J-10 Thread IV

[AndrewS]

Given all the J-7s and J-8s still in PLAAF service, the priority seems to me to replace them with a cheaper plane such as J-10C in theaters where stealth is not expected, at least not any time soon. Examples would be Vietnam, India, the Stans, and most of China's interior provinces, where range is not so important. Really only the coastal provinces face any immediate threat from (US) stealth fighters. So it makes more sense to base J-20s in these areas for the time being rather than try to massively ramp up J-20 production in order to base them in as many places in China as possible.

Look at the current balance of airpower with respect to Vietnam, India and the Stans.

If Vietnam or the Stans get into a conflict with China, the lifespan of their airforces is measured in days, if not hours.

Plus it's 1000 Km from China to Saigon, or from China to Astana. That argues for a heavyweight twin-engine aircraft (such as J-20/J-16/J-11) instead of the single-engine J-10

With respect to India and its 4th generation jets (Rafale/Su-27/Mig-29), the J-10 will be evenly matched, whilst stealthy J-20 aircraft should be way more effective.

So it still makes sense to maximise J-20 production at the expense of the J-10.

 

[AndrewS]

On the current aircraft inventory, I get the following

J-10: 450?
Su-27/Su-30: 148
J-11: 300?
J-16: 20
J-15: 20

That is over 900 4th generation airframes. Then there are the relatively new-build J-7 and J-8 airframes which could be used in a permissive air environment.

Adding more J-10 doesn't make much difference, where more J-20s would.

I think the optimal strategy for CAC is to wind down J-10 production, and deploy those resources to accelerating manufacturing quality and cost improvements for the J-20, as I expect they really want to ramp up production in the next few years.

And yes, the J-20 would be based for coastal contingencies rather than in the interior. Although I can see China deploying some to Tibet, to make a specific point to India.

 

[Iron Man]

Look at the current balance of airpower with respect to Vietnam, India and the Stans.

If Vietnam or the Stans get into a conflict with China, the lifespan of their airforces is measured in days, if not hours.

Plus it's 1000 Km from China to Saigon, or from China to Astana. That argues for a heavyweight twin-engine aircraft (such as J-20/J-16/J-11) instead of the single-engine J-10

With respect to India and its 4th generation jets (Rafale/Su-27/Mig-29), the J-10 will be evenly matched, whilst stealthy J-20 aircraft should be way more effective.

So it still makes sense to maximise J-20 production at the expense of the J-10.

And that's why you have planes like the J-11B and J-16. You don't need to send J-10s deep into Vietnamese territory. They are like the new J-7s, mainly for home defense, and in the form of J-10Cs they are good enough to match or beat any air force except for US F-22s and F-35s. Clearly CAC (or rather the PLAAF) thinks this way since they are building J-10Cs; this plane has gone through 3 iterations and is not going anywhere soon.

The other thing is that J-20s are certainly going to be involved in any war with Vietnam or India or the Stans or whoever. It's not like they would sit something like that out on the sidelines. We are talking about prewar basing for the purpose of deterrence and reaction. If the Chinese military intends to invade, I'm certain J-20s would shifted to be closer to theater. But in a scenario where China cannot pick money off trees, the eastern coastal provinces are easily where the greatest airborne threat lies and where the J-20 should be concentrated.

 

[AndrewS]

And that's why you have planes like the J-11B and J-16. You don't need to send J-10s deep into Vietnamese territory. They are like the new J-7s, mainly for home defense, and in the form of J-10Cs they are good enough to match or beat any air force except for US F-22s and F-35s. Clearly CAC (or rather the PLAAF) thinks this way since they are building J-10Cs; this plane has gone through 3 iterations and is not going anywhere soon.

The other thing is that J-20s are certainly going to be involved in any war with Vietnam or India or the Stans or whoever. It's not like they would sit something like that out on the sidelines. We are talking about prewar basing for the purpose of deterrence and reaction. If the Chinese military intends to invade, I'm certain J-20s would shifted to be closer to theater. But in a scenario where China cannot pick money off trees, the eastern coastal provinces are easily where the greatest airborne threat lies and where the J-20 should be concentrated.

Yes. I wasn't suggesting that the J-20s should be permanently based in the interior.

I was saying that J-20s would be much more useful than additional J-10s in the interior, as aircraft can re-deploy.

