PLA Air Force news, pics and videos

mack8

Junior Member
Not sure if this is the right place, but came across this latest estimate of the PRC vs US fighter forces and their composition. I'm not quite sure what to make of the GaN AESA figures for China (does this mean that most pre-2020 built fighters such as J-20, J-16 etc. have GaAs AESA?), but perhaps more knowledgeable folks have a better idea.
1761468176891.jpeg
 

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Not sure if this is the right place, but came across this latest estimate of the PRC vs US fighter forces and their composition. I'm not quite sure what to make of the GaN AESA figures for China (does this mean that most pre-2020 built fighters such as J-20, J-16 etc. have GaAs AESA?), but perhaps more knowledgeable folks have a better idea.
View attachment 163340

I'm not sure about those fleet size estimates, some of them (like J-20A/S, J-35 and J-35A) seem somewhat high.
The breakdown of certain aircraft types also seems far too detailed. I'm also not the original OP tabulating the numbers is and why they are worth discussing.

However, to answer your question about GaN and GaA -- well yes, we know that the recent fighter types and variants (J-20A, J-20S, J-35/A likely as well) or batches (such as J-16, probably J-16D J-15T, J-15DT) produced for the PLA should be using GaN AESAs.

Fighter aircraft with AESAs (J-20, J-16, J-10C, among others) that were produced for multiple years in the 2010s prior to the most recent types, of course would be using GaA AESAs given its the antecedent technology prior to GaN, I don't see how that is a matter of confusion.
 

Tomboy

Senior Member
Registered Member
May I ask where is this taken and when?
Since we're talking about high-supersonic if not hypersonic aircraft (honestly I'd prefer the latter to be the case) that is capable of taking-off and landing with its own propulsion - This would mean operational altitudes ranging from 20 to 40 kilometers (or ~66000 to ~131000 feet) with TBCC engines.

In this regard, strategic ISTAR would be a good start, where the advantages of extreme high speeds and altitudes relative to the Malan WZ-X means the ability to quickly transit to areas of interests, especially when dealing with time-sensitive and objective-critical missions and/or targets, alongside the ability to better evade interception efforts than its mid-subsonic counterparts.

From there, we could advance further into having shallow IWBs for intercepting enemy airborne assets at ultra-long-range distances using ULRAAMs with (largely) ballistic trajectories. Moreover, if the ULRAAMs have certain hypersonic gliding capabilities, the effective interception ranges could be expanded even further.

There could also be the potential with ASAT capabilities, though I caution against going any further than that, especially considering the immense degree of complexity, challenges and costs of which such platforms' procurement and operation would entail.
But why manned, these could be done simply with drones nowadays if the goal was simply ISR. IMO, I also doubt the survivability of these high supersonic aircraft over highly defended territory when we already have terminal ABM capable of taking down much faster maneuvering targets like the HQ-19, PAC 3 MSE etc. It seems more likely that China is trying to develop a MiG-41 type interceptor with ULRAAMs.
 

ismellcopium

Junior Member
Registered Member
Fighter aircraft with AESAs (J-20, J-16, J-10C, among others) that were produced for multiple years in the 2010s prior to the most recent types, of course would be using GaA AESAs given its the antecedent technology prior to GaN, I don't see how that is a matter of confusion.
I thought GaN was thought to have been introduced earlier than that? Unless the technology lagged on fighter radars substantially compared to other platforms.
 

bsdnf

Junior Member
Registered Member
Hypersonic aircraft are certainly worth studying. In my opinion, horizontal takeoff and landing reusable space launch systems based on these technologies can truly open the door to a low-cost space age, which is far more valuable than developing a new-era Blackbird.
It was true before reusable rockets, but the commercial cost of aerospace planes is higher than that of reusable rockets, aerospace planes are more for strategic/military purposes.
 

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I thought GaN was thought to have been introduced earlier than that? Unless the technology lagged on fighter radars substantially compared to other platforms.

Yes, we knew they had GaN AESAs for other applications including products offered for export.

I am saying specifically, for fighter aircraft, they probably were produced with GaA AESAs until the late 2010s or early 2020s.
 
Top