SinoDefence Forum

Totoro

Seeing how there's lots of these IDEAL threads lately, why don't I make one? If there's something similar opened, i apologize, and moderator is welcome to join the threads... Okay, enough with the disclaimer stuff.

Like any other forces, aircraft are getting more expensive to build. With more types of planes in the inventory, costs and demands for logistics also increase. So, for the next generation of planes that PLAAF and PLANAF could use i envisage only 3 planes, sharing a lot of technology and parts, to take place of ALL of china's current combat aircraft. I'll be conservative and I won't go the unmanned route, just so you know. But yes, it is a possibility, just not one this post will discuss.

Also, the 3 plane types plan envisions a defensive doctrine. It will be a fleet made for special and selected purposes, not a fleet to do it all. It will be a fleet tailored to meet local demands and engage in local, mostly defensive warfare with territories adjacent to China. There will be no dedicated CAS planes or super long ranged strategic bombers. So, if you don't agree with such a doctrine, you will most probably not agree with the planes themselves. Ok, that being said, the 3 planes are these:

***
1. 7500 kg plane, single seater, i'm guessing around 15 meters long, 9 meters wingspan. Powered by a single turbofan not unlike one on a f-35, though probably with less power, as f-35 is a larger and heavier plane. Bypass ratio somewhere between one used on f-119 and f-135. Still, 100/150 kn thrust should be advisable. Max speed without afterburner would probably be marginally supersonic, and its top speed wouldn't need to go over 1.8 mach. It would serve primarely as an air defense plane. It would have an oversized nose for its size class, sacrificing some speed for a larger sized radar. It would have an internal weapons bay, though a small one - tailored for just 4 AMRAAM class missiles, or a variety of of other similarly sized or smaller weapons.

Naturally, other ordenance could be carried, but it'd have to be done on external pylons. Range wouldn't the biggest priority, as its visible from the plane's small size. Clean, with just 4 internal missiles, combat radius would not need to go over 1000 km. That is enough to deal with all the threats from taiwain and even good deal of threats from S. Korea, as well as being a part on possible strike on Okinawa. Heavier ordenance would, naturally, lower that range but the purpose of the plane is to take off quickly from short airstrips, engage incoming planes and go home. Basically, its main role would be one of interceptor, even though its flight performance would make it a true fighter, rather than an interceptor. In the light of having to intercept stealthy planes, it would definitely have to have good dogfighting abilities, as the battle could easely come down to that. On shorter range missions, it would still be able to perform various ground attack or SEAD missions. A very advanced IRST would be an absolute necessity, for having any half decent change engaging stealth planes.

***
2. 14 000 kg plane, single seater, im guessing some 20 or so meters long, 12 meter wingspan. Powered by two turbofans with slightly smaller bypass ratio than in the engine of plane number 1. Excess thrust coupled with better aerodynamics made for higher speed, engine optimized for higher speeds, smaller drag/thrust ratio should result in max speeds of over mach 2.3 and, if possible, over 1.5 mach without afterburner. I'm figuring 95/140 kn of thrust per engine is not an unrealistic expectation. Large radar, basically the same as in plane 1, perhaps using more T/R modules. IRST same as in plane 1. Internal bay would be larger (and deeper), able to hold smaller cruise missiles or 1000 kg bombs. Still, more than 8 AMRAAM class missiles would not be necessary.

You may've noticed i haven't mentioned any other missiles in this post, which is because I believe the french, with their MICA, have showed us the way to go. Have one missile and make it as modular as possible. With the planes themselves having a very low RCS, and their main targets being very low RCS planes, very long range AAMs may not be most useful in most missions. Having a larger, longer weapons bay, plane 2 could use such bigger AAMs too if needed, but i'm figuring standard weapon load would still consist of smaller, but more numerous missiles.

The mission plane 2 would be built for would be versatile. It would certainly be a fighter, but not one built exclusively for air combat, like the raptor. Rather, it would be something more like the Strike eagle, only with internally carried weapons. While certainly having longer than than plane 1, range would not be of main concern. 1500 km combat radius with 8 AAMs on internal fuel only seems enough for most missions. If needed, it could perform maritime strikes with additional fuel tanks and antiship missiles carried externally, giving it slightly longer reach.

