J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[gelgoog]

There is quite likely a massive disparity between US and Chinese AWACS in terms of capabilities. China has been using AESA in their AWACS for like a decade at this point. And Chinese AWACS aircraft are larger than their US equivalents with more power available.

 

[kwaigonegin]

I find him awful. His videos could be reduced to 10 minutes. I find Perun just as bad to be honest, they just blabber on and editorialize the content instead of just getting to the point.

My benchmark for Youtube videos is accuracy and quality of presentation. IMO, modern Binkov is accurate, presents well and in the appropriate amount of time. For me, he's at the same level as Eurasia Naval Insight, just not as timely. These videos do an excellent job of informing the public IMO. So I readily recommend both to people who ask me.

Long winded yes but that's where the FF comes in handy. Binkov is meh imho. But at least these folks actually do some research instead of just parroting any available news.
As to ENI I'm still trying to figure out if that's his real voice or T2S AI generated garbage.

 

[Blitzo]

He might be undercounting and discounting Chinese manufacturing numbers and J-20 capabilities vs F-35. But what he says about the strategic implications are indeed true and quite depressing for China to be honest. The fact that even if China produces 120+ J-20's per year, it still won't catchup to US and its anglo-saxon allies and client states in the Pacific such as Japan and Korea. They will still have almost 2 to 1 advantage in terms of number of planes. Yes, one could argue that they will never be able field more than 50% of those planes into a war against China due to large distances involved and logistics. But its still enough to put China on the defensive.

The takeaway is that China is still not investing enough on Air power and on its military overall. With China's manufacturing prowess, making 3-400 fighter jets per year should be easily doable. But China is making just enough planes to slowly get to parity with US+allies in maybe 15-20 years. But it will never get to a position of dominance where US will be afraid of even contemplating a fight with China and slowly get out of the west Pacific due to caution and fear. That's still a long way off.

There is a reason why I don't like these posts of these YouTube videos because it almost invariably leads to discussions of details of weird parts.

I wrote the following as an initial follow-up to my other post, but I declined to post it as I was hoping people would exercise self restraint as well and not comment on the off topic parts of the video.
But seeing as it is now being raised, I will post it below which directly addresses the points you made and which the video made:

===

One third of the video seems to be used trying to actually ascertain what J-20's numbers and production rate actually is (and even the numerical conclusions reached are not exactly great), while the remaining two thirds of the video is basically dedicated to trying to explain why increased J-20 production rate is actually "not a big deal guys".

The focus on F-35's production and procurement numbers is natural and understandable, because that is the 5th generation fighter type in production for the US et al at present and thus is the natural "high end adversary" of J-20.

But much of the video is also spent trying to look at how an "actual westpac high end conflict may be fought" in a system of systems manner (fair) but seems to give the US not only the benefit of the entire tactical air fleets of multiple partner nations that the puppet assumes can be deployed and operate in theater, but also assumes the entirety of the US tactical air fleet can be deployed and operate in theater as well.

Naturally, some deploy-to-theater constraints exist for the PLA as well, but the ability of elements of the PLA's internal air fleet to redeploy among its plentiful air bases within the country from one strategic direction to another by anywhere from a few hundred km to a thousand km (depending on ferry distance) is far easier than the intercontinental journeys the bulk of the US air fleet (which are not permanently based in the westpac theater) and that of some allies (like Canada, Australia) would need to do to get in theater, not to mention the need for more basing (which the US and partners are working to expand of course, but the ability to simply absorb the entirety of the US tactical air fleet and that of Canada and Australia isn't going to happen at the drop of a hat).

Watching the video, the puppet seems to be implying that if a high end westpac conflict were to occur today, the US and partners would have a numerical advantage in terms of deployed, in-theater fighter aircraft versus that of the PLA, which is just so mind boggling to imply that I wonder if the people who wrote the script actually realized what they were suggesting to begin with.

