J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[Gloire_bb]

Fair enough, I can't imagine what it would be like if the J-20 carried 4 rocket pods ......

But jokes aside, I can only see two types of multirole task for J-20 in the near future:
1. Carry Chinese version of AARGM-ER for SEAD task
2. J-20s commanding unmanned wingmen.

BTW, this picture looks like a shot from the movie 'Born to Fly' ...

Why?
For both China and Russia, we know about whole range of new 4.2x0.4x0.4 munitions made to fit bays of the respective countries.

J-20 is air superiority first, sure, but it's certainly perfectly capable at executing anti-ship strike/pgm attack in principle.
The only thing we don't know is if it has any LRF/pointer.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Keep in mind that with their implementation of Rapid Raptor style deployments it is no longer wise to estimate the strength of each TC by the quality and quantity of their aerial assets. Take for instance J-16s from Chongqing (WTC). These days the pilots spend most of their time in the ETC because that is where they are being rotated to the most.

 

[Hitomi]

The latest J-10 variant, i.e. J-10C is barely 7/8 years old for the oldest airframe. The J-10B, whilst older, is barely 10 years old for the oldest airframe.

For a typical fighter jet which is flown for ~200 hours per year and with proper regular maintenance, the jet can typically last for around 30-40 years before necessitating retirement. Of course, the service lifetimes of fighter jet airframes also varies between different fighter jet types and countries.

In this case, the J-10Bs and J-10Cs should be able to serve with the PLAAF until the 2040s, if not the 2050s. This is especially true that as China continues to advance in the material science and engineering domain over the past few decades, newer variants/airframes should have longer service lifetimes than the older variants/airframes.

In the meantime, I don't think that the J-10A would last beyond the second half of the 2030s, even with the recent AESA upgrade to J-10AG. China might as well sell them to friendly countries with tight budgets (less likely), or convert them into aerial target drones for target practice and munition testing (more likely).

As good as the J-10 is, it was built in an era when the PLA was still catching up and I would say that it's fate is pretty much sealed at the current rate of advancement of the PLA. It can hold its own in a total war with the US, but if China has the capacity to replace them with J-20/J-35/J-16, it should.

 

[AndrewS]

Of course ideally to station J-20 and J-16 everywhere, but resources is always limited and not wise to waste it

To add on the budgetary aspect:

Let's suppose J-20 production is at 100 per year and this continues for another 10 years.

Annual procurement costs would be about $11 Bn
In 10 years, there would be about 1400 aircraft in total. If annual operating costs are comparable to the F-35 ($7 Mn), that comes to $10 Bn

So the annual cost is $21 Bn. That works out as 0.12% of today's GDP.
It's not that significant when you consider the gap between:

a) China at 1.7% (as per SIPRI figures)
b) the US at 3.4%

Remember that China is already matching or exceeding the US in terms of procurement of every other major Navy or Air Force platform. Stealth Fighters (and nuclear submarines) was one of the last to ramp up.

 

[Gloire_bb]

As good as the J-10 is, it was built in an era when the PLA was still catching up and I would say that it's fate is pretty much sealed at the current rate of advancement of the PLA. It can hold its own in a total war with the US, but if China has the capacity to replace them with J-20/J-35/J-16, it should.

Unless something is very wrong with J-10 design, it's a wrong decision to make.
Lighter single-engined aircraft imply a much higher operational tempo and base footprint. It's simply more sorties per plane per time, from a much more dispersable and hideable aircraft.
And, as the tanker fleet grows, at the highest level(overall force), range/projection equation will start favoring smaller(less thirsty) aircraft, too - when there is tanker support, it matters less, how much individual aircraft had on them at takeoff. It matters how many you can refill, and how fast they'll go through this volume.

It's often assumed that twin-, larger- aircraft is a more advanced and offensive stance. In actuality, it's the opposite - for the 1st tier air forces (read USAF, but now, increasingly, PLAAF; not naval branches, there the situation is different), lighter offensive aircraft are a bargain.

 

[Deino]

...

BTW, this picture looks like a shot from the movie 'Born to Fly' ...

Indeed, it's a movie-patch only!

Special thanks to @吕青松 on FB!

