My idea of a modern PLAAF's combat fleet
- Thread starter F40Racer
- Start date
Roger604
Senior Member
I think it is pretty clear what PLAAF must accomplish in the next stage of development:
1) it must shift from the Flankers to future variants of the J-10
2) it must have both a fighter-bomber and a dedicated long range bomber
The only way to do this is to make the next generation of the J-10 -- the Super 10 -- a multirole fighter. And at the same time the PLAAF should develop its own long range stealth bomber.
1) it must shift from the Flankers to future variants of the J-10
2) it must have both a fighter-bomber and a dedicated long range bomber
The only way to do this is to make the next generation of the J-10 -- the Super 10 -- a multirole fighter. And at the same time the PLAAF should develop its own long range stealth bomber.
lol, I totally agree with Crobato's assessment. There is often the idea of cost/performance ratio. The problem with J-11, JH-7A and JF-17 is that they simply do not offer the same ratio as J-10. J-11 and JH-7A will get orders to keep their companies afloat. JF-17 will survive on export. But unless there is a total reversal of fortunes, J-10s will get most of the orders. Also, it would be interested to see whether or not J-10B will compete with JH-7A to replace ground attack regiments.
There are two ways to think of the J-10 numbers. Short term, probably 3 to 5 years, maybe we can expect about 300. Long term, when we all grow white hair and such, 600-700, perhaps even the 1200 to 1500 the Russians have rumored. China appears to keep things in the long run, but by then the J-10 would be much like the J-7 is now, highly evolved obsolete but cheaper to manufacture since the amortization cost has gone all the way down. It would be the low end to the J-XX.
I'm personally not sure if China needs a long range bomber. Bombers are useless without long range fighters to cover them. The survivability range of your bombers are only as good as the range of the fighters and that is not any better than the combat radius of a J-11 at most.
Would be nice to make J-11s into bombers, as they have the big airframe and the power to do it. But Russia only licensed China to make single seat versions, and it does appear that for modern PGM work, its better to have two persons, at least that is what China believed and expressed with the MKK being two seaters and the JH-7s as well. Though the Q-5s are single seaters but they fight as CAS or Close Air Support.
So currently I see the JH-7A serving as China's default strike bomber at the moment, along with cruise missile carrying H-6s. By the way, the long range nuclear bomber is the byproduct of the sixties, and its creation is not fostered by strategic necessity, but by politics---generals in both the US and Soviet side seeking to find some political relevance in the age of the ICBM and the IRBM. In essence, that's why ballistic subs are built, because that was the answer of both navies seeking nuclear relevance even though it wasn't necessary. Yet the combined power of land based missiles was more than enough to destroy human civilization many times over.
The PLAAF and the PLAN doesn't have the same political power as the airforces and the navies of the US and the Soviet Union. They was clearly both are second and third fiddles to the PLA and to the 2nd Artillery. Thus China never needed to field a true nuclear air force and navy. In hindsight, it was probably correct, in the age of long range missiles.
And it still is.
Much more important for China's needs compared to long range bombers are aerial AEW/C31/surveillance/ELINT/ECM, and as we are shown, that is already being addressed. In the future, China might need a more efficient cruise missile delivery truck, but you might find an airliner conversion might be better as compared to a slim supersonic low level bomber. Contrary to what people think, the requirements of a cruise missile truck is very different from a nuclear strike bomber, which has to penetrate enemy defenses to gravity drop a nuclear bomb. You need a large interior hold to hold the missiles, large wing span for lift and loiter, efficient turbofan engines for range and economy, large space inside to hold the electronic equipment used to sensor, survey and guide the cruise missiles. This is much closer to an airliner than to a Blinder or Blackjack.
But then the simpler solution is to fire cruise missiles from the ground, using a rocket booster to throw them at a certain height before their engines would take over.
In the end, investing the same amount of funds and resources to both ballistic and cruise missile development would pay off much more than developing a long range strategic bomber, which for me is a thing of the past.
