China Flanker Thread II

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by sumdud, Jan 12, 2008.

  1. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,784
    Likes Received:
    2,729
    What is the cost of deploying a payload?

    A cruise missile is sealed for the duration of its service life and has virtually nil maintenance costs. Furthermore it is launched from trucks which are low cost and low maintenance. They require minimal infrastructure, they can be hidden easily and require only a few minutes warning time to launch.

    In comparison, a J-16 costs far more over a lifetime. Think of the maintenance requirements, manpower, a runway, a hardened shelter, SAMs etc
    We're talking 200Million+ for a 30 year service life for the J-16.
    Then the cost of the guided standoff missiles still need to be added.
    Then consider that a J-16 can be attacked on the ground at an airbase, and missions have to be planned far in advance.
    And that to get into attack range, a non-stealthy J-16 will almost certainly be detected and intercepted by opposing fighters. And in that scenario, the J-16 will have to abort the mission and eject the payload.

    These are amongst the reasons why a J-16 is not the favoured platform for air-to-ground missions.

    The cruising speed on a long-range mission is the same for a J-16 loaded with weapons or a cruise missile.
    Cruise missiles should be able to be re-targeted in flight. That is the same as recalling them.
    If you want a CAP for a cruise missile strike, then send J-16 loaded with AAMs to escort that strike. The economics works out better.
    Your requirement for a J-16 to support ground troops at a moment's notice will never exist in real life. There are better platforms available.

    And do we really want J-16s to launch short range JY-12 missiles?
    Note the USA plans on launching long range cruise missiles for land attack and antiship missions. And these would be launched from submarines, ships and fighter jets. But China can just use land-based trucks as the launch platforms. And note the cost of a LRASM or JASSM
     
    AleDucat likes this.
  2. Viktor Jav
    Offline

    Viktor Jav Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2017
    Messages:
    951
    Likes Received:
    703
    And yet you also forgotten that the CJ-10 will also require extensive infrastructures like munitions depot, a harden/camouflage shelters to defend against enemy strikes. Long range radars and surveillance systems (what you think those missiles will guide themselves ?) As well as a trained crew and TEL vehicles. Add all up together and we did be talking about a cost that is no less expensive then any other military system. Then consider that these missiles can also be attacked from base and missions will also have to be planned in advance, targets that are available yesterday might be already moved or reinforced. People always seem to think that a successful cruise missile strike is just as simple as pushing the big red button on the console when it is far from that case.
    And then also consider that a CJ-10 have no stealth characteristics whatsoever, and being land based can only follow easily predicable trajectory due to limited fuel load. Fighters can at least refuel in midflight.

    What if the target relocated ? Or disappeared and is unable to be located/already neutralized? That will be a multimillion strike package being virtually wasted. Being able to be reprogrammed in midflight means nothing if there no other meaningful target to strike.
    Not if you consider the fact that again
    1) The value of a potential target might be significantly less than that of a single cruise missile, not all targets are multibillion C&C nodes or fuel/munition depots. More mundane targets would be strategically placed pillboxes or artillery batteries.
    2) Cruise missile have 0 in the way of defensive countermeasures, meaning a far greater number would have to be expended for a single target compared to other munitions.
    That is false, if we look through the history of modern battles. Air support greatly increase the effectiveness of ground troop once air superiority is establish or even before that. Well placed airstrikes can break stalemates as well as acting as an aerial borne artillery in terrains whereby conventional artillery support is unfeasible. Such situations would be mobile tank columns which are inherently immune to both artillery and cruise missile strikes.

    Considering how the YJ-12 has a much higher top speed= greater success of an attack then a CJ-10 while still maintaing a range beyond the most commonly deployed US SAM which is the SM-2. I find it hard for you to ever consider the opposite.

    Which would be subjected to all the limitations I have stated earlier. And I don't see how the LRASM or JASSM will factor into this other than the fact that they can be launched from multiple platforms which only increase their flexibility which further proves my point. (PS: Actually scratch that, both the LRASM and JASSM missiles are planned to be only launched from aircrafts)
    Cruise missile are merely another arrow in the quiver, and that is.
     