***
Plane 3. 28 000 kg plane. Bomber, NOT a fighter. Double seater. I'm guessing some 28 meters long, 23 meter wingspan. Powered by two turbofans tailored for subsonic cruise, with higher bypass ratio, like the f-135 engine, but having afterburners which would be able to push it to mach 1.5 if needed. Some 105/160 kn of thrust per engine seems enough for that. Again, a carrying a large radar, similar to ones in planes 1 and 2, only bigger and more powerful. I'm suspecting there would be room in the nose to carry even some side arrays for extra coverage but a precise cost/benefit analysis would be needed to see if such arrays would actually be installed. IRST would come standard, as on other planes. Internal weapons bay would be quite large, required to hold 4-5 tomahawk sized missiles. Of course, actual misses could vary in purpose greatly, from slow subsonic long range missiles to fast, shorter range anti ship missiles.

Furthermore, even though its primary mission would certainly be strike mission, bombing runs, delivery of stand off weapons etc - it would be equipped for interception missions as well. I would think with its shape and excess of power for its size, it would be very agile. Would be able to carry all sorts of AAMs, with the accent on longer ranged ones, against tanker and awacs planes. Its combat range should be around some 2500 kms with a 6-7 ton weapons load, all carried internally. Naturally, additonal weapons or fuel tanks could be carried externally, if needed. That would give it ability to fly over Guam while carrying some weapons internally, with only one in air refuelling and/or no in air refuelling but carrying external tanks which it could jettison while on the way.


***
In the end, I'd like to add that very lowered RCS would certainly be one of biggest requirements, for all 3 planes. That's pretty much evident from the emphasis on internal carriage of weapons. I didn't want to go into details as I believe it's very hard to asses just how fast will china's stealth technology progress. But no matter how fast/slow it is progressing, it should be one of top requirements. I've even been soemwhat conservative with some other performance figures on all 3 planes, like speeds, range, payload, in order to give more room for optimization of RCS. If better shaping or more space/weight for radar absorbant materials, at the expense of less fuel or more drag, will produce tangible low RCS results - then that's worth it.

Engines would be very similar, with only the bypass section being greatly different from one engine to the next. Cockpit would be very similar, avioncs, displays, etc. There'd be tons of opportunities to share tech, parts and, in the end, costs.

Plane 3 should be able to replace the H6 and some of the JH7, plane 2 should replace some of JH7 and all of the su27/30/j11/j8 while plane 1 should replace q5, j7 and j10. Actual numbers, of course, could vary and one should not think these would be 1 for 1 replacements. For PLAAF and PLANAF combined, some 250 plane 3s, 600 plane 2s and 1200 plane 1s should be enough for the coming decades, save for a sudden shift in the balance of power in the world.

Thank you for reading.

zyun8288

I just think that China will go with a 2-tier fighter jet config, just like US and Russia, until a single fighter will cost over a billion USD. Then she will change to single fighter airforce, like the European countries are doing now.

I am pretty sure India is the only country pursuing a High, Medium and Low 3-tier fighter system. China is not that rich

Scratch

I wouldn't propose three completely new aircraft to replace the existing fleet, at least not in the medium term.
The J-11B makes a rather good heavy fighter. With ongoing improvements in avonics it can deliver heavy A-A punches at long ranges. Further development could produce a closely related heavy land-, seastrike fighter. Maybe on the basis of the Su-34. This could incorporate internal bays. But I don't think those will be retrofitted on J-11Bs. Then again, if J-11BS will come with strike as primary mission, I don't think we'll also see a Su-35 derivative.
The J-10 can evolve into a potent medium multi-role fighter doing the most workload.
While the Super 10 can become the high-end fighter with all the latest avonics and stealth stuff, supercruise etc.
I'm thinking of the JF-17 as a point defence and CAS fighter on the low end, but don't believe it necessary.
On the heavy end there would eventually be something between the Tu-160 and the B-1. Though the H-6k is a good aircraft, it probably won't be enough for the upper end jobs.

Though stealth planes will increase in numbers there will still be rather conventional ones around for some time. So long range engagements (LRAAMs) should be developed, especially for high value asset attacks.
AESA radars, IRST, and RCS reduction meassures should be part of the path.

Totoro

Well, I hoped it would be clear that this proposition is not something to happen in 5, 10 or 15 years but over a longer period of time. Perhaps around 2030 the air fleet could look something like that. With the mass proliferation of f-35s that will happen by then, it would surely come in handy.

zyun8288

By 2030, China should realy think about the new model: Large heavy fighter+UACV

I really don't think any country can afford 3 tier fighter system, except India maybe.

