Future PLA combat aircraft composition

[Blitzo]

Why built a non-stealth fighter based on stealth fighter?
I thought FC31 is stealth?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By the way,

Are you Andreas Rupprecht mentioned here? It mentions one of book you mentioned earlier & mentions your twitter account :-O

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

FC-31 is a stealthy demonstrator.

A technology demonstrator. It is not developed into an operational fighter.
However a variant of it will be developed into the J-XY/J-35 which will be a proper fighter.

Remember, a proper fighter requires more than just having an airframe that can fly.

 

[by78]

China currently has two stealth aircraft, the J-20 and the J-31. At the same time they are developing the J-35 stealth aircraft.
In the future, China may have two other stealth fighters, the J-10D (developed from J-10) and the Su-57 (from Russia and receiving TOT).

 

[Eurofighter]

As to what you said here: "In fact I'd be less worried about an opponent with say 1000 F35s and 200 F22s, compared to an opponent with say 600 J20s and 600 J16s" -- that also very much confuses me.

I would certainly be much more worried about an opponent with 1000 F-35s and 200 F-22s than 600 J-20s and 600 J-16s.
Assuming both air forces have the requisite infrastructure and human resources to fund and effectively operate and arm their respective fleets, the 1000 F-35s and 200 F-22s will absolutely wipe the floor with 600 J-20s and 600 J-16s.

I think you underestimate the sheer difference in capability in having a large number of 5th generation fighters makes compared to a numerically equivalent fleet made up of a significant part of 4th generation fighters, and underestimate the sheer flexibility, range and payload of the F-35 as well.
It costs much more to operate the 1000 F-35s+200 F-22s than the 600 J-20s+600 J-16s, but they are also much more capable.

In all honesty, at this moment both of us are speculating regarding the capabilities or rather capability gaps between 5th gen fleets vs mix of 4th and 5th gen fleets. I could be indeed underestimating F35's prowess. But lets not forget the current reality with F35: it is in all likelihood far less capable than advertised. I'm not calling it incompetent, but fact is it is short-legged, having limited weapons load (heck until very recently it can't even fire its weapons that well), sensor fusion remain more a myth than actual capability, can't dog fight, can't super cruise, high cost, low sortie rates and the list goes on. So it is equally possible that you are overestimating F35's capabilities. But let us agree to disagree on this.

 

[Blitzo]

In all honesty, at this moment both of us are speculating regarding the capabilities or rather capability gaps between 5th gen fleets vs mix of 4th and 5th gen fleets. I could be indeed underestimating F35's prowess. But lets not forget the current reality with F35: it is in all likelihood far less capable than advertised. I'm not calling it incompetent, but fact is it is short-legged, having limited weapons load (heck until very recently it can't even fire its weapons that well), sensor fusion remain more a myth than actual capability, can't dog fight, can't super cruise, high cost, low sortie rates and the list goes on. So it is equally possible that you are overestimating F35's capabilities. But let us agree to disagree on this.

I think your assessments of F-35 are very out of date, a good 6-8 years out of date.

In US aerial exercises, F-35 has shown to be virtually as capable as the F-22 in the air to air role, and its procurement costs are coming down and now approaching that of contemporary 4+ generation fighters, and its combat radius is actually as great as that of the F-22 (I'm not sure why people believe F-35 has a significantly shorter combat radius than F-22).
Its sensor fusion and networking is superior to that of the F-22.
Its VLO for all intents and purposes is comparable to F-22 and easier to maintain.
Its "limited" weapons load is only partially true; four BVR missiles at present is still a capable loadout, and F-35 will have the ability to carry six BVR missiles internally in due course, and the sheer variety of air to ground weapons as well makes it a formidable strike asset.
It will end up being cheaper to operate than the F-35, and be procured in much greater numbers.
The inability to supercruise and being less maneuverable than the F-22 are minor disadvantages that pales in the sheer extent of advantages that it has.

To understand where I am coming from, for all intents and purposes I consider the F-35 to essentially be a single engine F-22 -- just with less capable kinematics and a slightly smaller air to air internal magazine -- but with far superior networking, a far more comprehensive and flexible sensor suite, and a far more superior variety of air to ground weapons suite. It has similar but more maintainable stealth, and similar if not slightly superior combat radius.
And the biggest difference between F-35 and F-22 is that there will end up being many thousands of the former, all fully networked together as well as with their own friendly air, naval ground, and space assets.