 

[AndrewS]

Unless something is very wrong with J-10 design, it's a wrong decision to make.
Lighter single-engined aircraft imply a much higher operational tempo and base footprint. It's simply more sorties per plane per time, from a much more dispersable and hideable aircraft.
And, as the tanker fleet grows, at the highest level(overall force), range/projection equation will start favoring smaller(less thirsty) aircraft, too - when there is tanker support, it matters less, how much individual aircraft had on them at takeoff. It matters how many you can refill, and how fast they'll go through this volume.

It's often assumed that twin-, larger- aircraft is a more advanced and offensive stance. In actuality, it's the opposite - for the 1st tier air forces (read USAF, but now, increasingly, PLAAF; not naval branches, there the situation is different), lighter offensive aircraft are a bargain.

If you're operating an aircraft near its base or if China was simply defending, you could make that argument.
But the Chinese mainland is essentially secure now, so the Chinese Air Force is shifting to distant power projection.

---

Let's take operations in the 1st Island Chain (think Japan, Okinawa, East China Seas, Philippines) as an example

A J-10 presumably has about 2 hours on internal fuel, assuming it is comparable to an F-16
To reach these locations, a J-10 requires tanker aircraft.

In comparison, the Flanker and J-20 airframes are designed around 4 hours of cruise speed on internal fuel
But the Flanker and J-20 should have enough internal fuel and shouldn't require a tanker.

And let's say we're talking about time-on-station and sufficient fuel for combat operations (say with afterburners or a large payload).
The J-10 is a lot less capable, even if we account for equivalent airborne tankers being available.

---

And this doesn't account for the difference in payload capacity or capability of a larger airframe.

 

[Gloire_bb]

A J-10 presumably has about 2 hours on internal fuel, assuming it is comparable to an F-16
To reach these locations, a J-10 requires tanker aircraft.

In comparison, the Flanker and J-20 airframes are designed around 4 hours of cruise speed on internal fuel
But the Flanker and J-20 should have enough internal fuel and shouldn't require a tanker.

But when a tanker is already within the equation ("rich air force") - one engine of J-10(50% of J-16/20 just by that count alone) carries much less of aircraft.
It means, for instance, when both are already in air, and initial fuel expenditure doesn't matter that much - one tanker will literally refuel twice the number of aircraft, for more or less the same additional time on station.

On top of that - when smaller aircraft have to rotate home(for example, it used its missiles, etc), they will rotate on the ground much faster. It's especially so for "delivery" type of operations (strike), where rotation(not loiter) is at a premium.
It may operate from a less secure, closer-located forward airfield. Flanker or J-20 can't be hidden in anything lesser than a dedicated, large shelter.

Writing off light fighters is very, very premature.

The J-10 is a lot less capable, even if we account for equivalent airborne tankers being available.

In a larger scheme of things(i.e. other than long-range independent operations), it's less important.
I'd even argue that for this situation(large external shared data input), for most of the force, much lesser signature of J-10c is probably much more of an asset than the larger sensor capacity of a flanker.

For large-scale combat, those 7-something squadrons of J-10C can probably give a short/medium/long-term sortie generation of several times the number of flankers(the longer, the more). And since it's sorties that contribute to the effort, not just the number of aircraft - they're disproportionally important, despite their lower "cool factor".

 

[AndrewS]

But when a tanker is already within the equation ("rich air force") - one engine of J-10(50% of J-16/20 just by that count alone) carries much less of aircraft.
It means, for instance, when both are already in air, and initial fuel expenditure doesn't matter that much - one tanker will literally refuel twice the number of aircraft, for more or less the same additional time on station.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "much less of aircraft"

Also remember the Chinese Air Force today barely has any tankers, compared to the USAF with 500 tankers for its 2000 combat aircraft.

But in 10 years time, there could be 240 additional Y-20 tankers.
And if each tanker is capable of supporting 4 fighters (as per USAF doctrine), there will still be a "shortage" of Chinese airborne tankers.

On top of that - when smaller aircraft have to rotate home(for example, it used its missiles, etc), they will rotate on the ground much faster. It's especially so for "delivery" type of operations (strike), where rotation(not loiter) is at a premium.
It may operate from a less secure, closer-located forward airfield. Flanker or J-20 can't be hidden in anything lesser than a dedicated, large shelter.

You arguably can't "hide" aircraft operations anymore, given the huge numbers of satellites these days. Think satellite revisit times of 10 minutes

And I don't understand why a J-10 would be able to rotate faster than a larger fighter.
You would be operating from the same airbase (and distance) and loading the same number of weapons.

Writing off light fighters is very, very premature.

In a larger scheme of things(i.e. other than long-range independent operations), it's less important.
I'd even argue that for this situation(large external shared data input), for most of the force, much lesser signature of J-10c is probably much more of an asset than the larger sensor capacity of a flanker.

For large-scale combat, those 7-something squadrons of J-10C can probably give a short/medium/long-term sortie generation of several times the number of flankers(the longer, the more). And since it's sorties that contribute to the effort, not just the number of aircraft - they're disproportionally important, despite their lower "cool factor".

You're still only looking at a sustained 1 long-duration sortie per day, irrespective of whether it is a J-10 or a heavier fighter.

---

And long-range operations is where the bulk of future Chinese Air Force operations will be.

---

Now, if you're looking at CAP or DCA operations next to a J-10C airbase, it makes sense to continue using the J-10C since they:
1. have already been paid for and have lower operating costs than heavier J-20/J-16 fighters
2. can now carry 6 PL-15 class missiles, which compares favourably with those heavier fighters
3. there are only 7 J-10C Brigades in total, so you'd only be looking at 1-2 Brigades in each area. So there would almost certainly be a number of J-20 brigades in the same area. So the non-stealthy nature of the J-10C shouldn't be a big issue.

But if we get to the point where the Chinese Air Force has to start standing up entirely new airbases and brigade personnel for J-20 units, it's likely more cost-effective to retire a J-10C unit and replace it with J-20. The key metric being [long-range air-to-air combat capability versus cost] and it is still able to perform a CAP/DCA mission.

This argument becomes even stronger if Chinese Airbases and the Chinese mainland aren't expected to come under serious attack. We can already see this with Russian territory being defacto "off-limits" in the current Russia-Ukraine war.

 

[Maikeru]

I don't quite understand what you mean by "much less of aircraft"

Also remember the Chinese Air Force today barely has any tankers, compared to the USAF with 500 tankers for its 2000 combat aircraft.

But in 10 years time, there could be 240 additional Y-20 tankers.
And if each tanker is capable of supporting 4 fighters (as per USAF doctrine), there will still be a "shortage" of Chinese airborne tankers.



You arguably can't "hide" aircraft operations anymore, given the huge numbers of satellites these days. Think satellite revisit times of 10 minutes

And I don't understand why a J-10 would be able to rotate faster than a larger fighter.
You would be operating from the same airbase (and distance) and loading the same number of weapons.



You're still only looking at a sustained 1 long-duration sortie per day, irrespective of whether it is a J-10 or a heavier fighter.

---

And long-range operations is where the bulk of future Chinese Air Force operations will be.

---

Now, if you're looking at CAP or DCA operations next to a J-10C airbase, it makes sense to continue using the J-10C since they:
1. have already been paid for and have lower operating costs than heavier J-20/J-16 fighters
2. can now carry 6 PL-15 class missiles, which compares favourably with those heavier fighters
3. there are only 7 J-10C Brigades in total, so you'd only be looking at 1-2 Brigades in each area. So there would almost certainly be a number of J-20 brigades in the same area. So the non-stealthy nature of the J-10C shouldn't be a big issue.

But if we get to the point where the Chinese Air Force has to start standing up entirely new airbases and brigade personnel for J-20 units, it's likely more cost-effective to retire a J-10C unit and replace it with J-20. The key metric being [long-range air-to-air combat capability versus cost] and it is still able to perform a CAP/DCA mission.

This argument becomes even stronger if Chinese Airbases and the Chinese mainland aren't expected to come under serious attack. We can already see this with Russian territory being defacto "off-limits" in the current Russia-Ukraine war.

Will PLAAF implement an ANG/AFRES type arrangement whereby part timers such as airline pilots maintain currency on older aircraft like J-10, J-11 and JH-7? Seems a lot more useful than simply retiring these airframes whilst they still have a lot of hours left.