Can't confirm, but it seems to be from July 23 to July 30.
Source:
J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Source:
No short selling intended, quite the opposite; second part of the same post is basically aimed at F-35 (and potential PLAAF multirole).
My concern with dedicated heavy air superiority type is that they're too expensive (life cycle) for that they are.
More capable fighter types matter the more, the less numbers and with lesser support we're talking about.
When we talk about high numbers and full force of force multipliers, raw number and serviceability(sortie generation) come first, as long as fighter does everything required.
In a blunt example - 12 Su-35s on a remote SCS island are many times the value of 12 JF-17(blk3) operating from the same island.
The difference will be huge, because every Su-35 by itself does so much more.
Yet a hypothetical force of 1000 Su-35 (+all awacs, refueling) won't be especially superior to a force of 1000 JF-17(same condition) in a direct clash, for many times more money (acquisition, operation), and many times less sorties/plane/time.
But you don't know about the acquisition, operations and logistics costs of the J20 as well uptime for sorties, plane etc.
Going with it overall being costlier than 4th gen planes like J10, J16 etc. Is probably a fine assumption for now, but they also bring very massive quality upgrades.
Two points
1. You can't use a low-end 4th gen versus high-end 4th gen comparison. The effectiveness of a 5th gen stealth fighter in air-to-air combat is many times greater than the difference between 4th gens
2. 1000 Vs 1000 comparisons don't work. At most, you'd be looking at individual battles comprising a realistic absolute maximum of 50 vs 50, and frequently much less. That means individual capability matters more.
Why? F-35 alone makes a good case that such a comparison exists.
Sure, F-35 isn't a light fighter in a proper sense - but it is still reliably cheaper and more sustainable to operate than a corresponding heavy type.
Also, we should really be careful of that "many times". After certain evaluations (like the Swiss competition), where different fighters were measured in points with huge difference between competitors(2-3-4-5 times), a lot of people started to assume that, I don't know, 1 Rafale is 3 Gripens because their score in OFCA is 3:1 (numbers for illustrative purposes).
This is not how it works, this is not what it means, and a nation that will try to fight according to this understanding of numbers will...suffer.
1000v1000 is a force comparison. In a 50v50 fight (100s of planes on the picture, and almost guaranteed WVR furball and FoF nightmare), individual plane capability matters almost nothing. Tactics and command work do the trick.
To the point that I personally suspect that a unit of properly networked j-7 with modern digital jammers and heatseekers will matter just fine in such an engagement.
Big, well-equipped fighters matter more on their own. The more you dilute the value of the individual plane - the less you gain.
If you look at the numbers, 100 J-20 per year is not overinvesting.
By 2030, you'd be looking at the following combat aircraft fleet
1000 J-20
2000 4th gens (J-11, J-16, J-10, JH-7, H-6, others)
This would be sufficient for air superiority in the 1st Island Chain. And remember that the US currently operates about 3000 combat aircraft.
Note that J-20s would only comprise one-third of the combat aircraft fleet in this scenario. The vast majority (1500+) will still be multirole 4th gens.
---
Then in a 2030-2040 timeframe, many of the 4th gens will be due for retirement and replacement by NGAD, even assuming that Chinese Air Force doesn't expand even more.
The kill ratios for a 5th gen versus 4th gen is more towards 10 times. That is because a 5th gen can snipe with BVR missiles at long range and then disengage. But a 4th gen has to get much closer for its missiles to track.
I think there is a place for a smaller stealth fighter (for defensive counter air for example), but the numbers required are limited for China. The focus is now on longer range power projection which does mean a heavyweight fighter.
Sorry, could you expand on what you mean by this?
While the F-35 is lighter than a twin engine heavy fighter like F-22 or J-20, the difference is far less stark than say the difference in MTOW of their 4th generation equivalents say between F-15 and F-16.
Furthermore, cost and sustainability of operation is not only about size and number of engines -- the fleet size of the aircraft in service, the design and technologies inherent to the aircraft itself in terms of ease of maintainability and upgradability, are all important.
For the PLA, the question of "should a medium weight 5th generation fighter be procured as a lower cost complement to J-20" always has to be asked in context of "how many hypothetical medium weight 5th gen fighters" and how many J-20s they imagine would be bought.
Because if the number of medium weight 5th gen fighters that are considered is not sufficiently sizeable relative to the number of J-20s that are envisioned to be bought, then the fleet size advantages of a medium weight 5th gen fighter very well may not exist given the development and testing costs.