Frankly if this "disagreement" is based on differing assessments of the capability of the F-35, then I consider that a disaster.

The F-35 has demonstrated itself to be a success and by virtue of a combination of its stealth, networking, cost and sheer numbers, will prove to be the most proliferative and capable 5th generation fighter type and fleet in the world most likely. Whatever hiccups it had during development (and many aircraft do -- and in hindsight seems forgiveable if not natural for the F-35 given how ambitious it was), is years old news that has little to no bearing on its in service capability today and into the future.

The challenge posed by the F-35 individually as a platform, but more importantly as a fleet of aircraft, is the challenge that the PLA will face.
I would say in the year 2020 now it is as insane to not respect the threat and capability that the F-35 poses just as much as it would have been to not respect the threat and capability that the F-22 posed in its equivalent fielding period in 2008.

 

[Eurofighter]

I think your assessments of F-35 are very out of date, a good 6-8 years out of date.

In US aerial exercises, F-35 has shown to be virtually as capable as the F-22 in the air to air role, and its procurement costs are coming down and now approaching that of contemporary 4+ generation fighters, and its combat radius is actually as great as that of the F-22 (I'm not sure why people believe F-35 has a significantly shorter combat radius than F-22).
Its sensor fusion and networking is superior to that of the F-22.
Its VLO for all intents and purposes is comparable to F-22 and easier to maintain.
Its "limited" weapons load is only partially true; four BVR missiles at present is still a capable loadout, and F-35 will have the ability to carry six BVR missiles internally in due course, and the sheer variety of air to ground weapons as well makes it a formidable strike asset.
It will end up being cheaper to operate than the F-35, and be procured in much greater numbers.
The inability to supercruise and being less maneuverable than the F-22 are minor disadvantages that pales in the sheer extent of advantages that it has.

To understand where I am coming from, for all intents and purposes I consider the F-35 to essentially be a single engine F-22 -- just with less capable kinematics and a slightly smaller air to air internal magazine -- but with far superior networking, a far more comprehensive and flexible sensor suite, and a far more superior variety of air to ground weapons suite. It has similar but more maintainable stealth, and similar if not slightly superior combat radius.
And the biggest difference between F-35 and F-22 is that there will end up being many thousands of the former, all fully networked together as well as with their own friendly air, naval ground, and space assets.


Frankly if this "disagreement" is based on differing assessments of the capability of the F-35, then I consider that a disaster.

The F-35 has demonstrated itself to be a success and by virtue of a combination of its stealth, networking, cost and sheer numbers, will prove to be the most proliferative and capable 5th generation fighter type and fleet in the world most likely. Whatever hiccups it had during development (and many aircraft do -- and in hindsight seems forgiveable if not natural for the F-35 given how ambitious it was), is years old news that has little to no bearing on its in service capability today and into the future.

The challenge posed by the F-35 individually as a platform, but more importantly as a fleet of aircraft, is the challenge that the PLA will face.
I would say in the year 2020 now it is as insane to not respect the threat and capability that the F-35 poses just as much as it would have been to not respect the threat and capability that the F-22 posed in its equivalent fielding period in 2008.

What you said could come straight from marketing material of Lockheed. Look, I'm not belittling F35, far from it. But the topic that got all this conversation going is if China is better served by hysterically cranking out 5th gen just to reach numerical parity with the US. My answer is that it shouldn't. keeping an mixed fleet of 4 and 5th gen is the most cost effective, while also being sufficient capable to deter/defeat adversaries for the foreseeable future. All that funds could find better use elsewhere.
Another thing I noticed about you is that you tend to compare systems in a binary way. 10 5th gen vs 5 5th gen and 5 4th gen, then the former must win out because its has more 5th gen. that is really too simplistic. I pointed out before, given current and projected composition of US and Chinese militaries, wars won't be fought in isolation between select systems. It is a contention of systems, tactics, and doctrine.

 

[Blitzo]

What you said could come straight from marketing material of Lockheed. Look, I'm not belittling F35, far from it. But the topic that got all this conversation going is if China is better served by hysterically cranking out 5th gen just to reach numerical parity with the US. My answer is that it shouldn't. keeping an mixed fleet of 4 and 5th gen is the most cost effective, while also being sufficient capable to deter/defeat adversaries for the foreseeable future. All that funds could find better use elsewhere.
Another thing I noticed about you is that you tend to compare systems in a binary way. 10 5th gen vs 5 5th gen and 5 4th gen, then the former must win out because its has more 5th gen. that is really too simplistic. I pointed out before, given current and projected composition of US and Chinese militaries, wars won't be fought in isolation between select systems. It is a contention of systems, tactics, and doctrine.