I'm personally not sure if China needs a long range bomber. Bombers are useless without long range fighters to cover them. The survivability range of your bombers are only as good as the range of the fighters and that is not any better than the combat radius of a J-11 at most.
Would be nice to make J-11s into bombers, as they have the big airframe and the power to do it. But Russia only licensed China to make single seat versions, and it does appear that for modern PGM work, its better to have two persons, at least that is what China believed and expressed with the MKK being two seaters and the JH-7s as well. Though the Q-5s are single seaters but they fight as CAS or Close Air Support.
So currently I see the JH-7A serving as China's default strike bomber at the moment, along with cruise missile carrying H-6s. By the way, the long range nuclear bomber is the byproduct of the sixties, and its creation is not fostered by strategic necessity, but by politics---generals in both the US and Soviet side seeking to find some political relevance in the age of the ICBM and the IRBM. In essence, that's why ballistic subs are built, because that was the answer of both navies seeking nuclear relevance even though it wasn't necessary. Yet the combined power of land based missiles was more than enough to destroy human civilization many times over.
The PLAAF and the PLAN doesn't have the same political power as the airforces and the navies of the US and the Soviet Union. They was clearly both are second and third fiddles to the PLA and to the 2nd Artillery. Thus China never needed to field a true nuclear air force and navy. In hindsight, it was probably correct, in the age of long range missiles.
And it still is.
Much more important for China's needs compared to long range bombers are aerial AEW/C31/surveillance/ELINT/ECM, and as we are shown, that is already being addressed. In the future, China might need a more efficient cruise missile delivery truck, but you might find an airliner conversion might be better as compared to a slim supersonic low level bomber. Contrary to what people think, the requirements of a cruise missile truck is very different from a nuclear strike bomber, which has to penetrate enemy defenses to gravity drop a nuclear bomb. You need a large interior hold to hold the missiles, large wing span for lift and loiter, efficient turbofan engines for range and economy, large space inside to hold the electronic equipment used to sensor, survey and guide the cruise missiles. This is much closer to an airliner than to a Blinder or Blackjack.
But then the simpler solution is to fire cruise missiles from the ground, using a rocket booster to throw them at a certain height before their engines would take over.
In the end, investing the same amount of funds and resources to both ballistic and cruise missile development would pay off much more than developing a long range strategic bomber, which for me is a thing of the past.
To me, while looking at the developments of the past 10-15 years, it seems china wants to catch up with the western world. If we go along with that assumption, it becomes apparent that china can not afford to have life cycles of their planes be as long as ones in the west. As we speak, there should be preliminary designs worked out so that, after a hefty development phase, j-10 successor can start being fielded by 2020.
If that means just 500 j-10s built until then, so be it. Though that is another huge issue, really - the low rate production that seems to pester every single of chinese plane producers. Chengdu seems to be the biggest, no? But now its production capacities will be making 3 types of fighters. Wouldn't it be benefitial if at least j-7G version went out of production and made room for j-10? Or even FC1, so then once that is out of the way those production capacities can be added to j-10 ones.
I find it unacceptable that chinese seem to be pursuing high, low, super low mix of fighters. Sure, in transitional periods it is always like that but i think it is actually more costly, in the long run, to use 3 diff fighters and maintain production for them. High-low mix is quite enough.
Also, goverment support is taking some efficiency away. Too many plane producers getting help. It is a priority that many of them merge and that china is left with preferrably two but at most 3 plane producers who would then be true competitors for govt. programs.
Overall number of diff planes would go down then, of course, but that is a good thing. Close air support or battlefield interdiction as it is done today should be a thing of the past. Way too dangerous. Instead use precise munitions and any fighter-bomber can do it. So q5 is out of action. When numbers of j10 and j11 are enough (assuming j11 are gonna get another licence contract for 100-200 planes as j11b) remove ALL the j7 and j8. What one would be left with is then j10, j11 as fighters, hi-low mix where high isnt necessarily better tech but just larger size and all the benefits size brings with it, jh7 as a strike plane for both PLAAF and PLANAF and then h6 as missile carrier, unless some better plane can share that role - transport plane or airliner.