Furthermore, if J-20 variants are in production with technologies and design features that would be present in a medium weight 5th gen fighter as well, then that further complicates the assumption that a medium weight 5th gen will be reliably cheaper and more sustainable to operate.
It may well be that buying only J-20s as the manned land based 5th generation fighter type for the PLA is the less costly choice in terms of money, aerospace resources and time (leaving aside the capability differences between J-20s and a land based medium weight 5th gen).
Then keep in mind other capabilities/platforms are emerging that may further influence the sort of force structure that the PLA may want and the role of manned fighter types among a number of different weight categories, due to the development of loyal wingman UCAVs. In terms of mission profile, weight class and relative cost, loyal wingman UCAVs would have a far bigger influence on the prospects of medium weight 5th gens due to overlap, than heavyweight 5th gens.
The difference in operational costs between the F-22 and F-35 that exist today simply are not the same for the PLA now and into the future vis a vis the notion of J-20 versus a hypothetical land based medium weight 5th gen fighter. The different strategic contexts, industrial contexts, capability/requirements, and program phases of the respective heavy weight and medium weight equivalents between the US and China, are so vast that at minimum, what is true for the F-22 and F-35 relationship cannot be assumed to be true for the relationship between J-20 and a hypothetical land based medium 5th gen.
All of this isn't to say that at the PLA definitely will not procure a land based medium weight 5th gen.
However, I do think it is very reasonable to consider it a possibility.
I also think it is reasonable to not assume that a medium weight 5th gen fighter for the PLA would be reliably cheaper and more sustainable to operate than J-20s.
China is basically the only country with a dual seater 5th gen design. I agree that will give it a leg up on designing such capabilities as drone control and swarm tactics compared with other countries.
Right. I said as much on the forum just recently. It is pie on the sky to think NGAD will enter service before the 2030s. Once they fly the first actual physical prototype you can expect it will take a decade before it enters service. The prototype has not flown yet.
The Russian fighter plants have been retooled in a continuous fashion for close to a decade by now. If they wanted to switch all production to 5th gens of course there would be delays and impacts to production. You see this happening in KnAAPO where the production ramp up has been quite slow. I doubt there will be major issues with workforce. Russia graduates more STEM students every year than the US does. And unlike the US, Russia puts a lot more emphasis into technical training with special schools for machinists and the like.
The Russian fighter pilot shortage can be, I think, mostly attributed to a lack of trainer aircraft. Which is a problem the Russians will have to solve eventually. The US is going through the same problem right now because of a lack of replacement for the now decrepit T-38 Talon. While production of the Yak-130 is back on track now that the Russians have made a replacement for the Ukrainian Al-222 engine in it, they still lack replacements for both the Yak-52 and L-39.
As for the F-35 threat it is one reason why I think China should develop its own single engine stealth design. But I think the F-35 design is overrated. It depends way too much on stealth and radar for its viability. The development of more modern radar or advanced ECM could make it utterly obsolete. As is, modern radar is already way more capable than the radars the F-35 was designed to go against in the first place, we already have GaN radar entering service and the Russians are investing into ROFAR. Basically a phased array LIDAR.
You can also debate if the internal bay configuration of the F-35 was a good idea or not. The most capable missile that NATO has, the Meteor, does not fit into it for example. The Su-57 has much longer internal bays than the F-35 and we might see this in other designs. This curiously means that the F-35 is seriously outmatched in terms of the long range missiles it can fire right now. Both Chinese and Russian.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
You are drawing totally the wrong conclusions. The J11D dying has little to do with the J16 and everything to do with the J20. A 4th gen heavyweight dedicated air superiority fighter is unnecessary when you have a heavyweight 5th gen air dominance fighter. The same reason is why J10C production has also massively ramped down.
Also, another reason for the PLAAF choosing J16s are down to realisation and acceptance of the unreasonable demands that would be placed on a single pilot to fully utilise both the advanced avionics and flight capabilities of a fighter as advanced as a J16/J11D. This is also why we are seeing the twin dear J20B.
The differences are only secondary when you can achieve air dominance against your strongest adversary using your second best, aka multirole fighters.
Can J16s go head-to-head against F22s and F35s and win? No? Then J16s should not be your primary focus and more J16 purchases can only be justified when you have in place a concurrent procurement strategy to acquire sufficient 5th gen air dominance fighters that can wrestle control of the skies from enemy 5th gens to create the pre-conditions necessary for J16s to do their thing.
China is spending 2% of its GDP on defence while the US is spending 3.5%. China has massive scope for affordable defence spending increases and it can easily afford to splurge on the J20 without worrying about needing to cut funding from elsewhere in the defence budget.
- Status