Five years ago I certainly wasn't convinced, but I've talked to enough people who know much more about the aircraft and the program than I do who have changed my opinions, and much more importantly the F-35 has shown itself to be able to meet the very high requirements that the US has set for it.
It's bizarre to me that everyone seems to have accepted the sheer extent of capability that the F-22 had very quickly when it first entered service and in its subsequent couple of years, but why there's this reluctance to recognize the F-35 for what it is.

With regards to 5th generation fighter procurement for the PLA, I think we are in agreement in the sense that blindly pursuing procurement of any given type of asset is not a good strategy, and because of limitations of resources you have to invest wisely.
BUT I also think that the PLA's current 5th generation fleet and its foreseeable 5th generation procurement in the next few years will be so far from optimal compared to the competition, that even talking about "not cranking out 5th generation fighters" seems like an absolute luxury and strange thing to discuss at this stage. It's the equivalent of being in 1998 when the PLA only hand a small number of Su-27SKs in service and suggesting that the PLA didn't need to crank out 4th generation fighters or shouldn't seek a large fleet of 4th generation fighters.
Now, I think it's logical to talk about how best to balance the books in context of limited budgets, which I have no issue with -- but it needs to be spoken of specifically in the context of limitations of budget, industry, military resources. Let's not stand on ceremony and delude ourselves into thinking that a fleet of mixed 4th and 5th generation fighters is more optimal than a larger fleet of more 5th generation fighters especially in context of where the PLA's fighter composition is today versus what the competition has planned.
Because if the PLA doesn't build a fleet of majority or mostly 5th generation fighters by XYZ year, that is a reflection of its limited budget, industry and resources, not because it chose it as a first choice option in context of the scale of the threat they're facing.

With regards to binary comparisons -- no, I absolutely appreciate that conflicts are fought on a system of systems, multi domain level, and operating jointly in that manner produces multiplicative effects in capability and net effect than individual systems or domains operating alone.
However none of that takes away from the fact that your system of systems and joint/multi-domain warfighting model is still made up of individual platforms and platform types, where if all else is held equal, then having a much more capable individual type of asset in a given number will produce disproportionate multiplicative effects on your force's overall warfighting capability.
The "500 and 500 versus 1000" comparisons are meant to just be simple demonstrations of force composition in the limited context of different fighter generations, don't think it's meant to be some kind of exhaustive analysis. We are only talking about fighter procurement here after all, if we want to go broader into the multi-domain topic then that's an entirely different, larger subject of discussion.




Again, I just want to reiterate I think it's fine to talk about mixed 4th and 5th generation fighter fleets in context of real world limitations of budget, industry and resources.
I just think it's important to recognize the sheer scale of the competition that they will be facing and to understand that the requirements needed to be able to credibly defeat that threat is not likely going to be something that can be just handwaved by some people in the last few days as "no need to build that many 5th generation fighters" -- because right now and in the foreseeable future the PLA isn't even able to build that many 5th generation fighters even if it wanted to. And you can bet money that the PLA recognizes the scale of the competition they face and will be facing in coming years.

 

[Totoro]

It's bizarre to me that everyone seems to have accepted the sheer extent of capability that the F-22 had very quickly when it first entered service and in its subsequent couple of years, but why there's this reluctance to recognize the F-35 for what it is.

I've thought about similar issues myself and I the most likely conclusion I have is that great majority of people who write about planes online guide themselves by their heart. They value aesthetics, sexiness and seem to value metrics that are easy to understand - such as turn rates and speed - far above other metrics.

Simply said, in their eyes the F-35 is a short, stubby, fat looking plane. And hey, it can't go over Mach 1.6. And its max advertised turn rate is comparable to previous generation planes (who cares about actual turn rates of loaded planes and who cares about slightly harder to grasp metrics such as nose pointing, angle of attack and such). And it was made to be multirole. Oh, that can't be good either. Pure fighters are much sexier, they must also be much more capable too.

The final nail in the coffin is fewer missiles carried internally. Because as know, Flankers with their 10/12 missiles are the pinnacle of lethality.

