Future PLA combat aircraft composition

[Blitzo]

what?????

ok, do you have anything, support on that? the 6th gen goes to CAC? I remember Yang Wei on Zhuhai 2021 said that they have started the 6th gen conceptual design, but he, at that time was not member of CAC anymore, but top ranks in AVIC, so it could mean anything, also competation is definately after conceptual design is over, so how can you tell is awarded to CAC?

I didn't say that it is awarded to CAC, I said it likely has been awarded to CAC either in writing or in principle.

The reason I suspect that, is because of timing.

We know that the 6th generation fighter is projected to be in active service before 2035, meaning it would have had to started initial production about 2-3 years before hand, let's say 2032 (similar to how J-20 only entered proper service some 2-3 years after it began initial production in 2015).

That in turn means the maiden flight of the aircraft would have had to begun at least some 5 years before initial production, in turn meaning active development of the aircraft would have been ongoing for some 3-4 years prior to the maiden flight...

Peel back the numbers, and from 2035 you have to take 2-3 years + 5 years + 3-4 years, which takes us to 2023-2025.


In the 2023-25 period, for SAC, they at that point in time they would already be actively working on the development/testing and starting initial production of the standard carrier based J-XY. As a carrier based 5th generation aircraft (even as a derivative of the FC-31 V1 and V2 airframes), it will be quite reasonably tied up by the challenge of ensuring it works. (This is ignoring the land based J-XY variant btw)

Meanwhile, in the 2023-25 period for CAC, they would not have any new major aircraft project in the works at that point that we can predict. Perhaps one can argue that the WS-15 powered J-20 could be considered a major new aircraft project, but I don't think anyone expects it to be anywhere near the challenge of the J-XY, as it would likely end up just being a J-20 variant with modestly improved avionics and integrated with the new engines without any other meaningful structural enhancements.


So in summary, based on when the 6th gen fighter is projected to enter service, and based on what the timelines for developing a new fighter are, and based on the workloads for developing, testing and establishing production for a new fighter aircraft between CAC and SAC... I find it very unlikely that SAC will have the aerospace resources to develop the primary 6th generation manned fighter in the timescale that would be needed.

also, today is April 6th 2022, even if the landbase J-XY take maiden flight tomorrow, there is only 3 years to 2025-26, how? can a fighter jet to be initial production in 3 years? this will beat the world record twice.

Certainly, for two major reasons:
1. Land based J-XY is a less structurally complex and less heavily engineered variant of the already flown standard carrier based J-XY, and entire subsystem domains are likely to be shared (sensors, datalinks, general avionics, weapons). Systems integration tests done on the standard J-XY will be able to substantially accelerate the similar development/testing stages of the land based J-XY, and there are likely to be substantial cross over between the flight testing of the J-XY with the land based J-XY as well.
2. Both the J-XY, and the land based J-XY, in terms of flight testing, will likely benefit meaningfully from the years of flight testing done on FC-31 V1 and V2, likely with gains in risk reduction (and therefore cutting down time). There likely will be no benefit in systems integration as the FC-31 V1 and V2 to our knowledge was never equipped with a sensor suite.

Keep in mind the first J-20 tech demo s/n 2001 first flew in early 2011, and the first initial low rate production of J-20 began in late 2015 -- however the first J-20 prototype s/n 2011 first flew in early 2014, barely two years from first initial low rate production of J-20.

In the case of J-XY, the standard carrier J-XY is much closer to J-20 s/n 2011 than 2001, and I expect the land based J-XY to be similar as well.
So yes, I think 2-3 years between the maiden flight of the first land based J-XY, and initial low rate production, is very much within reason and not an exceptional date at all.

I really don't know what makes you difficult to understand, but I'm not agree on

For me, today is like lat 2011 to early 2012, people finally the get the J-20 rush calmed and not yet see the FC-31 yet.
Even after FC-31 is shown, it took people a while to realize PLAAF is not going to buy that, so we don't know what the land base is going to look like, and most importantly, whether PLAAF will buy it or not

Well then I simply disagree, there's no two ways about it.

I'm not agree on

until

is settled, discusion on "land based J-XY/35 variant" could slot into future PLAAF is pretty much a speculation, and balance the 5th gen figher number is a speculation on top of a speculation.

So to me, "land based J-XY/35" is already guaranteed, confirmed.
Just like how in 2008-2010 the idea of J-20 was guaranteed, confirmed -- or how in 2019-2020 the idea of J-XY/35 was guaranteed, confirmed.

The only level of "debate" to me is whether the J-XY/35 is going to have the PLAAF be a definitive launch customer, and that's a simple yes or no answer, which is uninteresting and is not useful for productive discussion.

