Sure, using heavy fighters will be more costly, but really compared to the capability and flexibility (not constrained by range so doesn't need to keep playing defence all the time) it offer, and because now we can afford it, it just seems no brainer to me that the end of J-10, at least for domestic use and ofc unless this new J-10D is able to fix some of its problems, is coming pretty soon.
For a given summ of money, by using heavies only you'll always get less fighters and much less sorties for mostly the exact same types of missions. And the loss is substantial - no less than 30% airframes and probably as much as 50% loss in total sortie rate. Probably even more when stealth is added into equation.
Don't make it into a vanity fair("we rich we fly big fighters"). Otherwise, you'll end up like Russia right now, flying 45t-class Su-34 on barely 200km sorties with a couple of X-29s. I.e. doing missions which even JF-17 could've done no worse, for a fraction of the cost, yet far more frequently per airframe.
But Russia at least has sort of excuse (they bought from the only manufacturer which really managed to properly survive on its own and make something competitive on time). China has all the options. No point dropping this advantage just for a statement.
For a given summ of money, by using heavies only you'll always get less fighters and much less sorties for mostly the exact same types of missions. And the loss is substantial - no less than 30% airframes and probably as much as 50% loss in total sortie rate. Probably even more when stealth is added into equation.
Don't make it into a vanity fair("we rich we fly big fighters"). Otherwise, you'll end up like Russia right now, flying 45t-class Su-34 on barely 200km sorties with a couple of X-29s. I.e. doing missions which even JF-17 could've done no worse, for a fraction of the cost, yet far more frequently per airframe.
But Russia at least has sort of excuse (they bought from the only manufacturer which really managed to properly survive on its own and make something competitive on time). China has all the options. No point dropping this advantage just for a statement.
Nevermind your 30% and 50% that came out of nowhere, that's not really how aircrafts inventory replacement works tho. The pilots of J-7, J-8, early J-10 and early J-11 are not going to lose their flight time simply because the new aircrafts haven't come, don't they just simply fly using their old aircrafts? I don't even get your argument about bringing up stealth into this, as I'm comparing 4th gen J-10 with another 4th gen flankers. Like what do you want to say, that 5th gen aircrafts are not worth it because muh small number, or J-20 pilots shouldn't do their sorties with their J-20 during peacetime because of cost as well? It sounds so ridiculous lol
Oh vanity, how ironic it is tho for you to bring up vanity given how vain the J-10 is with the comparison to the flankers. Personally, If I want to use that word, it'd probably better describe how the pride for this aircraft is somewhat inflated, making people to be very subjective simply because it's the first true indigenous fighter jet design from China in contrast to the J-11/J-16, and from my experience some people do have this kind of bias whenever I make the comparison.
But no, my opinion on them is no vanity at all. It's just such a no brainer that a platform that have better range, heavier payload, two-seat variant, and stronger avionics is simply the better one. To conclude it all, here is my summarized opinion on the unveiling of J-10D, a badly edited picture :
Nevermind your 30% and 50% that came out of nowhere, that's not really how aircrafts inventory replacement works tho. The pilots of J-7, J-8, early J-10 and early J-11 are not going to lose their flight time simply because the new aircrafts haven't come, don't they just simply fly using their old aircrafts? I don't even get your argument about bringing up stealth into this, as I'm comparing 4th gen J-10 with another 4th gen flankers. Like what do you want to say, that 5th gen aircrafts are not worth it because muh small number, or J-20 pilots shouldn't do their sorties with their J-20 during peacetime because of cost as well? It sounds so ridiculous lol
Oh vanity, how ironic it is tho for you to bring up vanity given how vain the J-10 is with the comparison to the flankers. Personally, If I want to use that word, it'd probably better describe how the pride for this aircraft is somewhat inflated, making people to be very subjective simply because it's the first true indigenous fighter jet design from China in contrast to the J-11/J-16, and from my experience some people do have this kind of bias whenever I make the comparison.
But no, my opinion on them is no vanity at all. It's just such a no brainer that a platform that have better range, heavier payload, two-seat variant, and stronger avionics is simply the better one. To conclude it all, here is my summarized opinion on the unveiling of J-10D, a badly edited picture :
You have a number of missions (such as defensive counter-air) where you don't need long-range, a heavy payload or two-seats.
A J-10 might have a smaller radar, but that is more than compensated by the far lower radar signature of a J-10 versus a Flanker.
And if you look at the difference in F-16 versus F-15 costs, you can see 30-50% is roughly accurate. See below
First number came out of US fleet studies (1970s).
Second is my own rough approximation, as numbers can fluctuate wildly. Strictly speaking, the number i took is probably in your favour, as difference in servicability is substantial - more substantial than procurement costs.