But really the most bemusing part of the video is near the end "in the grand scheme of things, considering the thousands of potential enemy aircraft, even a hundred J-20s made per year won't really make much difference for power projection outside of Chinese borders".... which is kind of true in the sense that a general air superiority fighter aircraft obviously isn't designed to project power in the traditional sense, but the fleet size of any kind of fighter aircraft is naturally going to be important for one's ability to contest air superiority at operationally relevant distances, and the ability to contest air superiority will determine one's ability to project power.

The difference between maintaining a future sustained procurement rate of say only 20 J-20s a year, versus 50 a year, versus 100 a year, versus 120-150 a year, most definitely would have their effects felt at the strategic level across even a half decade's period of procurement (let alone the total active production run duration of an aircraft)... and the size of the J-20 fleet would of course determine the ability to contest air superiority at extended distances, which in turn determines the ability to project power by follow-on forces (whether it is naval or long range air power).

Putting it a different way, if the J-20 program had gone the way of the Su-57 program in terms of developmental pace and procurement scale, or even if they had gone the way of the F-22 program in development and procurement, the size of the J-20 fleet (and thus the deliverable effects) would be significantly lower, to potentially a magnitude lower than what it is now and where it is likely to be in the near future.

 

[Maikeru]

For me the one interesting nugget was the comparison between CAC's newly expanded 7.3m sq ft facility and the 4.3 msf F35 facility at Fort Worth. On top of which SAC has also had a big expansion recently, as well as (under the table and not much commented on here) Hongdu, who have a massive new facility that appears to churn out a handful of JL10s.

I think, as with SS(B)Ns, China has put in place facilities to produce warplanes at MASSIVELY expanded rates if it feels it has to.

 

[BoraTas]

He might be undercounting and discounting Chinese manufacturing numbers and J-20 capabilities vs F-35. But what he says about the strategic implications are indeed true and quite depressing for China to be honest. The fact that even if China produces 120+ J-20's per year, it still won't catchup to US and its anglo-saxon allies and client states in the Pacific such as Japan and Korea. They will still have almost 2 to 1 advantage in terms of number of planes. Yes, one could argue that they will never be able field more than 50% of those planes into a war against China due to large distances involved and logistics. But its still enough to put China on the defensive.

The takeaway is that China is still not investing enough on Air power and on its military overall. With China's manufacturing prowess, making 3-400 fighter jets per year should be easily doable. But China is making just enough planes to slowly get to parity with US+allies in maybe 15-20 years. But it will never get to a position of dominance where US will be afraid of even contemplating a fight with China and slowly get out of the west Pacific due to caution and fear. That's still a long way off.

That is a lot of mental gymnastics. This year PLA probably got more VLO aircraft than the US military and its rate of acquisition is probably not at planned levels, considering the aircraft still has interim engines to start with.

And you making the mistake of projecting incredibly maximalistic American geopolitical ambitions to China. The US became what it is today because European colonial empires blew each other up after conquering the planet. The USA was very successful but it wouldn't become a global hegemonic entity without colonial empires blowing each other up. At no point in the foreseeable future China will have the same opportunity or ambition (China was quite consistent in behavior since the late bronze age). In fact, I would argue that even the US would benefit from pulling back. China doesn't have ambitions like being able to "contain" the USA in North America.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

For me the one interesting nugget was the comparison between CAC's newly expanded 7.3m sq ft facility and the 4.3 msf F35 facility at Fort Worth. On top of which SAC has also had a big expansion recently, as well as (under the table and not much commented on here) Hongdu, who have a massive new facility that appears to churn out a handful of JL10s.

I think, as with SS(B)Ns, China has put in place facilities to produce warplanes at MASSIVELY expanded rates if it feels it has to.