US, for example, is making huge steps with each new generation of planes. But it takes them 30 years to make each step. And it costs them A LOT to be ahead of the curve. Why not be slightly behind them on that curve, and instead of making monumental leaps with each new generation, make slightly smaller steps, but launch new plane each 18-20 years? In the short term, yes, it might even be a bit more expensive, but not only would you have a more responsive force to the needs of the era but in the long term your technology base would grow faster, better, less prone to mistakes than with slow, huge steps. I just hope there will be money to fuel both the j11 and j10 successor at the same time.
If that means just 500 j-10s built until then, so be it. Though that is another huge issue, really - the low rate production that seems to pester every single of chinese plane producers. Chengdu seems to be the biggest, no? But now its production capacities will be making 3 types of fighters. Wouldn't it be benefitial if at least j-7G version went out of production and made room for j-10? Or even FC1, so then once that is out of the way those production capacities can be added to j-10 ones.
I find it unacceptable that chinese seem to be pursuing high, low, super low mix of fighters. Sure, in transitional periods it is always like that but i think it is actually more costly, in the long run, to use 3 diff fighters and maintain production for them. High-low mix is quite enough.
Also, goverment support is taking some efficiency away. Too many plane producers getting help. It is a priority that many of them merge and that china is left with preferrably two but at most 3 plane producers who would then be true competitors for govt. programs.
Overall number of diff planes would go down then, of course, but that is a good thing. Close air support or battlefield interdiction as it is done today should be a thing of the past. Way too dangerous. Instead use precise munitions and any fighter-bomber can do it. So q5 is out of action. When numbers of j10 and j11 are enough (assuming j11 are gonna get another licence contract for 100-200 planes as j11b) remove ALL the j7 and j8. What one would be left with is then j10, j11 as fighters, hi-low mix where high isnt necessarily better tech but just larger size and all the benefits size brings with it, jh7 as a strike plane for both PLAAF and PLANAF and then h6 as missile carrier, unless some better plane can share that role - transport plane or airliner.
US, for example, is making huge steps with each new generation of planes. But it takes them 30 years to make each step. And it costs them A LOT to be ahead of the curve. Why not be slightly behind them on that curve, and instead of making monumental leaps with each new generation, make slightly smaller steps, but launch new plane each 18-20 years? In the short term, yes, it might even be a bit more expensive, but not only would you have a more responsive force to the needs of the era but in the long term your technology base would grow faster, better, less prone to mistakes than with slow, huge steps. I just hope there will be money to fuel both the j11 and j10 successor at the same time.
FreeAsia2000
Junior Member
Fantastic posts guys.
However before deciding what type of combat fleet they want shouldn't
the PLAAF look at the nature of any future threat in order to assess
what proportion of aircraft to dedicate to each role ?
However before deciding what type of combat fleet they want shouldn't
the PLAAF look at the nature of any future threat in order to assess
what proportion of aircraft to dedicate to each role ?
IMO the EU arms emargo will prolly remain until 2010 or after. So the only major foreign source for weapon systems is Russia. The PRC should improve its relations with India and aim for joint Russian-Indian-Chinese R&D projects to balance the current trend of US-courtship to India. The PAK-FA would be an excellent project to consider, but the aircraft won't be ready until 2012-2015.
As an interim solution, the PLANAF could obtain, by 2012-2015, a force of ~100 Su-30MKK/MKK2, 100-200 Su-34, 100-200 Su-35, ~100 JH-7, and 30-60 IL-78 refueling tankers. This fleet of some 500-600 aircraft will be tasked with defending PRC's coastal region in maritime strike role. Existing fleet of J-8's and H-6's will be placed in reserve or category B units, and eventually retired. The Sukhoi aircraft should be domsetically assembled with as much domestic content as possible. Russians are great at R&D, but their production quality control is... not very good.
