J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[FriedRiceNSpice]

What value does a J-20 add to this situation over a J-10?

What values does J-10/J-11 offer over a J-16? Spamming J-16 is simply more cost effective and better allocation of resources than maintaining multiple fourth gen platforms. J-20 for high end A2A combat and J-16 for everything else. There is nothing that a J-10 or J-11 can do that a J-16 cannot do better.

 

[Deino]

What values does J-10/J-11 offer over a J-16? Spamming J-16 is simply more cost effective and better allocation of resources than maintaining multiple fourth gen platforms. J-20 for high end A2A combat and J-16 for everything else. There is nothing that a J-10 or J-11 can do that a J-16 cannot do better.

its value is that they are already built and paid …

 

[zhangjim]

Your entire perspective is wrong. Air forces do not meet each other on a level playing field and pair off for dogfights. They operate as part of a larger interconnected system, both relying on and contributing to land and sea based assets. There is a very good reason the USAF is not entirely composed of F-35s. Say an incoming salvo of cruise missiles is detected, and you need to scramble fighters to intercept because GBAD is out of position. What value does a J-20 add to this situation over a J-10? Or perhaps ground forces need fire support in a battlespace with air superiority, but their organic artillery has been suppressed. Do you need latest-generation aircraft to drop bombs on bunkers? Even in a purely air-to-air scenario you don't need every single aircraft to be VLO. Some just need missiles and datalinks.

Wasting money on vanity projects like overengineered platforms instead of accepting good enough as good enough is exactly how you lose wars. Finite resources must be allocated to infinite wants as efficiently as possible. You don't always need the latest and greatest, you just need to get the job done.

So your understanding is entirely based on the idea that the F-35 is a "failed project".
The F-35 did not fail as imagined, at least it controlled the supply of fighter jets to its American allies. If you have to meet the needs of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, the cost will inevitably become very high.
When the prototype of the J-35 (J-31) was first released, American media believed that it was the ideal state for the F-35, without the need for additional customer needs interfere.
The military exercises of the PLAAF have proven that the J-20 has overwhelming advantages. The 3th(4th) gen fighter alone cannot defeat the 4th(5th) gen fighter. After obtaining the J-20, all tactics envisioned to confront the F-22 were proven ineffective.
Therefore, war only requires the outcome of victory, and we cannot bear the risk of failure due to resource conservation.

 

[tphuang]

The only - and at least for me still huge - problem is: Where are all these additional J-20s?

I just used scramble

i assume ~30 j-20s per regular brigade and less for FTTC ones
anything that started conversion before 2023, I assume full complement
anything starting convert in 2023, I just use 4 to 12 depending on how certain scramble are bout their presence

and roughly have

1st brigade 30
172nd brigade 16
8th brigade 30
98th brigade 4
97th brigade 12
176th brigade 16
4th brigade 12
5th brigade 30
55th brigade 4
111th brigade 30
131st brigade 4
9th brigade 30
56th brigade 30

That adds up to roughly 250, which is what I expect the in service number to be.
Just FTTC + complete brigades sum up to be 212. So even if the units that just started accepting J-20s in 2023 are stuck at 4 to 6 aircraft, we are still probably at 230-240

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

its value is that they are already built and paid …

Yes for existing airframes, but as far as additional procurement goes, it seems PLAAF has chosen to focus solely on the J-16, which is ongoing at a steady pace despite the ramp up in J-20 production.

 

[Deino]

I just used scramble

i assume ~30 j-20s per regular brigade and less for FTTC ones
anything that started conversion before 2023, I assume full complement
anything starting convert in 2023, I just use 4 to 12 depending on how certain scramble are bout their presence

and roughly have

1st brigade 30
172nd brigade 16
8th brigade 30
98th brigade 4
97th brigade 12
176th brigade 16
4th brigade 12
5th brigade 30
55th brigade 4
111th brigade 30
131st brigade 4
9th brigade 30
56th brigade 30

That adds up to roughly 250, which is what I expect the in service number to be.
Just FTTC + complete brigades sum up to be 212. So even if the units that just started accepting J-20s in 2023 are stuck at 4 to 6 aircraft, we are still probably at 230-240

In fact that's a fine analysis and reasonable estimation of allocated aircraft per unit ... however let me sort it in a slightly different chronological order and add some info based on what i know and/or assume:

-------- AL-31FN/FM2 powered J-20 (I)
2016/17: 176th Air Brigade 16 ... IMO 18-20

2018: 172nd Air Brigade 16 ... IMO AL-31FN/FM2 powered ones transferred to 9th AB & 176th AB

2019: 9th Air Brigade 30

-------- WS-10C powered J-20 (II)
2021: 172nd Air Brigade 16 ... IMO maybe even 24 (all WS-10C powered)
2021: 1st Air Brigade 30

2022: 5th Air Brigade 30
2022: 56th Air Brigade 30
2022: 111th Air Brigade 30
2022: 8th Air Brigade 30
2022: 55th Air Brigade 4 (still rumour only)

2023: 97th Air Brigade 12 ... IMO at least 22

2023: 131st Air Brigade 4 (still rumour only)
2023: 4th Air Brigade 12... IMO at least 22

2023: 41st Air Brigade ? (still rumour only)
2023: 89th Air Brigade ? (still rumour only) ... 98th brigade has been confirmed a J-16 unit now

2024: no new rumours yet!

So in summary I come to about 249-250 in service! So you are correct, that fits nicely what we expect so far plus a margin of maybe some additional ones or ones delivered to unconfirmed but rumoured units.

 

[siegecrossbow]

In fact that's a fine analysis and reasonable estimation of allocated aircraft per unit ... however let me sort it in a slightly different chronological order and add some info based on what i know and/or assume:

-------- AL-31FN/FM2 powered J-20 (I)
2016/17: 176th Air Brigade 16 ... IMO 18-20

2018: 172nd Air Brigade 16 ... IMO AL-31FN/FM2 powered ones transferred to 9th AB & 176th AB

2019: 9th Air Brigade 30

-------- WS-10C powered J-20 (II)
2021: 172nd Air Brigade 16 ... IMO maybe even 24 (all WS-10C powered)
2021: 1st Air Brigade 30

2022: 5th Air Brigade 30
2022: 56th Air Brigade 30
2022: 111th Air Brigade 30
2022: 8th Air Brigade 30
2022: 55th Air Brigade 4 (still rumour only)

2023: 97th Air Brigade 12 ... IMO at least 22
View attachment 127667
2023: 131st Air Brigade 4 (still rumour only)
2023: 4th Air Brigade 12... IMO at least 22
View attachment 127669
2023: 41st Air Brigade ? (still rumour only)
2023: 89th Air Brigade ? (still rumour only) ... 98th brigade has been confirmed a J-16 unit now

2024: no new rumours yet!

So in summary I come to about 249-250 in service! So you are correct, that fits nicely what we expect so far plus a margin of maybe some additional ones or ones delivered to unconfirmed but rumoured units.

They’ve even started replacing J-7s (Central Theater Command?) with J-20 as per latest rumors. Talk about a leap in capabilities…

 

[Wrought]

J-20 is not overengineered for China's requirement -- advanced opponents and very long distances.

Also economy of scale makes J-20 cheaper over time, probably much cheaper than an equivalent anywhere else. China's industrial complex had done this for ships, heavy infrastructure equipment, cellphones, computers and EVs. It will do this for aircraft.

Correct, it's not overengineered for the role of engaging high-end combatants at long range. It's extremely overengineered for less demanding roles, like the prior example of intercepting cruise missiles. And no matter how cheap a J-20 is, producing a new one will not be cheaper than maintaining a J-10 already in service. Which is why it would be a waste of resources to replace them all.

Where in my post have i ever mentioned dog fight???


I have never dispute this, in fact in many of my previous posts over the years, I always insist China will fight a multi-dimensional warfare.


In a multi-dimensional warfare, J20 is to be guided by space based sensors, sea based sensors etc so that it will be at least 1,000km from Chinese coasts before the incoming enemy aircraft can reach their missile releasing position, refueling positions etc. And you can be sure these non-combat aircraft would be escorted by F-22 or F-35. That is where J20 will have a big advantage over J10 and J11B because J20 are unlikely to be detected by F-22 or F-23 from far away. By the time J20 is detected, those AWAC, aerial tanker or bombers are already in killing zone of J20's missiles. J20 don't even have to engage F-22 or F-23 head on.

Sorry, I should have used a different term like "air combat" instead of "dogfight." My point is that you are focusing too much on direct combat instead of the other roles aircraft will be called on to perform. The examples I gave were cruise missiles and bunkers, but the point is that not every role requires a VLO platform and therefore using VLO platforms for all roles is very wasteful.

The J-20 is not an "overengineered" "vanity project". The J-20 is an absolute necessity for the defence of China. Chinese military sources have said time & time again that the gap between 4th/4.5th gen & 5th gen is far too big. All 4th gen fighters except the J-16 will have to be replaced with 5th gen fighters. The J-16 will remain as a missile truck, as for the J-10 on the other hand there will be no need for it to remain in service & will be replaced with 5th gen fighters.
Even in the example you gave about using aircrafts to intercept cruise missiles, a long range missile truck like the J-16 would probably fair better than the J-10.

The J-20 is not overengineered if you are using it for air superiority against latest generation aircraft. But it is extremely overengineered if you are using it for less sophisticated roles like the examples I gave. Roles which some aircraft must perform, and all your aircraft are J-20s (because you phased out all the older models) then it's a massive vanity project.

How much does it cost to produce a new J-16 instead of maintaining an existing J-10? This is where the waste comes in.

Correct. The trend is pretty clear that China with a continental landmass AND a vast sea area where its main threats emanate from will concentrate on manufacturing the J-20 and J-16 and soon the J-35 in large numbers. The J-10C will be relegated to secondary effort in manufacturing probably mainly for exports in the near future. We are already hearing rumors of the J-10 lines being transferred to Guizhou to make more room for J-20s at Chengdu.

It makes perfect sense for J-10s to be downgraded in priority. It makes no sense for existing J-10s to all be replaced.

What values does J-10/J-11 offer over a J-16? Spamming J-16 is simply more cost effective and better allocation of resources than maintaining multiple fourth gen platforms. J-20 for high end A2A combat and J-16 for everything else. There is nothing that a J-10 or J-11 can do that a J-16 cannot do better.

The value of having it already instead of needing to produce it, as already mentioned.

So your understanding is entirely based on the idea that the F-35 is a "failed project".
The F-35 did not fail as imagined, at least it controlled the supply of fighter jets to its American allies. If you have to meet the needs of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, the cost will inevitably become very high.
When the prototype of the J-35 (J-31) was first released, American media believed that it was the ideal state for the F-35, without the need for additional customer needs interfere.
The military exercises of the PLAAF have proven that the J-20 has overwhelming advantages. The 3th(4th) gen fighter alone cannot defeat the 4th(5th) gen fighter. After obtaining the J-20, all tactics envisioned to confront the F-22 were proven ineffective.
Therefore, war only requires the outcome of victory, and we cannot bear the risk of failure due to resource conservation.

The F-35 is not a failure as a platform, it is a failure as the only platform. It can do plenty of things, but not everything should be done by the F-35 because other platforms can do the same job more efficiently. That is where it failed, as a universal answer to all problems. It would be very stupid of the PLAAF to repeat such a mistake.

And again, there are more roles for aircraft than direct combat where using a VLO platform is hugely wasteful because VLO capabilities are not needed. I specifically gave examples. What priorities should be cut because you wanted way more J-20s than you needed? Ballistic missiles? Aircraft carriers? Rocket artillery? Nuclear deterrent? Civilian investments? Resources are finite. You either conserve them or you run out. History is full of examples of waste leading to defeat, but an easy one would be the Soviet Union.

 

[henrik]

The J-20 is not an "overengineered" "vanity project". The J-20 is an absolute necessity for the defence of China. Chinese military sources have said time & time again that the gap between 4th/4.5th gen & 5th gen is far too big. All 4th gen fighters except the J-16 will have to be replaced with 5th gen fighters. The J-16 will remain as a missile truck, as for the J-10 on the other hand there will be no need for it to remain in service & will be replaced with 5th gen fighters.
Even in the example you gave about using aircrafts to intercept cruise missiles, a long range missile truck like the J-16 would probably fair better than the J-10.

You still need the J-10 for exports. All the other planes are too expensive for buyers from developing countries.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The value of having it already instead of needing to produce it, as already mentioned.

I was not advocating for early retirement of any of the already AESA equipped 4th gens. But I think it makes sense for J-20 (and to lesser extent, J-16) production to be prioritized, and at at some point for the non-AESA equipped 4th gens to be phased out (early retirement) as total fighter numbers cannot grow indefinitely.