Therefore to me, the only productive discussion that can be had about this "land based J-XY/35" topic is about how the aircraft could hypothetically make sense for the PLAAF.
Also, how "land based J-XY/35 variant slots into future PLAAF" and "the balance of PLAAF 5th generation fighter fleet" to me is the same discussion, and the same level of "speculation" -- i.e.: they're part of the same "how does the land based J-XY/35 make sense for the PLAAF".



If you don't want to have this discussion, that is fine, you do not have to participate.

i see your point... but this is a 601 research institute researcher doing a introduction to himself, and 'in charge of PLAAF and PLAN new aircraft platform R&D' could really means a lot of thing...
from conceptual design to a specific tool, from 4.5 gen to 6 gen, from FC-31 V1.0 to 3.0 or even 4.0

I understand people like to link this to J-XY because there is a FC-31 V1.0 picture there, but ... this simply over stretch too much IMO.

I disagree, I think it is perfectly reasonable, and more importantly it lines up with other rumours that have since proven to be true (J-XY/35 most notably/relevantly).

 

[latenlazy]

yes, that's why there is also rumor that J-10 production will all move to Guizhou and Changdu only is going produce J-20 in the future...

at least this one does not including a new plane and don't conflict the timeframe of possible 6th gen fighter development...

Even if the the rumors of the J-20 production expanding to 4 lines are true, you’re not getting adequate long term replacement of 4th gens with 5th gens with only 4 production lines for the J-20. Either the J-20’s production would have to be expanded even more, or you’re going to need to augment those lines with another fighter.

 

[Blitzo]

So, starting from a fresh post, I want to elaborate about my reasoning for the PLA's future land based 5th generation fighter procurement.

I have a few foundational assumptions:
A) The PLA (which is to be understood as the PLAAF and/or PLANAF's land based fighter units) should aim to have some 1200-1400, land based, 5th (and/or "5.5th") generation fighters in service by around 2040. This does not include PLANAF carrier compatible 5th generation fighter aircraft, which will be deployed aboard carriers but of course have land bases to operate and train from as well when they are not embarked.
B) The PLA will seek to start initial low rate production of the 6th generation manned fighter (a component of the overall future aerial combat system), sometime in the early 2030s, with the aim to achieve a credible operational capability by 2035, a number that has been spoken of multiple times in official and semi-official capacity
C) The only two Chinese institutes/factories that can produce manned fighter aircraft of 5th generation or above, are assumed to be CAC and SAC.


Based on those assumptions, A, B and C, I present this simple graph:




It is mostly self explanatory, but I will specify a few bits.
(The "LB J-XY" refers to "land based J-XY/35 variant" as shorthand)

The coloured bars depicts the "active production" of the various given fighter types, however keep in mind the yearly airframe production fluctuate from year to year, and the aircraft produced at the first few years and last few years are lower than the main chunk, to reflect wind up and wind down.

There are two scenarios depicted.
On both the left and the right scenarios, I am assuming that the 6th generation fighter will start initial low rate production in 2032. That is the one major constant between the two scenarios.

The left scenario depicts how I believe the PLA could meet the "1200-1400 land based 5th generation fighters by ~2040" target, between J-20 and the LB J-XY -- I project both J-20 and LB J-XY throughout their production runs (2015 to 2036 for J-20, and 2025 to 2043 for LB J-XY), will each have a lifetime run of between 600-700 aircraft each, for a total of 1200-1400 aircraft by about 2043 at the latest.
- For J-20, as of early 2022 we believe slightly over 100 production J-20s have been produced, meaning in the 14 years between 2022 and 2036, they will have to produce some 500-600 J-20s. That's an average annual production rate of 36-42 J-20 airframes between 2022-2036 -- which I think is very much achieveable for CAC, when considering that some years it will be higher than 36-42 airframes, and near the end of the production run it will be a bit lower.
- For LB J-XY, to produce 600-700 aircraft in the 18 years between 2025 and 2043, they would have to annually produce an average of 33-39 airframes a year. However, keep in mind this doesn't include the initial ramp up period which will likely be some 4-5 years long for the LB J-XY perhaps to produce the first 100 initial aircraft, meaning the subsequent 13-14 years of production between 2030 and 2043 will have to produce some 38-46 aircraft annually on average. But again, for SAC I think this is very much within reason. Keep in mind, for SAC, they will be producing the standard carrierborne J-XY as well at the same time as the LB J-XY, however I believe the PLANAF will not require more than 350 J-XY for their carriers by 2045. Putting it another way, for the "combined J-XY production" (J-XY and LB J-XY), they will be required to produce some 1000 odd airframes in 20 years between 2025 and 2045, of which 18 of those years would have some 600-700 LB J-XY produced. That means an average production rate of some 50 aircraft between 2025 and 2045, or alternatively, (assuming 50 J-XY and 100 LB J-XY are produced by 2030),some 57 aircraft per year between 2030 and 2045. IMO an average annual production rate of 57 combined J-XY airframes between 2030-2045 is quite plausible -- or alternatively, if only considering LB J-XY, it will be an average annual production rate of 38-46 LB J-XY airframes between 2030-2043.