The PLAAF, by 2012-2015, could have ~300 Su-27SK/J-11's, 300-500 J-10's, 100-200 FC-1's, 100-200 L-15's, and 50-100 JH-7's. This force of some 1,000-1,200 aircraft will be the core of PLAAF's 4th generation aircraft. The L-15's can serve in CAS role -- assuming the specs are similiar to Yak-130, it has superior range and payload than Q-5's. Existing J-7/J-8/Q-5 will be placed in reserve or category B units, and eventually retired.
Moving to 2015-2020, only improved versions of J-10, FC-1, and L-15 will be in production from the 4th generation combat aircraft list. The J-10 will represent PLAAF's standard multirole fighter, and the FC-1 will replace J-7 as the low-cost export fighter, a 2-seat trainer version should also be made (instead of using JL-9's). HAIG should partner with OAK/Yakalov to further improve the L-15 for greater range, payload, and combat capability:
Assuming that the PAK-FA project is a success, domestic assembly/production of PAK-FA should start by 2015. The J-XX project should benefit from the technology transfer and begin limited production by this time.
As an interim solution, the PLANAF could obtain, by 2012-2015, a force of ~100 Su-30MKK/MKK2, 100-200 Su-34, 100-200 Su-35, ~100 JH-7, and 30-60 IL-78 refueling tankers. This fleet of some 500-600 aircraft will be tasked with defending PRC's coastal region in maritime strike role. Existing fleet of J-8's and H-6's will be placed in reserve or category B units, and eventually retired. The Sukhoi aircraft should be domsetically assembled with as much domestic content as possible. Russians are great at R&D, but their production quality control is... not very good.
The PLAAF, by 2012-2015, could have ~300 Su-27SK/J-11's, 300-500 J-10's, 100-200 FC-1's, 100-200 L-15's, and 50-100 JH-7's. This force of some 1,000-1,200 aircraft will be the core of PLAAF's 4th generation aircraft. The L-15's can serve in CAS role -- assuming the specs are similiar to Yak-130, it has superior range and payload than Q-5's. Existing J-7/J-8/Q-5 will be placed in reserve or category B units, and eventually retired.
Moving to 2015-2020, only improved versions of J-10, FC-1, and L-15 will be in production from the 4th generation combat aircraft list. The J-10 will represent PLAAF's standard multirole fighter, and the FC-1 will replace J-7 as the low-cost export fighter, a 2-seat trainer version should also be made (instead of using JL-9's). HAIG should partner with OAK/Yakalov to further improve the L-15 for greater range, payload, and combat capability:
Assuming that the PAK-FA project is a success, domestic assembly/production of PAK-FA should start by 2015. The J-XX project should benefit from the technology transfer and begin limited production by this time.
Last edited:
While I agree that EU embargo won't be lifted anytime soon, I don't believe that will result or should result in any further major purchases from Russia. Only possibilites for a purchase i see in aircraft carrier capable fighters if such a ship is indeed put into operation within the next decade and maybe, maybe the su-34. If russians allow its sale AND if its competitivly priced to the jh7a, for what it offers, of course.
Politically, i can't agree more that getting closer to India is an absolute must. Even at a cost of economic deals with India that benefit it more than they benefit China. It is just way too dangerous to get left out of the loop and wake up one day with an India-USA alliance on china's western borders. Being a part of PAK FA project seems very beneficial, if Russia gives china equal terms.
If the spey engines for jh7a can be produced in whatever numbers desired, there is no reason why china couldn't field 250+ units by 2012, basically adding just 25 a year. Also, i would hope that by that time all but E/G versions of j7 and F version of j8 be retired and by 2020 they should all be scrapped. I do believe that with gradually increasing production capacities, all those planes could be replaced with j11/j10 class planes on true 1:1 basis.
Politically, i can't agree more that getting closer to India is an absolute must. Even at a cost of economic deals with India that benefit it more than they benefit China. It is just way too dangerous to get left out of the loop and wake up one day with an India-USA alliance on china's western borders. Being a part of PAK FA project seems very beneficial, if Russia gives china equal terms.
