My idea of a modern PLAAF's combat fleet

China would probably like to retire all its Q-5s and replace them with JH-7s - presumably by then they won't have to rely on Rolls-Royce's Spey engines to build more JH-7s. They would definetly retire the older J-7s and J-6s, but I can imagine the PLAAF would want to keep its J-7E/Gs. They would be useful as homeland interceptors, since they have a higher preformance than the older models. While the high-tech aircraft fight an air superiority war overseas, the older J-8IIIs and J-7E/Gs would serve as interceptors in Mainland China. Other than that, your prediction seems likely.

Originally Posted by DPRKPTboat

China would probably like to retire all its Q-5s and replace them with JH-7s - presumably by then they won't have to rely on Rolls-Royce's Spey engines to build more JH-7s. They would definetly retire the older J-7s and J-6s, but I can imagine the PLAAF would want to keep its J-7E/Gs. They would be useful as homeland interceptors, since they have a higher preformance than the older models. While the high-tech aircraft fight an air superiority war overseas, the older J-8IIIs and J-7E/Gs would serve as interceptors in Mainland China. Other than that, your prediction seems likely.

That wasn't intended to be a prediction. The PLAAF may have different plans. But if I'm in charge of the PLAAF, the combat fleet would be something like that.

Originally Posted by F40Racer

That wasn't intended to be a prediction. The PLAAF may have different plans. But if I'm in charge of the PLAAF, the combat fleet would be something like that.

What budget are you talking about for PLAF ?, I'd like to see PLAF will have $15-$20B budget. The budget definitely would be able to buy all equipment you have mentioned. Regarding J-7, I wouldn't agree with you .... J-7G is a very modern fighter, better than early version of F-16 and also BVR capable and relatively cheap to produce and operate and all components, including engine are indigenous.

China doesn't need J-10 or J-11 or SU-30MKK to patrol Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Vietnam, Myanmar, etc, border ... J-7E/G will do just fine

Remember China is not USA ... we have a limited budget

We know PLA budget is around $35B (in reality probably more than that ... I'd say $50B) ............. does anyone know the budget for Army, Navy, Airforce and 2nd artilery

10 different types of aircrafts for front line fighter/atttack/bomber aircraft, it includes rising maintenance costs, you have to buy specific supply systems for certains aircrafts, adapt hanger, runway, etc... When you buy a fighter you have to think about all parameters, indeed when it is not flying you have to park it somewhere, you have to do maintenance sometimes with specific equipments, you have to load the ordonance with specific vehicles, use special tools.

It's not a fair business.

If I were in charge of PLAAF acqusition from now until 2010, I'd go with 3 main aircraft types, Su-34, Su-35, and J-10 with following assumptions:

* It'd take 1-2 years to setup domestic (license) production for a new aircraft type. In the beginning the aircraft would made in Russia, then "kits" assembled in China. After several years the % of domestically produced components will increase. From a 2007-2010 time-frame, I'd go with average of 2 aircraft assembled per month, or approx. 100 over 4 years.

* The initial batches of FC-1 will most likely go to Pakistan, so PLAAF's allocation will be halved (~50).

* The existing contract for 200 J-11's will be completed. The Su-27SK/J-11 fleet will also receive upgrades.

* No major acqusition of old aircraft types (J-7, J-8, Q-5) will occur, though they'd continue to receive upgrades and small batch productions for export or replacement units.

* PLAAF/PLANAF will acquire one more batch of Su-30MKK2 (~24) and JH-7 (~50) as stop-gap measure before Su-34 & Su-35 production picks up pace. More IL-78 tankers will also be ordered from Russia. The combination of aerial refueling tanker + Su-34 & JH-7 will make up the PLANAF's aerial strike power.

* J-10's production rate could range from 2-4/month from 2006.


PLAAF Current (2006)
================
Su-27SK/J-11: ~200
Su-30MKK/MKK2: ~76
J-10: 50-100+
JH-7: 50-60+
IL-78 tankers: 8 ordered
+ numerous older aircraft


PLAAF by 2010
==============
Su-27SK/J-11: ~300 (stopped)
Su-30MKK/MKK2: ~100 (stopped)
Su-34: ~100
Su-35: ~100
J-10: 200-350+, depending on production rate
JH-7: ~100 (stopped)
FC-1: ~50
IL-78 tankers: 20-30
etc.

Looking beyond 2010, the PLAAF will continue to acquire more Su-34, Su-35, and J-10's. FC-1 will replace the J-7 in low-cost fighter export market, with small batches acquired for PLAAF. The PLAAF will fund both J-XX and seek to become PAK-FA partner with Russia and India.

Thats' my "realistic" estimate!