Though that last one, IF one talks about a 4 missile F-35, is a real drawback to some extent, in some situations. (6 missile packing variant would pretty much be enough, though)

And short range issue is also something I don't get. It's got longer reach than F-22. Heck, in a lot of tactically relevant situations F-35 beats F-16 in combat radius. Because F-16 is certainly not going to cover big distances flying at low level for a few hundred miles and do long-ish supersonic dashes, in order to expose itself less to the enemy, desperately trying to partially compensate for the lack of stealth.

 

[Blitzo]

I've thought about similar issues myself and I the most likely conclusion I have is that great majority of people who write about planes online guide themselves by their heart. They value aesthetics, sexiness and seem to value metrics that are easy to understand - such as turn rates and speed - far above other metrics.

Simply said, in their eyes the F-35 is a short, stubby, fat looking plane. And hey, it can't go over Mach 1.6. And its max advertised turn rate is comparable to previous generation planes (who cares about actual turn rates of loaded planes and who cares about slightly harder to grasp metrics such as nose pointing, angle of attack and such). And it was made to be multirole. Oh, that can't be good either. Pure fighters are much sexier, they must also be much more capable too.

The final nail in the coffin is fewer missiles carried internally. Because as know, Flankers with their 10/12 missiles are the pinnacle of lethality.

Though that last one, IF one talks about a 4 missile F-35 is a real drawback to some extent, in some situations. (6 missile packing variant would pretty much be enough, though)

And short range issue is also something I don't get. It's got longer reach than F-22. Heck, in a lot of tactically relevant situations F-35 beats F-16 in combat radius. Because F-16 is certainly not going to cover big distances flying at low level for a few hundred miles and do long-ish supersonic dashes, in order to expose itself less to the enemy, desperately trying to partially compensate for the lack of stealth.

That is my take on it as well, but I think the public discourse is also influenced by earlier years of substantial F-35 bashing in popular media as well as its well documented challenges during development, which seems to cause an undercutting of its subsequent success in many people's mind.

 

[Totoro]

True. F-35 development wasn't helped by maturing of the age of the internet/social media etc. F-22, being inducted just 10 years earlier, didn't have to suffer such media scrutiny. And if one looks at newsbits from the past - one will find many very similar issues that were talked about previous planes, such as F-16, F-14, F-111 and so on. But those criticisms couldn't really reach an appreciable audience. Today, if media jumps on a plane, even some congressmen who MIGHT have an influence on financing of the whole program, might be swayed by whatever's being written online.

 

[AndrewS]

The future orbat composition of China's potential adversaries in 5-10 years and certainly after 10 years, will include many hundreds if not over 1500 5th generation fighters, the majority of which will be F-35s. Going into the 2030s that will likely begin to approach 2000+ F-35s for the US alone.
Furthermore, in the medium term it is likely AEW&C and battle management and EW and ISR aircraft will become very distributed and attritable -- i.e.: instead of single large lumbering aircraft, they will become smaller, perhaps unmanned, where losing one or two aircraft will not bring down the entire battle-space's ability to maintain situational awareness/battle management or ISR or EW.


What all this means is that no, it is not enough to simply "depend" on a relatively small force or a minority fleet of 5th generation fighters supported by 4+ generation fighters, because you are going up against a foe with 1000+ or 2000+ 5th generation fighters (depending on the time period and how you count it), and because the enemy's force multipliers will become more survivable and distributed as well.

This is also ignoring likely advances in unmanned aircraft technology, specifically air to air unmanned loyal wingman type UCAVs that will likely enhance the capability and "fleet size" of the side which fields it, which will augment the capability of manned combat aircraft by acting as secondary sensor and shooter nodes.

I think the USAF is heavily over-invested on short-ranged manned stealth fighters like the F-35, even if it is amazing in the air.

These aircraft need to operate from bases close to the Chinese mainland and are therefore highly vulnerable to destruction on the ground where they spend the vast majority of the time.

---

I also disagree with your assertion that USAF force multipliers will become more survivable and distributed.

If we're talking about large tanker/AWACs/bomber aircraft, they are so vulnerable because they rely on fixed airbases within range of Chinese missiles. And on a cost-benefit basis, destroying these expensive aircraft on the ground is a bargain compared to the cost of missiles.

We already see the USAF removing its bombers from Guam due to Chinese missiles, and I expect Chinese missile development to continue with even longer-ranged missiles up to Hawaii which is some 8000km from the Chinese mainland.

---

I actually see the advent of loyal wingman autonomous UCAVs as reducing the utility of manned stealth fighters like the F-35 or J-20.