If the spey engines for jh7a can be produced in whatever numbers desired, there is no reason why china couldn't field 250+ units by 2012, basically adding just 25 a year. Also, i would hope that by that time all but E/G versions of j7 and F version of j8 be retired and by 2020 they should all be scrapped. I do believe that with gradually increasing production capacities, all those planes could be replaced with j11/j10 class planes on true 1:1 basis.
well, the issue is that even if european embargo is lifted, it's unlike China will make any kind of major fighter purchases from the Europeans. One, they will get some kind of downgraded product due to pressure from the Americans. Two, they have enough faith in their own platforms that they will feel it would not be worth it. Three, the cost issue is huge. I'm sure the cost/performance ratio of J-10 is amongst the best out there. Finally, China is looking to have a self-sufficient industry and buying foreign plane is really not the way to go.
As for PAK-FA, I think the Russians have reservation about China's respect toward IP. And on the Chinese side, it might not have that much to gain by working with the Russians. Even if PAK-FA comes out 5 years ahead of J-XX, is it really worth it for China to give money to the Russians and leave less money for its own 5th generation development?
No matter, what, you can't match the USAF. So its useless trying. The USAF alone has a budget that is almost five to six times the size of the entire PLA official budget. The development cost of the F-22 is as much as the entire PLA budget for 2006 alone.
I do agree that China is inefficient pursuing lo-med-hi mix of fighters plus dedicated role types.
As the planes become more and more complex, China has to produce a lot more of the single same type to justify its costs. This is one reason why I think China is going to lose even money if it procures only 300 J-10s. In hindsight, the roughly 300 J-8II examples (maybe 300-400) may not be a valid historical comparison, because the cost of developing the J-8II is no doubt much much lower than the J-10 even if adjusted to inflation.
The current Chinese aviation military-industrial complex has woven itself into a corner where:
- Every company from each region has to be subsidized somehow. Each region has their politicians in the Party lobbying for them to get their share of the pie. That's why you see a lot of redundancy (the 052C and 051C ships are examples.)
- Facing a myriad of old and new types, with old ones being upgraded. Again, plenty of redudancy.
Facing political pressures, probably there is no room to acquire Su-34. So doing might also force you to buy Russian AshMs, and apparently even the PLANAF has abandoned intended prospects like the Kh-59MK. The PLANAF would acquire a modified J-11 for carrier training if they so wish to have a carrier. It's possible they will also acquire navalized J-10s, e.g. with ASM roles. PLAN appears to be very confident of local ASM development that they will stick to local platforms of delivery.
How much of these depends how much the PLAAF/PLANAF budget would grow over the years.
I do agree that China is inefficient pursuing lo-med-hi mix of fighters plus dedicated role types.
As the planes become more and more complex, China has to produce a lot more of the single same type to justify its costs. This is one reason why I think China is going to lose even money if it procures only 300 J-10s. In hindsight, the roughly 300 J-8II examples (maybe 300-400) may not be a valid historical comparison, because the cost of developing the J-8II is no doubt much much lower than the J-10 even if adjusted to inflation.
The current Chinese aviation military-industrial complex has woven itself into a corner where:
- Every company from each region has to be subsidized somehow. Each region has their politicians in the Party lobbying for them to get their share of the pie. That's why you see a lot of redundancy (the 052C and 051C ships are examples.)
- Facing a myriad of old and new types, with old ones being upgraded. Again, plenty of redudancy.
Facing political pressures, probably there is no room to acquire Su-34. So doing might also force you to buy Russian AshMs, and apparently even the PLANAF has abandoned intended prospects like the Kh-59MK. The PLANAF would acquire a modified J-11 for carrier training if they so wish to have a carrier. It's possible they will also acquire navalized J-10s, e.g. with ASM roles. PLAN appears to be very confident of local ASM development that they will stick to local platforms of delivery.
How much of these depends how much the PLAAF/PLANAF budget would grow over the years.