J-10 Thread IV

[tphuang]

For reference, F-35 costs almost twice as much to operate than a F-16, and F-22 costs almost four times as much.

So yes, It's fair to assume J-20 would cost almost twice that of J-10 to operate. Not sure why you are grilling that guy.

Again, a lot of this has to do with how many units are in service. Based on I've heard recently, they really did a lot of work to make J-20 easy to produce and maintain. All of which should have significant effect toward their cost of operation and purchase. Based on the current production rate, they will at some point hit 1000 J-20s. Is there any reason to believe PLAAF will be making this kind of investment if they are not able to keep cost down?

I'm grilling him and you because PLAAF clearly has come to the conclusion they can add 70 to 100 J-20s a year and operate them frequently. Without access to data that they have, who are you to argue they can't afford to do it?

The most J-10s they ever was produced in a year was probably around low 40s. They are going to hit more than twice that hit J-20s. We are looking at different scales. When you double production rate, your production cost comes down by 15%. Anytime you have a larger fleet across many bases, your operational cost also comes down. Scale matters.

 

[Deino]

The other explanation is that they just have stopped producing J-10s for PLAAF

But did CAC really stop and even more for the PLAAF? Maybe the demand for J-10CE was such, that the whole lot will go to Pakistan - even more since IMO we actually miss about two Air Brigades with Batch 07 aircraft. And after that Batch 08 will be again for the PLAAF.

In fact, I see still plenty of possible units which need a replacement, and I cannot think that the PLAAF will only get J-16s and J-20s from now on.

 

[tphuang]

But did CAC really stop and even more for the PLAAF? Maybe the demand for J-10CE was such, that the whole lot will go to Pakistan - even more since IMO we actually miss about two Air Brigades with Batch 07 aircraft. And after that Batch 08 will be again for the PLAAF.

In fact, I see still plenty of possible units which need a replacement, and I cannot think that the PLAAF will only get J-16s and J-20s from now on.

I think that's a very possible explanation. But if SOC's comment about GAIC is accurate, then when are they ever going to find factory floor space for PLAAF J-10s? I'm sure they are looking to sell to other countries too.

 

[TK3600]

J-10 was a decent plane. There is still a role for it to be procured in limited number just to keep the current set up going. J-7 was produced even after J-10, J-11 entered serial production. If anything J-10 can still be exported competitively.

 

[Atomicfrog]

Do you have any data on how much it cost to fly J-20? If you don't, make you shouldn't be making wild assumptions. At this point, PLAAF has clearly adopted the philosophy that higher J-20 production means lower production cost. More J-20 units means more commonality and lower J-20 maintenance/flying cost.

J-20 production rate right now is probably higher than J-10 + J-11B combined back 10 years ago. They are rumored to hit 100 J-20s next year. And they are probably producing another 60 J-16/Ds and some J-15s. How many more aircraft do you think they need a year?

They are clearly in two different categories... I don't talk about buying price, I talk about cost to fly per hours.

You have a fighter twice the size with two engines to maintain, that burning twice the fuel per hours... Maintaining stealth coating have a price tag versus a 4th generation that don't have that capability. If it was a fourth generation fighter like a J-16 the step would be lower even with the higher fuel burn and twin engines.

For example we can compare operational cost for US fighters of same category that we know: f-15(40 000) and a f-16 (23000) for example and f-22 (70 000). The cost to fly them is way different.

Good article about trying to lower cost per flying hours in the US:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you can pay the bill and maintain them, why not having J-20, i'm not against it. They are way better. Sure that having a lot of them can lower the prices but thinking it will be comparable to j-10 is a bit of overachieving.

 

[siegecrossbow]

They are clearly in two different categories... I don't talk about buying price, I talk about cost to fly per hours.

You have a fighter twice the size with two engines to maintain, that burning twice the fuel per hours... Maintaining stealth coating have a price tag versus a 4th generation that don't have that capability. If it was a fourth generation fighter like a J-16 the step would be lower even with the higher fuel burn and twin engines.

For example we can compare operational cost for US fighters of same category that we know: f-15(40 000) and a f-16 (23000) for example and f-22 (70 000). The cost to fly them is way different.

Good article about trying to lower cost per flying hours in the US:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you can pay the bill and maintain them, why not having J-20, i'm not against it. They are way better. Sure that having a lot of them can lower the prices but thinking it will be comparable to j-10 is a bit of overachieving.

What do you think LIFT like L-15 is for?

What’s the use of mass fielding J-10s when it’ll be a one sided slaughter against F-35?

 

[Atomicfrog]

What do you think LIFT like L-15 is for?

What’s the use of mass fielding J-10s when it’ll be a one sided slaughter against F-35?

It's sure that fielding j-10 against f-35 is not a good idea, but at the same time you can say the same for j-11, j-16, j-15...They have less chance than a j-20 against a fifth generation fighter.

Do China still need a light fighter or they can ditch that and flying hours are all made on the exotic ones for all flights. Interception of a cargo plane or a small private aircraft need a J-20 ? I would rather use them where they count. L-15 can be used for booking flying hours but they are even less capable than J-10 for anything else...

Maybe they have time before to much attrition to replace them with something smaller than a full fledged air superiority heavy fighter. Maybe China have the luxury to fly with high end fighter for all task but it's interesting to look at it.

 

[siegecrossbow]

It's sure that fielding j-10 against f-35 is not a good idea, but at the same time you can say the same for j-11, j-16, j-15...They have less chance than a j-20 against a fifth generation fighter.

Do China still need a light fighter or they can ditch that and flying hours are all made on the exotic ones for all flights. Interception of a cargo plane or a small private aircraft need a J-20 ? I would rather use them where they count. L-15 can be used for booking flying hours but they are even less capable than J-10 for anything else...

Maybe they have time before to much attrition to replace them with something smaller than a full fledged air superiority heavy fighter. Maybe China have the luxury to fly with high end fighter for all task but it's interesting to look at it.

Flanker production other than J-15 and J-16 have ceased. In the case of the former J-35 isn’t ready, and in the case of the latter J-16 is a multi role platform with advantages that the J-10C doesn’t have. It could hurl PL-17 as well as a wide range of standoff munition and could carry more PL-15 than any other plane in PLAAF arsenal.

What you wrote shows that you don’t understand the purpose of LIFT at all. In a capable Air Force they are not intended to be used as fighter aircraft.

 

[Atomicfrog]

What you wrote shows that you don’t understand the purpose of LIFT at all. In a capable Air Force they are not intended to be used as fighter aircraft.

It's exactly what I said... L-15 can be used to book hours but cannot replace j-10... It's you that came with lift in a j-10 replacement discussion...

For the flankers, just said that they are more or less in the same situation aa against f-35... didn't talk about the other capabilities. Yeah you can hurl pl-17 but if you don't lock the target...it means nothing beside shooting their tanker before they shot you if you are lucky.

So for you, a fighter in the class of J-10 is just a dead end or not ? Or China need to keep the line open or replace it with a new one ? Even the US talked about an f-16 replacement with lower cost than f-35, but it's on hiatus for now:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[latenlazy]

It's exactly what I said... L-15 can be used to book hours but cannot replace j-10... It's you that came with lift in a j-10 replacement discussion...

For the flankers, just said that they are more or less in the same situation aa against f-35... didn't talk about the other capabilities. Yeah you can hurl pl-17 but if you don't lock the target...it means nothing beside shooting their tanker before they shot you if you are lucky.

So for you, a fighter in the class of J-10 is just a dead end or not ? Or China need to keep the line open or replace it with a new one ? Even the US talked about an f-16 replacement with lower cost than f-35, but it's on hiatus for now:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Flankers in a head to head matchup with F-35 would be a one sided slaughter, just like with the J-10. But if you continue to field 4th gen fighters as a way to maintain cost effective support, multiplier, or flexible multirole assets while transitioning to 5th gen fighters as your mainstay, a J-10 is going to be a lot more operationally limited than a flanker, and in particular a strike fighter like the J-16.