbone of the PLAAF's Gen-4+ fleet.
Having a high-performance AESA radar is so important for a modern air force, that one can see the evidence in the strategic deployment-pattern, in the Pacific region, of the United States Air Force.
As I have said, I think you are placing far too much weight on the importance of AESA.
Also, the difference between the J10A and J10B is far far more than merely the addition of AESA.
have a question regarding this point ...... Why do air forces around the world have various types of fighter-jets/fighter-bombers in their fleet? Why not just one type, which would not only save a bucket load of money, but free the logistics support units of the headache in maintaining all different variants, types and configuration of aircraft? The answer is the requisite based on the strategic need and for China, the strategic need is AESA, Stealth, HOBS-WVR, ADV-BVR and above all, the thorough and professional training and high level of flight-hours for People's Liberation Army Air Force's fighter-pilots.
Well I think the answer to your question is illustrated perfectly by the F35. The F35 was envisaged as a 'one size fits all' solution to the 'problem' or having too much different aircraft types within the air force.
The F35 was supposed to massively save on logistics, training and operating costs by replacing a plethora of different types with a single airframe.
The problem is that in order to serve so many functions, performance sacrifices had to be made, and technical difficulties were encountered that made the programme more and more expensive.
There is a very good reason that the old saying 'jack of all traits, master of none' has survived for so long. Modern human society is based on specialisation for very good reasons. All things being equal, a plane designed purely for air combat will be better at air combat than a plane designed for both air combat and ground attack, a classic example would be the F22 v F35.
Similarly, take two pilots of the same talent, if one only trains for air combat and spends all of his 200-300 annual flight hours honing his air combat skills, than he is going to be a better air combat pilot than the other pilot who divides his time training for both air combat and strike missions.
It is no co-incidence that multi-role only started to take off after the break up of the USSR, because at it's core, multi-role is a trade off between costs and capacity.
In the past, the USAF could get away with having this trade off because they were so ahead of everyone else that even their multi-role jets are better at AA than dedicated AA jets their competitors could develop, and their pilots get so many more flight hours and train so much harder than even tho they split their time between AA and AG, they are still better at both than dedicated AA and AG pilots the likes of the PLAAF could produce.
However, as China has caught up both in terms of technology and wealth, that equation is no longer valid. The J20 is a pure-breed AA fighter, and there is a very good chance that it will be superior to the F35 in air combat, and that has the Americans very worried.
that China is steadily on its way to having a large fleet of Stealth Fighters, like the J-20s and F-60s. However, that does not mean that the J-10B's and J-11B's don't have a role to play in the PLAAF. The J-10B and J-11B, when refined with AESA, IRST, HOBS-WVR, ADV-BVR, HMS, HP-Engines (FWS-10A) and DSI (J-10B), would represent a true modernization of the Chinese Air Force fighter-fleet. And when produced in sufficient numbers (700 of the J-10Bs & 500 of J-11Bs), would equate to the strategic re-balancing in the region. Having 1200 fighter-jets with AESA radar, facing the Pacific Ocean (not just South Korea, Japan, Australia and America), would ensure that there is a proportionate level of military strength in numbers, to redress the balance of power in the region.
Well I think the PLAAF has already achieved the force level needed for proportionate military deterrence with J10As and J11A/Bs. More J10Bs would for sure be a big boost, but it would not be a top priority, hence the slow production and induction rate of J10As in recent years and CAC being giving time to refine the J10B instead of rushing it into service.
has bases in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. All of these bases are in proximity to Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China.
None of those bases are within strike range of key Chinese targets for anything other than bombers, and there is a very high chance that the host nations would forbid the use of those bases for strikes against China as doing so would almost certainly invite Chinese retaliatory strikes against those bases and the host nation.
Liberation Army Air Force must have enough Gen-4+ fighter-jets in its fleet, to afford the Chinese fighter-pilots a sufficient exposure to and proficiency of the fighter-jet type. Without sufficient exposure, flight-hours on the Gen-4+ fighterjet type, I do not that think it's justifiable or fair on the PLAAF fighter-pilots, to suddenly move on to the Gen-5 Stealth fighter-jet type. There should be a evolutionary transition, the fighter-pilots deserve to have, than an abrupt change in technology.