I don't even get your argument about bringing up stealth into this, as I'm comparing 4th gen J-10 with another 4th gen flankers. Like what do you want to say, that 5th gen aircrafts are not worth it because muh small number, or J-20 pilots shouldn't do their sorties with their J-20 during peacetime because of cost as well? It sounds so ridiculous lol
Sometimes your task is just to fly to A, bomb A, fly back. Straightforward, simple, needs, say, 1 250kg precise bomb hit.
If you need to do that, say, 3 times per day - you can do it with one simpler J-10 (which can be serviced by an equivalent of a squad with just a couple of officers and 1-2 support vehicles), with 2 J-16s (which simply won't be serviced in time to do it with one vehicle, but each of the two will require 2 pilots, as much as x2 amount of technicians, x2 fuel, and more vehicles and equipment to service), or 2 or maybe even 3 J-20s (even modern stealth coatings require a lot of attention and time) - probably requiring a much better airbase in the first place.
Actually, something of this sort is not sometimes - those missions (as well as comparable simple tasks - peacetime patrols, intercepts, close air support, etc) take up wast majority of the overall mission pool. Good old 80/20 rule.
Moreover - and crucially - individually weaker aircraft actually benefit comparatively more from all force multipliers, than large&heavy ones. Basically, when you invest in tanker, AEW, ELINT fleets, their interlinking and so on - the comparative performance of lighter fighters grows more than that of heavy ones.
And China currently does exactly that.
But no, my opinion on them is no vanity at all. It's just such a no brainer that a platform that have better range, heavier payload, two-seat variant, and stronger avionics is simply the better one.
The problem is that it is a significant question, and it is not a no-brainer.
Note, that there is only one modern big AF that went for an "all heavy" setup - and it paid for it with a force levels more comparable to medium-weight airforces; it also somewhat struggles to get those beasts to decent flight hours, and yet, in the end...
...they fly like this.
J-10 certainly shouldn't replace J-16 and J-20 fleets.
But the opposite is also true, moreover - i am of opinion that J-10 shall be directly replaced with an equivalent single-engine fighter within PLAAF OoB in the future.
Probably starting in 2030-35.
There is no official range of J-10 that I know of, but nevertheless physical constraints exist and it should be comparable to other medium fighter jets, like say the F-16. If the typical assumption that China's jet engines still have worse dry thrust than its western counterparts, it could even be worse in term of the ferry range. To me, that's just a glaring issues and if you think that the J-10 can't expand its fuel capacity, then as I've said this platform serves zero purpose, and it's time for China to transition into having a lot more long range fighter jets, a kin to the US and Russia.
Funny and self serving to pick the F16 that has notoriously poor range. Why not look at the Rafale and Typhoon? Which are also medium fighters and far closer to the J10 in design philosophy and era.
Refer to the official J10CE sales brochure and tell me again about the J10’s ‘range problem
Hell, thinking about my post earlier about cost constraints in using heavyweight fighters, if the cash-strapped Russia is able to operate almost solely on heavyweight flankers, why can't the PLA???
On your point about taiwan patrols, I do know that J-10 did participate in it, but we don't really know whether they're able to do that without fuel tanks and without IAR or vice versa, as the only info about such exercises usually come from taiwan's "MOFA" on twitter with just arrows on their supposed flight path. Your point about the rarity of such occasions, being the safety net from having a two-engine aircraft, is it not just another benefit of a long list of benefits that heavyweight fighters like the flankers have over the J-10? Like I'm gonna ask you at this point, what's the point of J-10 then with all these aforementioned constraints? No, cost isn't an excuse as even the russian is able to afford those flankers. Because honestly, just throwing my guess here, I expect the production rate of J-10 to peak around 2025, and going down somewhat fast into a complete stop (for domestic use, make the J-10 into an export-oriented platform like the F-16 nowadays and let CAC focus on 5th gen, and prepare/develop the next gen) at early 2030s, as the drawbacks are just too much compared to J-16 or even the mythical J-11D.
You are just piling assumptions upon assumptions to circular logic justification for your preference for heavy fighters.
Heavy fighters have advantages compared to medium, but also drawbacks. That’s how the world works. There is no magical perfect solution, you have compromises and cost-benefit trade-offs.
Even your role model the US keeps a significant F16 fleet now, and will have the F35 as the backbone of its future fighter fleet.
Stealths are the tip of the spear, but you still need the rest of the spear to make it matter, and that’s what medium weight fighters like the J10 bring to the table - the mass of numbers to make the most of air superiority once your heavyweights have won it for you.
Sure on a pure one-on-one comparison heavyweights like the J16 win hands down, but a J16 needs two pilots and cannot be in two places at once, whereas two J10s can. Having a J10 overhead providing air support is infinitely better than having zero J16s.