It does make me consider about the possibility/potential where Hongdu would serve as a backup production site for Shenyang (in case Shenyang's production capability got gutted by technical malfunction, loss of electrical power, or enemy attack), while the same applies for Chengdu with Guizhou as the backup - And/or whether Shenyang and Chengdu would be responsible for the production of heavier, more complex and/or manned units, while Hongdu and Guizhou would be responsible for the production of lighter, less complex and/or unmanned units...

 

[tamsen_ikard]

That is a lot of mental gymnastics. This year PLA probably got more VLO aircraft than the US military and its rate of acquisition is probably not at planned levels, considering the aircraft still has interim engines to start with.

And you making the mistake of projecting incredibly maximalistic American geopolitical ambitions to China. The US became what it is today because European colonial empires blew each other up after conquering the planet. The USA was very successful but it wouldn't become a global hegemonic entity without colonial empires blowing each other up. At no point in the foreseeable future China will have the same opportunity or ambition (China was quite consistent in behavior since the late bronze age). In fact, I would argue that even the US would benefit from pulling back. China doesn't have ambitions like being able to "contain" the USA in North America.

I don't want to elaborate more on Chinese strategic goal since it will off topic for this thread. But its a clearly stated strategic goal for China to kick US out of west Pacific. China has openly talked many times how US should not meddle in the western Pacific as an outside power. That's diplomatic way of saying get out. China has many times told countries like Japan and Korea to not side with US, that's another way of saying don't rely on US anymore and kick them out.

That doesn't mean China wants to dominate the globe, which it clearly knows is not possible in this multipolar world. But it wants to make US realize its no possible to dominate the western Pacific and wants it to get out voluantarily without war. Its goal of Peaceful Reunification with Taiwan is also predicated on getting US to back down from its aggressive posture in the western Pacific.

China having an overwhelming advantage in air power will surely help realize this goal of peaceful dominance of western Pacific. But the way the hardware situation currently stands, they won't be able to convince US or its allies to back down.

If China had 4000+ modern planes and equally strong navy, would the US so openly dare talking about defeating China in a Taiwan war? Even now most think tanks assume China will surely lose if US fights against China in a Taiwan war. They openly create tabletop war games where US inflicts massive damage on Chinese fleet with Air power. Something that they never even imagine if China had 4-5000 modern fighter jets. So, China's current power and future power for atleast the next 10-15 years is not adequate to deter US intervention. China needs a lot more planes than its current production rate.

One explanation for this is that China is deliberately avoiding the Soviet fate. Which spent too much on defense and bankrupted itself in the process. So, it might be a sound strategy to focus on economics and gain more wealth first before building up the military.

But as things stand, China is still mostly defensive in its own backyard. Its the US that is offensive by building more and more bases and alliances and arming its neighbours and even arming the Rebel province. Chinese response for all these actions is basically keep its head down and spending just 1.5% of its GDP on military and sometimes doing military exercises. Very tame for a future Superpower.

 

[Deino]

Guys, I totally agree the US‘ arrogance is annoying, the reporting on this type in special and PLA modernization in Western media is shameful at best and to put it mildly testimony of pure arrogance and hubris but we should stick to the topic and concentrate on the J-20.

 

[james smith esq]

Personally, I prefer it that CAC didn’t spool production all the way up until the fully developed iteration is ready to go!

My fantasy is that one of the Chinese production lines will reach F-4/Mig-23 production levels (on a monthly/yearly rate, not a total)!

Would it be reasonable to expect an ‘official’ announcement that the J-20A with WS-15 had achieved sustained super-cruise capabilities, or should we expect to simply be required to deduce such?

 

[sr338]

Personally, I prefer it that CAC didn’t spool production all the way up until the fully developed iteration is ready to go!

My fantasy is that one of the Chinese production lines will reach F-4/Mig-23 production levels (on a monthly/yearly rate, not a total)!

Would it be reasonable to expect an ‘official’ announcement that the J-20A with WS-15 had achieved sustained super-cruise capabilities, or should we expect to simply be required to deduce such?

I thought the existing J-20 can all be retrofitted with WS-15