    #7052 Viktor Jav, Dec 3, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
  3. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,784
    Likes Received:
    2,729
    No, your assertions are not correct.

    A CJ-10 cruise missile can get away with a lot less fixed infrastructure than a J-16.
    And as a mobile vehicle, it is easy and cheap to hide in the urban terrain of mainland China.
    For the land-attack mission against a fixed location, it doesn't need long-range radars and surveillance.
    For the anti-ship mission, it is better to pair CJ-10 missiles with a datalink. There has to be some sort of long-range targeting sensor for an anti-ship missile, even if it is the J-16 performing the role of sensor and CAP, or some other platform.
    A CJ-10 has a smaller radar profile than the J-16, and with a datalink can follow a complex flightpath.
    And you do realise that J-16 will probably need tanker support to match the 1500km range of a CJ-10 cruise missile.

    Datalinks for reprogramming the cruise missiles from the J-16 or another aircraft.
    And we can say the same about an even more expensive strike package being wasted were a J-16 to carry air-to-ground weaponry instead of cruise missiles being tasked with the mission.

    Again, you're comparing the wrong thing.

    In realistic scenarios, a J-16 won't be able to approach within 100km of a target. It will have to use expensive standoff missiles for its missions. They are essentially the same cruise/supersonic missiles.
    Yes, a cruise missile doesn't have any defensive countermeasures. Which is why they would be escorted by J-16s or EW J-15 type aircraft in a high-threat environment.

    No, you're wrong. Where are the land battles that Chinese aircraft would support?
    They are in Taiwan/Korea/Vietnam/SCS/ECS, which are within 300km of the Chinese mainland.
    Using the heavyweight J-16 fighter for these missions is a waste.
    These missions are better off assigned to the J-10 or drones, which are more cost-effective for this type of mission.

    You have to get a fighter aircraft within range to a) find a naval target and then b) within range to launch a short range YJ-12 missile

    With a JY-12 300km range, we can realistically expect any incoming J-16 strike package to have already been detected and also engaged by a CAP before they can launch.
    So they'll have already ditched the JY-12 missiles into the ocean and will only have a limited AAM armanent.

    But an incoming strike package of CJ-10 missiles (with cooperative sensors and targeting like LRASMs) is a credible threat that has to be dealt with.
    When you add a CAP of J-16s, this presents a strike package which a deadlier and cheaper than just having J-16s doing both CAP and strike

    It all goes back to what is the cheapest way to deliver a payload for a specific mission.

    We know the large J-16 is suited for long-range missions, which would be in a highly contested environment.
    In such environments, it's better for J-16s to concentrate on air-to-air and as targeting sensors because these missions can be conducted without compromising each other.
    And then use cruise missiles or similar drone-type aircraft to act as cheap bomb trucks.
     
    #7053 AndrewS, Dec 3, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
  4. Deino
    Offline

    Deino Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    9,617
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Guys; @Viktor Jav & @AndrewS ... you are both again in the off-topic modus, discussing potential YJ-12 ranges vs CJ-10, specific payloads and so on.

    Come on ...
     
    Yodello and Air Force Brat like this.
  5. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    6,793
  6. Bhurki
    Offline

    Bhurki Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2018
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    97
  7. siegecrossbow
    Offline

    siegecrossbow Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,006
    Likes Received:
    8,319
    I've got one with a number.

    http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1916292-1-1.html

    [​IMG]

    This is the 20th aircraft from the third batch. We now know that there are at least 60 J-16s in service!
     
    N00813, Yodello and Air Force Brat like this.
  8. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,247
    Likes Received:
    15,309
    I read it as 0328, as did Deino on twitter but yeah there should be a fair few of them in service by now. I think it was estimated to be about 40 a couple of years ago so by now I wouldn't be surprised if it was pushing 100 in total
     
    Yodello and Air Force Brat like this.
  9. siegecrossbow
    Offline

    siegecrossbow Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    6,006
    Likes Received:
    8,319
    Add in the J-10C and 10~20 J-20s and there are probably around 200 AESA equipped fighters in service in PLAAF! Probably a record in East Asia.
     
  10. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    6,793
    But still significantly less than even the US Navy.
     
Loading...

Share This Page