Sometimes your task is just to fly to A, bomb A, fly back. Straightforward, simple, needs, say, 1 250kg precise bomb hit.
If you need to do that, say, 3 times per day - you can do it with one simpler J-10 (which can be serviced by an equivalent of a squad with just a couple of officers and 1-2 support vehicles), with 2 J-16s (which simply won't be serviced in time to do it with one vehicle, but each of the two will require 2 pilots, as much as x2 amount of technicians, x2 fuel, and more vehicles and equipment to service), or 2 or maybe even 3 J-20s (even modern stealth coatings require a lot of attention and time) - probably requiring a much better airbase in the first place.
Actually, something of this sort is not sometimes - those missions (as well as comparable simple tasks - peacetime patrols, intercepts, close air support, etc) take up wast majority of the overall mission pool. Good old 80/20 rule.
Such light scenarios may be prevalent if you're against a helpless third world country, so imo that scenario seems unlikely for China's case. Strike mission is also no doubt the worst example you can use to justify J-10's existence. Ofc in your given scenario it seems favorable, but disadvantages such as the limitations of the payloads of the 2 outermost hardpoints of the wing, and iirc the obstruction of its landing gear with its fuselage hardpoints making a lot of PGM/ARM missiles that China currently have unusable there. To put it simply, the J-10 can only effectively use the 3rd pair of hardpoints of its wing and middle of its fuselage for strike mission, but unfortunately those are also the place where you see the typical fuel tanks are placed on this plane.
when you invest in tanker, AEW, ELINT fleets, their interlinking and so on - the comparative performance of lighter fighters grows more than that of heavy ones.
Such growth really only comes from the inherent aforementioned flaws of the medium fighters tho, and I don't think capability-wise it could eclipse what the flanker platforms can offer with its J-16, J-16D, and J-11BG/D.
The problem is that it is a significant question, and it is not a no-brainer.
Note, that there is only one modern big AF that went for an "all heavy" setup - and it paid for it with a force levels more comparable to medium-weight airforces; it also somewhat struggles to get those beasts to decent flight hours, and yet, in the end...
...they fly like this.
J-10 certainly shouldn't replace J-16 and J-20 fleets.
But the opposite is also true, moreover - i am of opinion that J-10 shall be directly replaced with an equivalent single-engine fighter within PLAAF OoB in the future.
Probably starting in 2030-35.
tbf I won't mind if the J-10 is able to be replaced by a better medium weight fighter, increase in fuel capacity, redesigned wing for payload and whatnot, but I think we both know that it's very unlikely to happen, thus my hypothesis on the end of J-10 production.
Funny and self serving to pick the F16 that has notoriously poor range. Why not look at the Rafale and Typhoon? Which are also medium fighters and far closer to the J10 in design philosophy and era.
Refer to the official J10CE sales brochure and tell me again about the J10’s ‘range problem
1240km combat radius and 2950km ferry vs 1390km and 3790km of typhoon. These ranges also comes from using the drop tanks, which is limiting the already limited hardpoints of J-10. Flankers are able to achieve those numbers without using any externals.
You are just piling assumptions upon assumptions to circular logic justification for your preference for heavy fighters.
Heavy fighters have advantages compared to medium, but also drawbacks. That’s how the world works. There is no magical perfect solution, you have compromises and cost-benefit trade-offs.
Even your role model the US keeps a significant F16 fleet now, and will have the F35 as the backbone of its future fighter fleet.
Stealths are the tip of the spear, but you still need the rest of the spear to make it matter, and that’s what medium weight fighters like the J10 bring to the table - the mass of numbers to make the most of air superiority once your heavyweights have won it for you.
Sure on a pure one-on-one comparison heavyweights like the J16 win hands down, but a J16 needs two pilots and cannot be in two places at once, whereas two J10s can. Having a J10 overhead providing air support is infinitely better than having zero J16s.
So do you think the J-16 is better "hands down" or is there a tradeoff between the J-10 and J-16? Your sentences are honestly confusing to me, very contradictory.
When did I ever say that the US is my role model too lol, and you even dare to talk about piling up assumptions... Comparison with F-16 and our J-10 is also quite silly as we know there's no direct successor of the J-10, unlike the F-16 (which fixes its range problem but at the cost of the F-35 being very bulky), which is why an end of its production imo is the best option.
Let's not forget that J-10C has won Golden Helmet non stop ever since its induction and beaten J-16 every time. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and that's why they are meant to complement each other.
If we’re talking about J-16 then it’s more like “can you afford to replace every J-10 in your fleet with the J-16 and end up with either half the number the planes or twice the pilot count” xd
also if anyone is wondering fighter pilot / wso training is expensive
:
