J-10 Thread IV

[tphuang]

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.

except that you have no idea how much work China has done to lower the cost of maintaining stealth layer. Remember that J-20 came later than F-35. A lot of practices like predictive maintenance became available with AI that weren't available at time of F-35 program inception. As such, J-20 was designed in a way that allows for lower cost of operation.

The more J-20s you have, the lower the maintenance/flying cost because you have support structure for J-20s everywhere. All the base crew members are trained to service and maintain J-20s. There are available parts for J-20s everywhere. Mass adoption just generally lowers cost.

Nobody is saying that j-20's operational cost is as low as j-10. But PLAAF has clearly worked out the calculations and decided it can afford to procure 70 to 100 J-20s a year. I wouldn't really use USAF cost as a barometer, since PLAAF actually flies more hours and have higher availability in its PMAI aircraft. So, I think PLAAF probably has figured a few things out here in lowering cost that we don't have public knowledge of.

 

[tphuang]

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.

J-16 and loyal wingman can do that. J-10C is not well suited for the future PLAAF planning. It has really short range compared to J-20 and flankers. If you listen to people like Shilao and Yankee, PLA really likes larger aircraft. Been that way since Su-30 came along. That's probably why J-10C was never produced at the volume you'd expect for something of its capability.

In fact with loyal wingman, one might ask if PLAAF even need something like FC-31. Just procure 1200 J-20s and augment it with 3000 loyal wingman UCAVs and a bunch of J-16s for strike purposes.

 

[tphuang]

If we bring this back to J-10C. Ultimately, this aircraft doesn't have one major thing that PLAAF wants for the main battle scenario it cares about in westpac and that is range. You cannot expect J-10C to fly 1500 km out to escort J-16s/H-6Ks nor can you expect it to carry stand off missiles against targets more than 1000 km off the mainland. J-10 is a design born out of the requirements of defending against intruders not one doing the attacking 1000 km away. If you are PLAAF, does it help you to have more J-10 brigades in NTC/ETC/STC? If it does not, then you should replace most of those brigades with heavy fighter jet and have J-10s replace old J-7 brigades or move them to West/central TC.

 

[gelgoog]

China is huge and there are just too many J-7 squadrons which will need to be replaced to consider taking the J-10 out of production I think.

 

[TK3600]

If we bring this back to J-10C. Ultimately, this aircraft doesn't have one major thing that PLAAF wants for the main battle scenario it cares about in westpac and that is range. You cannot expect J-10C to fly 1500 km out to escort J-16s/H-6Ks nor can you expect it to carry stand off missiles against targets more than 1000 km off the mainland. J-10 is a design born out of the requirements of defending against intruders not one doing the attacking 1000 km away. If you are PLAAF, does it help you to have more J-10 brigades in NTC/ETC/STC? If it does not, then you should replace most of those brigades with heavy fighter jet and have J-10s replace old J-7 brigades or move them to West/central TC.

And if J-10 is defending airspace, they are going to face F-35 and likes. Anything less wont do much against Chinese air defence.

 

[Blitzo]

And if J-10 is defending airspace, they are going to face F-35 and likes. Anything less wont do much against Chinese air defence.

If money was no object, then certainly one would want to try and have the most capable aircraft for every mission out there.

But in reality, what you will try to do is use your most capable, longest ranged assets to try and engage the enemy's most capable assets at distances further from your own homeland.
J-10s for defending internal airspace and peripheries of airspace is a reasonable mission, where they have the support of home IADS and AEW&C.
J-10s however are not suited for conducting missions 1000km away from Chinese airspace in a high intensity scenario.

If J-10s have to face F-35s, then it means either the F-35s should have been significantly attrited and limited in persistence and endurance and number by getting through more distant PLA BARCAP and contests for air superiority in the "1000km outside of Chinese airspace" mission.
Or, it means that the PLA's more capable, longer ranged platforms and strike systems were unable to securely attrit or defeat the opfor's bases and air fleets and were instead themselves defeated.

Either way, there's nothing inherently wrong with J-10s going into the future, but the number of J-10s that are actually purchased will be dependent on how much the PLA wants to focus on conducting longer distance missions as part of its bread and butter.

 

[TK3600]

If money was no object, then certainly one would want to try and have the most capable aircraft for every mission out there.

But in reality, what you will try to do is use your most capable, longest ranged assets to try and engage the enemy's most capable assets at distances further from your own homeland.
J-10s for defending internal airspace and peripheries of airspace is a reasonable mission, where they have the support of home IADS and AEW&C.
J-10s however are not suited for conducting missions 1000km away from Chinese airspace in a high intensity scenario.

If J-10s have to face F-35s, then it means either the F-35s should have been significantly attrited and limited in persistence and endurance and number by getting through more distant PLA BARCAP and contests for air superiority in the "1000km outside of Chinese airspace" mission.
Or, it means that the PLA's more capable, longer ranged platforms and strike systems were unable to securely attrit or defeat the opfor's bases and air fleets and were instead themselves defeated.

Either way, there's nothing inherently wrong with J-10s going into the future, but the number of J-10s that are actually purchased will be dependent on how much the PLA wants to focus on conducting longer distance missions as part of its bread and butter.

Well against f35 and etc J16 wont fare better either. When it comes to effectiveness vs 5th gen aircraft is it better to have 2 j10 or 1 j20? Not the exact ratio but you know what I mean. Without sufficient performance low cost alone is not enough.

 

[LCR34]

J-10C is still sufficient for Taiwan/Indian border operation if EW, AEW, SEAD etc played their role and F-35, F22 were kept out of the equation. There is a reason US still flies F-16 around.

 

[Blitzo]

Well against f35 and etc J16 wont fare better either. When it comes to effectiveness vs 5th gen aircraft is it better to have 2 j10 or 1 j20? Not the exact ratio but you know what I mean. Without sufficient performance low cost alone is not enough.

J-16s will not be going head on against F-35s alone.
If they operate in an air to air role, they would be carrying BVRAAMs in support of J-20s and other 5th gens. In an air to ground role, they would be escorted by J-20s and other 5th gens.

The difference between J-16 and J-10 is range.

J-16 can actually conduct missions at 1000km or over, effectively.
J-10 cannot.

It's as simple as that.

 

[stannislas]

If money was no object, then certainly one would want to try and have the most capable aircraft for every mission out there.

But in reality, what you will try to do is use your most capable, longest ranged assets to try and engage the enemy's most capable assets at distances further from your own homeland.
J-10s for defending internal airspace and peripheries of airspace is a reasonable mission, where they have the support of home IADS and AEW&C.
J-10s however are not suited for conducting missions 1000km away from Chinese airspace in a high intensity scenario.

If J-10s have to face F-35s, then it means either the F-35s should have been significantly attrited and limited in persistence and endurance and number by getting through more distant PLA BARCAP and contests for air superiority in the "1000km outside of Chinese airspace" mission.
Or, it means that the PLA's more capable, longer ranged platforms and strike systems were unable to securely attrit or defeat the opfor's bases and air fleets and were instead themselves defeated.

Either way, there's nothing inherently wrong with J-10s going into the future, but the number of J-10s that are actually purchased will be dependent on how much the PLA wants to focus on conducting longer distance missions as part of its bread and butter.

of course there is no problem with J-10 stands in PLAAF right now, but in the future, it's hard to tell, especially your enemy start to ramp up their size of F-35 or KF-21 or something else.

also speaking of cost, what's the cost of losing a war?
will i save like 500-1000 million on J-10, and have 500 less J-16 or J-20 than losing a war outside the 1st island chain or in south china sea? or pay that amount and win that war?