J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

tphuang said:

I think the biggest counter argument is why China never produced more than 40 J-10s a year. Was it due to budgetary reasons or industrial limitation. I think that's due to lack of domestic engine option and focusing on other aircraft projects like flankers. I mean the flanker production was about as high as J-10 despite the latter is cheaper. Maybe CAC was also occupied by J-20 project and JF-17. At this point, I think J-20 is clearly the 5th generation aircraft they prefer. While we anticipate FC-31 land version to join service in 5 or 6 years, there is no guarantee of that. Very soon, there will be no other fighter jet production at CAC. Most of the jet development work in the next 5 years will be surrounding J-20. There is also no longer engine constraints. For the next few years, there is a lot impetus to raise J-20 production imo. And I think they were already on a production pace of 40 to 50 J-20 aircraft by 2nd half of last year.

the question is whether they want to increase production further and how much further. There are several reasons for:
1) All the brigades really want J-20s. The difference in capability between J-20 and J-10C/J-16 is quite large. Shilao's podcast said that no aircraft in PLAAF has ever achieved this level of mythical status where everyone is clamoring for it.
2) Raising production rate also lowers the production cost and maintenance cost. J-20 production will get cheaper over time.
3) PLAAF looks to be expanding in size (if we go by the recent news of larger j-16 brigades), which would require higher production level for not just replacement but growth
4) Possibly limited SAC 5th gen production for PLAAF due to the more clear funding/priority given to naval variant.

arguments against:
1) maintenance cost should be higher than the aircraft it is replacing. Question whether or not that will exceed the budget they have (also that's the reason USAF is limiting its F-35A procurement)
2) Whether or not PLAAF can handle accepting more aircraft a year. That would involve training more pilots and such.

If budget is going up by 7% a year over the next 8 years. It will be 72% higher than now by the end of this decade. If they can keep J-20 production cost flat (even including inflationary pressure), we could be looking at 70% higher procurement and maintenance budget. Going from 45 J-20s + 24 J-10s a year to 80 J-20s a year would not lead to a 70% jump in procurement cost. If PLAAF is going from an Air Force of 1800 aircraft with 100 J-20s to a 2000 aircraft Air Force with a fleet 600 J-20s. And if we estimate j-20 maintenance to be twice as high as aircrafts that are going away (J-7/8/10), that's only about a 30% just in cost. If we apply 3% inflation on that, it still would not be 70% higher maintenance cost. Of course, PLAAF can lower their maintenance by reducing the number of fleet types. A lot more factors involved in there. I don't think cost alone would prevent them from expanding production rate to 80 a year by the end of this decade.

So, then the question is threat perception and whether or not PLAAF itself can accept so many new aircraft at a time and train them properly. That I don't have the answer to.


If that's the case, then J-20 don't need to be produced anymore, lol.

Click to expand...

Richard Santos said:

Some people’s notion of humor blithely betray such detachment from reality that he turned out to be just as funny as he thinks he is.

Click to expand...

by78 said:

And some think so highly of themselves that they jump at every opportunity to sprinkle their saliva on subjects they know precious little about. When contradicted and challenged by others, they go so far as to parade fake credentials in a pathetic attempt to maintain their smug self-image.

I'll take the humorless over the lying narcissist. Thank you.

I just noticed that you don't have an avatar image. Here, I found some you can use:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. I personally like the third one the best. Did you know that you can also edit your profile banner to better reflect your self-image? I suggest something long the lines of 太上懂王, or Grand and Exalted King of Knowledge.

P.S.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

did you get them super fancy degrees in engineering physics and astronautics? You never did tell us that, despite repeated requests.

Click to expand...

Hyper said:

Stop entertaining him. You are just giving him a higher ground.

Click to expand...

Hyper said:

There are more things to focus on than fighter jets.

Click to expand...

by78 said:

He's already impossibly elevated. I doubt my modest contribution amounts to much.

Click to expand...

tphuang said:

I think the biggest counter argument is why China never produced more than 40 J-10s a year. Was it due to budgetary reasons or industrial limitation. I think that's due to lack of domestic engine option and focusing on other aircraft projects like flankers. I mean the flanker production was about as high as J-10 despite the latter is cheaper. Maybe CAC was also occupied by J-20 project and JF-17. At this point, I think J-20 is clearly the 5th generation aircraft they prefer. While we anticipate FC-31 land version to join service in 5 or 6 years, there is no guarantee of that. Very soon, there will be no other fighter jet production at CAC. Most of the jet development work in the next 5 years will be surrounding J-20. There is also no longer engine constraints. For the next few years, there is a lot impetus to raise J-20 production imo. And I think they were already on a production pace of 40 to 50 J-20 aircraft by 2nd half of last year.

the question is whether they want to increase production further and how much further. There are several reasons for:
1) All the brigades really want J-20s. The difference in capability between J-20 and J-10C/J-16 is quite large. Shilao's podcast said that no aircraft in PLAAF has ever achieved this level of mythical status where everyone is clamoring for it.
2) Raising production rate also lowers the production cost and maintenance cost. J-20 production will get cheaper over time.
3) PLAAF looks to be expanding in size (if we go by the recent news of larger j-16 brigades), which would require higher production level for not just replacement but growth
4) Possibly limited SAC 5th gen production for PLAAF due to the more clear funding/priority given to naval variant.

arguments against:
1) maintenance cost should be higher than the aircraft it is replacing. Question whether or not that will exceed the budget they have (also that's the reason USAF is limiting its F-35A procurement)
2) Whether or not PLAAF can handle accepting more aircraft a year. That would involve training more pilots and such.

If budget is going up by 7% a year over the next 8 years. It will be 72% higher than now by the end of this decade. If they can keep J-20 production cost flat (even including inflationary pressure), we could be looking at 70% higher procurement and maintenance budget. Going from 45 J-20s + 24 J-10s a year to 80 J-20s a year would not lead to a 70% jump in procurement cost. If PLAAF is going from an Air Force of 1800 aircraft with 100 J-20s to a 2000 aircraft Air Force with a fleet 600 J-20s. And if we estimate j-20 maintenance to be twice as high as aircrafts that are going away (J-7/8/10), that's only about a 30% just in cost. If we apply 3% inflation on that, it still would not be 70% higher maintenance cost. Of course, PLAAF can lower their maintenance by reducing the number of fleet types. A lot more factors involved in there. I don't think cost alone would prevent them from expanding production rate to 80 a year by the end of this decade.

So, then the question is threat perception and whether or not PLAAF itself can accept so many new aircraft at a time and train them properly. That I don't have the answer to.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

So, IMO a 80-90 annually delivered 5th gen fighter per year by late 2020s/early 2030s sounds very likely -- but I think it entirely depends on whether they will be building an air force J-XY land based variant or not.

I agree with everything else, in terms of the broad stroke of the trends.

Click to expand...

kentchang said:

If I interpret Bradley Perett's Aviation Week article mentioned in the J-10 thread correctly, he doesn't think the Air Force will be buying any J-XY, PLAAF has already rejected the plane once and will likely wait for the 6th Gen around 2035 and perhaps build a J-10D in the interim. A preference for long range and high payload suggest the 6th Gen will be a heavy plane maybe with a deeper but still flat-bottomed weapons bay. This approach is also much more budget/life-cycle cost friendly. Another clue maybe the setting up of an export office for the J-XY at this early stage.

Click to expand...