Originally Posted by F40Racer

This is my idea for what a modern PLAAF would be like:

Older fighters like J-7s and Q-5s should be retired from front line service and be converted to unmanned vehicles, replaced by newer fighters like J-10s and JH-7s. If Russia is willing to sell more aircrafts, China should buy some, and the result should be something like this (front-line combat aircrafts only, excluding older fighters that have been converted to unmanned fighters, and excluding other aircrafts such as trainers, transports, etc):

500 J-8IIs
800 FC-1s
500 J-10s
200 J-11s/Su-27s
200 Su-30s
300 JH-7s
100 Su-34s
100 J-XXs
50 H-6s
50 Tu-22s

Because China does not want to be a dominant global power, there is no need for a massive air force like the USAF(the United States has almost 10,000 military aircrafts). The amount of aircraft above should be able to guarantee China's security and at same time stop Taiwan from becoming independent.

you can wipe off additional su-30s and tu-22 off the list, those are definitely not happening.

It all depends on how many years from now.

But I forsee probably maximum of 250 FC-1, possibly L-15 converted into attacker role. There should also be some JH-7 (200?).

Other than that, you will most likely see all J-10 and J-11 variants. Probably at a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio for J-10. Mind you, that would include all J-10/J-11 variant, I think you might see fighter-bomber and naval versions of J-11. If China ever produces a fighter bomber version of J-11, su-34 might not be needed.

Ideally I would rather have J-10s of all variants if possible, because maximizing on a single type reduces volume cost, simplifies logistics, maintenance, training and raises overall efficiency. In fact, I think that a PLAAF that would consist mostly of J-10s would be much more efficient and combat effective than the current state of being built by a myriad of types.

But of course that is not going to happen.

In my view the Chinese government intends to subsidize every Chinese aircraft company out there, and so each will be given a piece of the pie.

Getting Su-35s is likely a dead issue. I don't think PLAAF is interested due to a combination of factors; high cost, low opinion of Sukhoi and its service, probably the sense of more hype than substance; dependence on Russians and lack of integration with local equipment. Its the same reasons why the PLAAF and the PLANAF apparently stopped Su-30 procurement and wants to head on its own J-11 development. For that reason, scratch off any Sukhoi variant from the Su-33 to the Su-34, to Russian bombers like the Tu-22.

If you want to sell to the PLA or any of its services, you need to open up and consider integration of your component to PLA platforms. Hence why Klimov and Salyut gets to sell engines, why MA Fregat and Mineral ME radars get into the PLAN ships.

I guess the PLAAF cannot produce, procure J-11s and J-10s fast enough, or have enough money even after budget increases to get all the planes they can. This is due to needed salary increases to attract a new generation of technically educated men and women. Hence they might keep some of the older planes longer.

What I think of the planes:

J-8II

Pros: Cheap high speed BVR platform with fairly large radar, with PL-11, PL-12 support. Can dual role as a fast bomber and striker. Proven platform with bugs refined out for the years. Rugged. Fully domestically made. High speed, hit and run tactics can give the J-8II a good account of itself against more modern fighters.

Cons: Not very maneuverable. Sucks gas like there is no tomorrow. Mediocre range. Highly dedicated interceptor design aka supersonic SAM platform is inadequete for air superiority use, which also requires a premium in maneuverbility.

Future assesement: Latest variant, J-8F will probably only see limited new production runs. Instead, the bulk of J-8H and J-8D versions will be upgraded to the J-8F standard. Older J-8A and J-8B will eventually be retired so we will see a large reduction of the force, but upgraded more newer airframes will still last for some more years. This can still number signifcantly to about 200 aircraft.

Rating

3-1/2 stars.


J-7

Pros: Very cheap, very agile fighter. This is a great peacetime fighter that is good to train pilots in WVR combat, add flight hours, and use as aggressors. Fully domestically made. Will still give a 4th generation fighter a good run for it in a dogfight.

Cons: Extremely limited flight and radar range. Its still almost a day fighter highly focused on WVR combat.

Future Assesement: All earlier variants of J-7 prior to J-7E will be retired. This will encompass the still common J-7B versions to the limited J-7C/D variants. J-7G will be produced in a limited number, the vast majority of J-7E will just be upgraded to this standard and moved to other category B regiments to replace their earlier J-7 fighters. The J-7E/G will become like a "training fighter" and regiments with them are like on standby, using the planes for exercises, before they ultimately upgrade to the J-11, J-10 or FC-1. My guess is that the J-7 fleet, which numbers from nearly 800 to 1000 planes, will be reduced to about 300, mainly J-7E/G.

Rating:

2 stars


J-10

Pros: Simply currently the PLAAF's most modern and capable aircraft.

Cons: I estimate that it's also expensive. Currently dependent on imported Russian engines.

Future Assesement. Foreign dependence on engine will limit its number until domestic engines can take over, which can take some time. I believe production of the original J-10A serial variant will end in about 100 planes, then production will shift to the "Super 10" variant with TVC and probably better radar. While not superior to the F-35, the Super 10 is the PLAAF's best chance of closing the gap with the F-35 should the ROCAF and JASDF acquire them.