These UCAVs will become the primary sensor and shooter platforms, as they are sent out far ahead. An F-35 or J-20 will become the secondary sensor and shooter platform. Then there is a question about whether the F-35 or J-20 is the best command and control platform for these drones.

So the conclusion is that you want to produce vast numbers of UCAVs, which are controlled by a more modest number of F-35s, J-20s or other aircraft.

Plus these cheap disposable UCAVs are being developed with a range of 4000-6000km in mind. 6000km of endurance is beyond the capabilities of a manned stealth fighter.

Even Guam is only a 6000km round trip from China, so it would be feasible to send large numbers of air superiority and ground attack drones against Guam. So from the Chinese perspective, what use is having an excessively large number of short-ranged manned stealth fighters?

All this is to say that going into the next 5, 10 and 15 years, the path that the PLA's combat aviation fleet needs to take is quite obvious:
- try to move to all 5th generation fighter procurement as soon as possible and stop 4+ generation fighter production (likely not possible until the mid 2020s at the earliest), with the goal of procuring as many 5th generation fighters as the budget and fleet requirement allows
- further develop and fast track unmanned aircraft technology, with the goals of operationalizing their own loyal wingman UCAV type aircraft within 5 years, as well as operationalizing their own distributed/attritable ISR/AEWC/ISR/ELINT UAV fleet. Once mature, large scale procurement is necessary.
- 4+ generation fighters will continue to be in service and upgraded, however will be completely non-competitive against a foe who will be operating majority fleet 5th gen fighters supported by a large fleet of their own 4+ fighters and increasingly capable unmanned technologies and pre-existing formidable "legacy" AEW&C/EW/ELINT force multipliers.
- continue to try to fast track and develop 6th generation fighter technologies for a rollout preferably by 2030 if not earlier, even if it is in a "phased" manner where new capabilities are rolled into the aircraft over time.


Obviously in addition to the above fundamentals, seeking greater strike/offensive counter air capability to hit opfor air bases when their aircraft is on the ground is desirable, and that will also be pursued.
But seeking to have an air force that is able to at least match, if not outmatch the enemy in the air if you are unable to greatly hamstring their sortie rate/airbases, IMO is also essential.



.... Now, all of this isn't to say that continuing to have 4+ generation aircraft in your fleet is a bad idea -- but rather what I'm saying is that depending on how large and capable the opfor's 5th generation fleet is, you also need to have a sufficiently large and capable 5th gen fleet of your own.

Say we have three air forces:
Air Force A: has 1000 4+ generation fighters and 200 5th gen fighters
Air Force B: has 400 4+ generation fighters and 60 5th generation fighters
Air Force C: has 600 4+ generation fighters and 700 5th generation fighters


In comparing those three air forces, Air Force A's composition would obviously be able to outmatch Air Force B by virtue of not only having a larger total air fleet of fighters (in both 4+ gen and 5th gen).
However, Air Force A would likely be greatly challenged to face Air Force C which has a 5th generation fleet of 700 fighters versus Air Force A's only 200 5th generation fighters, and Air Force a's 1000 4+ generation fighters will not likely be able to pick up the slack.

In an ideal world, not only is your own air force larger than your opfor's, but also each and every single one of your aircraft is qualitatively superior than your opfor's. I don't need to describe the synergistic effects of this in a system on systems confrontation between two air forces, I'm sure.

In the real world, where air forces are limited by budgets, you have to make do with what you can.
But for the PLA, I think we also have to be realistic wrt the scale of the challenge they will be facing in the near future and how their future procurement may be shaped to approach it.

My view is that it would be foolish for the Chinese Air Force to try and match the number of manned stealth fighters, even if they had the budget to do so.

The geography of the Western Pacific allows the Chinese military to invest in missiles to destroy opposing stealth fighters on the ground, rather than in the air which is far more difficult and expensive.

Let's say the Chinese Air Force was given the budget to match the opposition's 2000 manned stealth fighters, in its goal to contest achieve air superiority in the Western Pacific. But the Chinese Air Force would struggle to obtain air superiority in such a symmetric force-on-force encounter.

But if China were to only field 1000 manned stealth fighters, the rest of the money could be used for land-attack missiles instead.
A back of the envelope calculation indicates that China could buy over 100,000 JASSM or Tomahawk type missiles.
Other missiles are more or less expensive, but you get the idea.

Such a combination of forces would guarantee Chinese air superiority over the Western Pacific, because everyone else will barely have any aircraft into the air.