With something as new and revolutionary as 5th gen fighters, old concepts and tactics are often rendered obsolete, in this respects, it may actually be beneficial for new pilots to start fresh on 5th gens straight out of basic flight schools. Indeed, it seems that both the IAF and PLAAF have already been doing something similar, whereby they tend to promote a disproportionately large percentage of year pilots to their newest types such as the J10, J11B and MKI etc so that those pilots start with a clean slate and do not have to change their ways as older pilots who have already spend decades flying ancient types would.
, operating an adequate sized Gen-4+ fighter-jet fleet, alongside Gen-5 Stealth Aircraft, permits China to pick and choose on how many J-20s and F-60s it wants to build at any given point in time.
Why does China need a large 4+ gen fleet in order to be able to pick and choose on many J20s and F60s to build and when?
look forward to that day! PLAN Aircraft Carriers with J-15s, AWACS aircraft and helos. But, J-10B and J-11B should be put through the paces of incorporating technologies like AESA, IRST, DSI, ADV-EW, HOBS-WVR, ADV-BVR, R-IFR and HP-Engines. Having such a fleet is in proportionately-sufficient numbers (700 J-10B & 500 J-11B), would not only be a healthy affordable option, but would also allow China to not put all of its eggs (Stealth) in one basket.
I am really struggling to see how you could call 700 J10Bs and 500 J11s as an 'affordable' option, especially considering you seem to be suggesting that the PLAAF buy those in addition to the J10As and J11As they currently have and evidently think the PLAAF should purchase several hundreds of 5th gen J20s and F60s.
the note of Stealth .... did you hear about the German Air Force - Euro Fighter, that shot-down the F-22A Raptor three times in WVR-Combat, during the recently concluded Red Flag exercises?? It's been the raving news this summer!! Oh and guess what ..... Euro-Fighter is a Gen-4++ fighter-jet!!!
I fail to see what the big deal is. The F22's primary strength has always been it's stealth. Put it with WVR of another fighter and you effectively negate it's greatest strength.
The F22 airframe is pretty solid in terms of agility and very impressive in terms of raw thrust, but it is still a conventional layout design at it's core in terms of aerodynamics and do not really break the mould when it comes to agility, so it should come as little surprise that a canard-delta design should be able to best it in terms of agility. Put the F22 within visual range of a Rafale or J10A and I would expect a similar outcome.
However, in a realistic combat scenario, the F22 would be using it's stealth to get into optimal firing position against the Typhoon/Rafale/J10 without the Typhoon/Rafale/J10 even realising it is in danger, that is the truth strength of 5th gen.
when those J-10Bs and J-11Bs are replacing J-10As, Su-27SKs, Su-30MKKs and Su-30MK2s.
But why would they need to replace J10As and J11As/MKKs so soon? Those airframes still got a good decade or two of life left in them. Even if we are talking about a timeframe 15, 20 years down the line, the PLAAF does not, and should not buy that many J10Bs and J11Bs to replace airframes that max out their hours.
didn't mean india on its own, posing any threat to China, rather in context where America, Japan, Australia and South Korea, are combining forces. That is how it has always been in the past. Be it WW2, the Persian Gulf War, the Serbian Conflict, the Iraq Invasion and Afghanistan Invasion. America has always gone in with allies and not alone! Even in the Korean War, America had South Korea, Britain, Japan and Australia formed the Allied Forces Pacific. So to, I must emphasize, that india shouldn't be looked at as a threat, on its own, cuz it is not. Rather, in combination with America, Britain, Japan, South Korea and Australia.
Such an alliance does not look to be anywhere on the horizon. It is one thing for American allies to contribute a token force for some foreign adventure half way around the world to gang up against a laughably outmatched country that has no hope of being able to hit back and where the allies can pull out and abandon the mess and any aftermath fairly easily and cost free. It is a completely different thing for allies to fight one of their neighbours who share a land boarder with them, never mind one who can really hurt those allies both militarily and economically. Such an alliance will only form if China tries to annex neighbouring countries or becomes so weak militarily to become a push over. Neither case looks remotely likely to happen, as such I do not think China needs to worry, never mind arm itself against such an alliance.