Rating:

5 stars.


J-11

Pros: Very capable airframe. Great speed, maneuverbility, range and payload. Lots of airframe potential and expansion.

Cons: Avionics not up to Western standards or even up to some of the latest Chinese designs. A bit expensive and demanding to maintain. Issues with reliability and vendor service. Currently dependent on Russian and therefore imported munitions.

Future Assesement: China has turned around and appeared intent to finish the 200 plane contract. But instead of acquiring kits, they choose to source the parts independently. Again, this shows that much of the plane is now domesticated and China only needs to procure the gaps. This includes the engine and some avionics. The J-11 variant of the Su-27SK is somewhat more capable, with radar enhanced to support the R-77 and has a better IRST. However, even these appear crude to the avionics being installed on the J-10, JH-7A and proposed on the FC-1. This was supposed to be rectified with the J-11B variant that would feature Chinese avionics and integration with Chinese missiles. But it seems to me that SAC must have underwent a culture shock after rival CAC displayed the latest FC-1 systems. The J-11B could have gone back to development to revise its avionics systems in order to compete with the J-10 and FC-1. Currently the problem is that CAC has stolen much of SAC's and the J-11's thunder with its "Thunder".

To sum it up, the future of the J-11 now rests on the J-11B variant, and how well its systems can keep up with the local competition. Having said this, even some of the systems Sukhoi proposed, from the Su-27SM upgrade to the Su-35s, still kind of look antiquated compared to what the FC-1 and the increasingly confident Chinese avionics industry seems able to display.

Rating:

4 stars


JH-7A

Pros: Completely domestically made. Support for local weapons including the latest Chinese precision guided munitions. Modernized avionics.

Cons: Airframe increasingly antiquated. Dedicated strike role design becoming more passe in the age of multirole. Fairly vulnerable to 4th generation fighter opposition due to high weight and low engine thrust even with increased use of building composites and possible upgrade in thrust.

Future Assesement. Until the true multirole J-10 and J-11B models---and I mean those with precision strike capability---finally come out, the JH-7A is currently the most versatile PLAAF strike platform. But those rivals might still take some time, and so the JH-7A will be made and gradually replace Q-5 regiments. While it does not perform as well as the MKK in air combat, the role of a striker is not as demanding as a fighter, and so it needs only to be fast, get in, fire and get out as soon as possible. The airframe appears adequete for all sorts of expansion. So long as it avoids air combat, and is well covered by other fighters, the JH-7A is quite capable of doing its specialized job. Being a two seater also gives it an advantage because it allows for a specialized weapons officer. The J-11s appear to be single seater, and there is still a question if China is licensed to produce a twin seater J-11. At the same time, even with the new two seater variant, the J-10 platform appears to be smaller and won't be able to handle larger munitions like four YJ-83s as well.

Rating:

4 stars


Q-5

Pros: Unlike the JH-7A, this plane has lightning fast reflexes and fighter like maneuverbility. Rugged, cheap, with already a built in infrastructure to maintain it. Modernization allows them to carry Chinese made laser guided munitions.

Cons: Small payload, short range. Difficult to fly. Short airframe life and engine. Little room for avionics expansion.

Future Assesement. Surprisingly, this plane might stick around. CAS ops don't demand so much on aircraft performance, and the Q-5, due to its MiG-19 heritage, can run rings around more modern attackers and even LIFT trainers. Being cheap, they're also expendable and can overwhelm a target with speed and numbers. They're quite fast on the deck, and for an old plane, might be hard to catch. However, their short range and payload greatly hinders their overall capability, so they have to be augmented by more advanced, higher payload aircraft.

Rating.

3 stars


FC-1

Pros: Smooth development. Pretty impressed with what we have seen so far. Nice avionics suite. Appears to be highly agile. Cost effective, has BVR capability that might support the PL-12 ARH.

Cons: Overall performance does not appear to be much better than the Taiwan IDF which has been in service for over a decade, and the ROCAF appears on the way to acquire even much more advanced aircraft. Airframe has limited growth potential and range.

Future Assesement: I still would rather see an emphasis on the J-10 and J-11 for modernization. Although more cost effective than the other two, the range and small payload can seriously hinder this plane in mission roles. It's not any faster than the J-8II, nor is the flight range expected to be much better; the radar is smaller than the J-8II, JH-7A, J-10 or J-11's, so its detection range won't be any better. While the plane appears to be agile, to what degree it's that much better than the much cheaper J-7E/G is the question.

Rating

3-1/2 stars.

I think there are some advantages with getting the Su-34. It has good range and payload, almost as much as Tu-16/H-6. The PRC can also use the Sukhoi purchase as leverage to get into the PAK-FA program as a partner.

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.

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.

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.