Scratch

2030 isn't so far away any more.
The "J-XX" alias Super 10 or whatever would in my opinion be the plane you described as no.2. A medium - heavy class fighter at the high end. It will be completely new designed.
Then again I also believe J-11B and J-10s to be around for 30+years. The "standart" J-10s may evovle into some kind of F-35 eqivalent.
Then there's the J-11s. I don't think these will grow to your plane 3 specs nor that there'll be something like that. For areal combat I think such planes are not usefull. For heavy strike missions a Su-34 like plane would do a good job.

edit: here and in my last post I meant to note the Su-34 as the heavy strike fighter where I wrote Su-35.

Totoro

plane 3 is not meant for aerial combat. Yes, i do belive it would be beneficial if it could carry AAMs, like a JH7 can, but also like that plane - it would be an afterthought, mostly for self defence. Naturally it would be a dog in a dogfight, however agile for its size.

sumdud

When if you go for a 3 level system, I would go with first w/ a light fighter, with LIFT and CAS versions, a single engine stealthy plane with a top speed of about Mach 1.8, ~5+2 MLU-capable independent hard-points. Wings relatively straight (since it will be doing CAS support.) A similar model I would compare to is maybe the I-2000.

As for the mid-level fighter, it will be a air-to-air fighter at heart, although MP version are available. Something like the J-10 now, supercruise, preferably a higher top speed maybe at Mach 2.35. 9-11 HP IRST 8 AAM + 1000km radius should not be a major problem. Rest is pretty much like what Totoro thinks of.

Top Level fighters (ironic that this is on the bottom =p Well, the light fighter is what I am sure on and like more thoughts on) China's own Strike Eagle pretty much. (I wouldn't go the way of the Su-34 since it's a pretty plane and all, but not exactly the best in anything, luxury is overly done in space that could've been used else, used NOT for a bed) It is the alarm clock for the enemy. Stealth, infiltration, and capable at both dogfighting and ditching. 12 ton capacity(Able to dogfight with 5 ton minimum), 14 HP minimum(including bay) 2500km radius minimum with 1 aerial refuel.

__________________

Give us a break. Don't try ranting at SDF.

crobato

I agree I would go with a 3 level arrangement---light fighter, heavy fighter, and agile bomber. The problems of a unified design or a single level arrangement like what the Europeans are doing with the Rafale and Typhoon, is to burden a single design with so many tasks that eventually, no matter how brilliant the original design and how well performing the first variants are, mission creep are going to come in, mutate and morph the plane into an overpriced and overweight monster.

Unified designs tend to result in more compromises. By keeping a two to three tiered system, each tier is allowed to focus on qualities distinct to their weight classes without forcing a jack of all trades phenomenon on them, like light fighters trying to be bombers.

akinkhoo

i perfer the existing high-low mix (2 tier), the interceptor and the superiority fighter.

i don't see a real advantage in having a fighter-bomber if your ability to maintain air superiority is in question. strike fighter are proven concept for taking out target.

but a 3 fighter configuration is possible, a carrier based fighter of spec between the 2 craft.

-----

the superiority fighter should have:
has supercruise (so it can get to and away from a fight against 5th gen fighters quietly)
a powerful AESA radar and good ECM/ECCM support.
highly reduced RCS (not entirely "stealthy", no aggressive IR reduction like in the F22 make engine maintance costly)
no super-maneuverability (too much G force on pliot and makes frame harder to build)
maybe lasers that blind sensors on fire & forget missiles.... (only if it could be done :P)

they are going to be expensive... but cheaper than F22 and i believe it would perform it's role of air superiority no worst then the F22... while the F22 can perform other roles like deep strike better, i doubt china considers using their fighters for such mission.

adeptitus

The Russians have an interesting solution of using the Yak-130 combat trainer for LIFT and CAS duties. I also noticed that the Yak-130D and JL-15 trainer demonstration aircraft are both equipped with the Povazske Strojame Letecke DV-2F turbojets

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/yak_130/
http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html

If the PLAAF were to produce JL-15 "combat trainer" version, it may fulfill the LIFT/CAS requirement and finally retire the Q-5 platform.

The USAF is moving away from the lower-altitude CAS aircraft, to high-altitude bombers with guided munitions. The PLAAF may need its own high-altitude bombers, but I think there's still a place for lower-altitude CAS aircraft for specific missions.