The argument is that J-20 production should be prioritised over J-10, because they are both produced in Chengdu by CAC. But prioritising J-20 production means upfront manufacturing investments to drive down costs for much larger numbers to be produced.

Based on the F-35 cost experience, that will take a few years, which is fine because sorting out the new engine will take that long. In the meantime, it still makes sense to keep J-10 production going, just at a lower rate. Plus I don't see any huge difference coming out of the J-10D programme.

Then there is SAC which is still producing J-11/J-16. Presumably the latest versions are being built to team up with the J-20 for air-superiority. In terms of cost versus the PLAAF requirement for additional long-range air superiority assets, this works out better than the J-10.

 

[Iron Man]

Yes. I wasn't suggesting that the J-20s should be permanently based in the interior.

I was saying that J-20s would be much more useful than additional J-10s in the interior, as aircraft can re-deploy.

The argument is that J-20 production should be prioritised over J-10, because they are both produced in Chengdu by CAC. But prioritising J-20 production means upfront manufacturing investments to drive down costs for much larger numbers to be produced.

Based on the F-35 cost experience, that will take a few years, which is fine because sorting out the new engine will take that long. In the meantime, it still makes sense to keep J-10 production going, just at a lower rate. Plus I don't see any huge difference coming out of the J-10D programme.

Then there is SAC which is still producing J-11/J-16. Presumably the latest versions are being built to team up with the J-20 for air-superiority. In terms of cost versus the PLAAF requirement for additional long-range air superiority assets, this works out better than the J-10.

You posted earlier with numbers for 4th generation aircraft, but didn't include the obsolete fighters like the J-7 and J-8. Air forces aren't just about the best possible fighter everywhere; there is a point to be made about quantity, and these older PLAAF planes that need to be replaced are both high quantity and low quality, not fit for pretty much anything except to tango with India's Mig-21s, which actually really won't ever happen because both of them are so short-legged. J-8s don't fair any better even if they do have PL-12s because their eyesight is terrible. Both these types would be attrited down very rapidly in any conflict. The J-10C is of course another story altogether. It would probably be rightfully considered a gen 4.5 fighter and on top of that it's 3-4 times cheaper than a J-20, i.e. I could have 3-4 squadrons of J-10s for one squadron of J-20s. They are the perfect replacements for the several hundred legacy fighters that PLAAF still needs to retire. Like I said, this is the way the PLAAF seems to be going; in order for you to be right, we essentially have to observe a sharp decline or even cessation in J-10 production in the next few years as the J-20 finally gets underway.

 

[FORBIN]

You posted earlier with numbers for 4th generation aircraft, but didn't include the obsolete fighters like the J-7 and J-8. Air forces aren't just about the best possible fighter everywhere; there is a point to be made about quantity, and these older PLAAF planes that need to be replaced are both high quantity and low quality, not fit for pretty much anything except to tango with India's Mig-21s, which actually really won't ever happen because both of them are so short-legged. J-8s don't fair any better even if they do have PL-12s because their eyesight is terrible. Both these types would be attrited down very rapidly in any conflict. The J-10C is of course another story altogether. It would probably be rightfully considered a gen 4.5 fighter and on top of that it's 3-4 times cheaper than a J-20, i.e. I could have 3-4 squadrons of J-10s for one squadron of J-20s. They are the perfect replacements for the several hundred legacy fighters that PLAAF still needs to retire. Like I said, this is the way the PLAAF seems to be going; in order for you to be right, we essentially have to observe a sharp decline or even cessation in J-10 production in the next few years as the J-20 finally gets underway.

Your right, remains for Air Force ~ 750 J-7/Q-5/first J-8 on ~ 1900 fighters-bombers i don't include Bombers ~ 130 in Rgts do 30 on 71 PLAAF do 40 %
Navy have 290 all moderns + 40 Bombers

PLAAF+PLAN had received in average about 70 birds by year but 20 years ago had about 4500 very old birds... so need time to replace.

