Well, but none of them can afford a fifth generation high-end fighter in the class of the J-35 let alone together with an aircraft carrier!
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
Well, but none of them can afford a fifth generation high-end fighter in the class of the J-35 let alone together with an aircraft carrier!
Indonesian economy is the 7th or 16th in the world...
China will have more than enough J-20, J-16, J-11, J-10, and UAVs to deal with conflicts involving its immediate neighbors. The J-31 would be overkill. The only real concerns for China are distant threats posed by the U.S. and Japan. The PLAAF will need combat aircraft with long legs that can support the PLAN and can keep the massive U.S. Navy at bay.
The J-31 isn't it. It's a medium fighter unlikely to have enough range to keep up with the flankers and the J-20. I suspect that production of J-10C was halted for this same reason.
I expect the J-31 will be an export-only variant, with avionics appropriately downgraded for reasons of operational security. I doubt the J-31 will ever be inducted into the PLAAF.
The J-31 isn't it. It's a medium fighter unlikely to have enough range to keep up with the flankers and the J-20. I suspect that production of J-10C was halted for this same reason.
I expect the J-31 will be an export-only variant, with avionics appropriately downgraded for reasons of operational security. I doubt the J-31 will ever be inducted into the PLAAF.
This much is true. But they do not need the J-20 in all operational theaters. To guard against the Central Asian and Northern borders it isn't necessary. In case of an intervention in the Korean peninsula the long range of the J-20 also isn't necessary. Or against Taiwan. The J-31 would be perfectly ok in these theaters of operations. It is in case of long range operations against Japan, Vietnam, India, Phillipines, or Guam that the long range of the J-20 becomes useful.
For how long has J-10 production already been halted?
J-31/35 is clearly not a replacement for the J-10 platform. For starters, even a J-35 PLAAF land based platform is going to be more than 2x the cost of a J-10. I can see turning off J-10 production and filling PLAAF's current generation of new fighters with J-35 serving as a "low" end mix with J-20 + J-16 serving as heavy weights. In some ways that would be "replacing" the J-10 with its next generation direct position filler in the PLAAF but the J-10C is extremely good as a frontline fighter serving on coastal and border airbases. Three drop tanks, in-flight refuel capable, and all that range with 4x PL-15s + 2x PL-10s. That's a stronger platform than basically any fighter in the region to the north, west, and south of China. Serving in greater numbers, combined with J-11B, J-16, PLAAF EW and AEW platforms, it holds rather well against IAF's relatively weakly supported 36 Rafales.
MwRYum
Major
Thailand isn't known for sound spending habit, and that "aircraft carrier" of theirs is, besides spending most of its time at home base, as helicopter carrier.
It'll be years before they can afford to make another venture into that ambition of theirs, besides fulfilling what essentially a token desire for their situation.
MwRYum
Major
Owning and operating naval aviation assets would either require a sound ocean-going national strategy, or out of vain desire to have a trophy which essentially said "just because it sounds cool".
We know none of the ASEAN member state has the former, and the misadventure of Thailand shows us what the latter works out in reality. For most of them lot, the US would sell them F-35A/B should they can afford it (we know Singapore does), for others it's the reality that they barely have a functional air force to begin with, to be "in the league" would require significant investment if not also a long-term political alliance with the said provider.
And ASEAN states are generally known to be very coy about such thing.
long range is still useful even against enemies in close proximity. because it allows you to deploy your fighters from deeper behind your own lines; or, as threat of enemy fire reduces, permits your fighters to be forward deployed and remain in the air for longer. theres operational benefits to both of those cases.
LRIP for local needs?
- Status