 

[AndrewS]

You posted earlier with numbers for 4th generation aircraft, but didn't include the obsolete fighters like the J-7 and J-8. Air forces aren't just about the best possible fighter everywhere; there is a point to be made about quantity, and these older PLAAF planes that need to be replaced are both high quantity and low quality, not fit for pretty much anything except to tango with India's Mig-21s, which actually really won't ever happen because both of them are so short-legged. J-8s don't fair any better even if they do have PL-12s because their eyesight is terrible. Both these types would be attrited down very rapidly in any conflict. The J-10C is of course another story altogether. It would probably be rightfully considered a gen 4.5 fighter and on top of that it's 3-4 times cheaper than a J-20, i.e. I could have 3-4 squadrons of J-10s for one squadron of J-20s. They are the perfect replacements for the several hundred legacy fighters that PLAAF still needs to retire. Like I said, this is the way the PLAAF seems to be going; in order for you to be right, we essentially have to observe a sharp decline or even cessation in J-10 production in the next few years as the J-20 finally gets underway.

We've already seen China drastically shrink the size of the air force, with thousands of obsolete planes not replaced over the past 25 years. So it's not unrealistic to see some further reductions, although nothing to the extent we saw before.

And on the contrary, the J-7 and J-8 are perfectly adequate against the lesser opponents right next to China's borders, once China's existing modern fighters have achieved air superiority .

---

Plus I don't think the J-10C is 3x cheaper than a J-20. Look at the cost differential between the F-16/F-35/F-22.

The F-35 has seen a dramatic cost decrease, and is now approaching the cost of the latest new-build single-engine F-16s.
And the current F-35 cost ($90M) is two-thirds of the last F-22s that were built ($139M).

And in a few years time, China will start mass-producing J-20, which will drive down costs significantly.

---

Personally I think J-10 production will wind down to 10-20 per year.

That keeps the production line open for low-cost spares/maintenance for the large fleet of existing airplanes and does help with replacing some of the old obsolete airplanes

 

[FORBIN]

We've already seen China drastically shrink the size of the air force, with thousands of obsolete planes not replaced over the past 25 years. So it's not unrealistic to see some further reductions, although nothing to the extent we saw before.

And on the contrary, the J-7 and J-8 are perfectly adequate against the lesser opponents right next to China's borders, once China's existing modern fighters have achieved air superiority .

Plus I don't think the J-10C is 3x cheaper than a J-20.

Look at the cost differential between the F-16/F-35/F-22. The F-35 is already approaching the costs of the latest new-build single-engine F-16s. And the F-35 cost ($90M) is two-thirds of the F-22 ($139M).

And in a few years time, China will start mass-producing J-20 per year, which will drive down costs siginficantly.

Personally I think J-10 production will wind down to 10-20 per year.

That keeps the production line open for low-cost spares/maintenance for the large fleet of existing airplanes and does help with replacing some of the old obsolete airplanes

According Henri K yes, one J-20 want 3 J-10C the first J-10 want about 30 -35 millions $ with AESA radar etc.. saying 40 mill about and he say a J-20 want minimum 108 millions €... so 127 millions $ and the first up to 202 millions €...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BTW he has revised his production estimates downwards and very clearly

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[AndrewS]

According Henri K yes, one J-20 want 3 J-10C the first J-10 want about 30 -35 millions $ with AESA radar etc.. saying 40 mill about and he say a J-20 want minimum 108 millions €... so 127 millions $ and the first up to 202 millions €...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BTW he has revised his production estimates downwards and very clearly

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Ok. If that is accurate, then I stand corrected.

That would mean CAC produces the latest J-10C for $40M, which is half the cost of the latest equivalent F-16.

It would also mean CAC reducing the cost of the J-20 from $171M for the first LRIP aircraft, with an end target of $91M. That China price looks reasonable given the costs for the F-22 and F-35.

So given current costs for the J-20 and the immature engine, it makes sense to keep production on the low side.

But once the cost reduces significantly with manufacturing improvements, it still makes sense to build a lot more J-20 instead of J-10, because China already has a lot of non-stealthy aircraft, and will need a lot more long-range stealthy aircraft to match the numbers of F-35 and F-22 coming online.

 

[jobjed]

That would mean CAC produces the latest J-10C for $40M, which is half the cost of the latest equivalent F-16.

That's the FMS cost, at $88 million. The actual flyaway cost which the USAF pays is far lower, possibly even lower than the estimated cost of the J-10C. For instance, the F-18 Super Hornet's flyaway cost was ~$60 million but its FMS cost is double that at $120 million. Unlike with the shipbuilding industry, China has no significant, if any, cost advantage over the US in the aviation department.