The right scenario depicts how the J-20 production would have to progress if they wanted to attain the 1200-1400 5th generation fighters without any LB J-XY.
- Again, as of early 2022 we have over 100 production J-20s, leaving some 1100-1300 J-20s left to be produced! I extend the J-20 line out, simply because we do not know how much production CAC can be expanded to handle. I depict production extending to beyond 2045, but let's call it 2045. That is some 23 years of production, which to produce some 1300 aircraft would need 57 an annual average of airframes produced per year. Certainly plausible, but do we really want J-20s to be in production by the mid 2040s?
- So alternatively, let's change it and lets assume that similar to the left scenario, we want the PLA to have 1200-1400 J-20s by 2043. That means, in the 21 years between 2022 and 2043, they'll have to produce 1100-1300 aircraft, which amounts to 52-62 aircraft a year. 52-62 aircraft a year on average seems plausible, and is not that much higher than the 36-42 J-20s a year in the left scenario, right?
- But no, wait there's a problem! We have to consider the 6th generation fighter project, which is aimed to begin initial production in 2032! If the J-20 and the 6th generation fighter are both produced by CAC, then can CAC really manage to produce J-20s for that long alongside the ramp up of the 6th generation fighter?
- Or alternatively, could the 6th generation fighter be given to SAC to develop and produce instead? Maybe... but for a 2032 initial production to achieve 2035 operational capability, it means that you need to begin development at least some 8-9 years or so ahead of time, and for SAC, right now up to 2025-6 they will be actively busy with the standard J-XY as a complex carrier based 5th generation aircraft, perhaps one of the most complex aerospace projects in Chinese history. So chances are, I expect SAC's hands to be too tied up to actively develop the 6th generation fighter on top of the J-XY in such close succession.
- The other option, is that maybe the PLA can "force" SAC to produce J-20s as well as CAC -- that is to say, SAC can produce J-20 airframes "licensed" from CAC, for them to achieve 1200-1400 J-20s by 2043 while allowing CAC to focus on producing the 6th generation fighter as well... but that would be somewhat unprecedented in the modern era, for an aircraft as complex as J-20 to have duplicate production, in such large numbers as well.
- However this also raises problems of engine availability after 2025. I expect the PLA will seek to ramp up WS-15 production, both for new J-20 airframe builds, but also to develop a variant for powering the initial variants of the 6th generation fighter. Meaning that production of WS-15s will be a bottleneck for a while as they ramp it up, and if they are unable to do so, they will have to likely continue powering a number of J-20s with WS-10 variants. It's not the end of the world, but it is something to additionally consider.


The above numbers of course are not specific, nor are the specific individual years. But I do believe that the "seeking 1200-1400 5th generation land based fighters by around 2040" is a very reasonable and fair goal for the PLA, and that is irrespective of the forthcoming 6th generation fighter, and expected advances and procurement of UCAVs and MUMT platforms.


So to sum up, my belief is:
- To achieve 1200-1400 5th gen land based fighters by around 2040, a "J-20 + LB J-XY" fleet format, with about a 50/50 split between the two types, is viable. It also does not place any undue burden on consumption of WS-15 family engines, because J-20 and LB J-XY will be using two different types of engines with their own separate rate limiting factors on engine production.
- To achieve 1200-1400 5th gen land based fighters by around 2040, using an "only J-20" fleet format, would require CAC to significantly expand annual J-20 production capacity (compared to the "J-20 + LB J-XY" scenario) -- but more importantly it may also either compromise CAC's ability to produce 6th generation fighters, OR it will require the 6th generation fighter to be given to SAC to be developed (which in turn might not even be possible due to SAC's commitment to the carrierborne J-XY project), OR it will require the J-20 production to be also given to SAC, which would be quite unprecedented. All of this is on top of the fact that such a large production run of J-20s will also place burden on the WS-15 engine family production, which may or may not be able to cope with such high demands for both J-20s and also the initial variants of the 6th generation fighter. However it is also viable, depending on how those factors play out.

I certainly think both the "J-20 + LB J-XY" and "only J-20" options are viable, and at this stage I'm not definitively saying one is better than the other..... but it does mean that the "J-20 + LB J-XY" option is one that might eventuate, which is why I don't think we should dismiss rumours of the LB J-XY being intended primarily for the PLA as if it is something so outlandish, when in reality it should be seen as quite a reasonable procurement choice.



@tphuang @latenlazy @Deino @weig2000

 

[stannislas]

I didn't say that it is awarded to CAC, I said it likely has been awarded to CAC either in writing or in principle.

The reason I suspect that, is because of timing.

We know that the 6th generation fighter is projected to be in active service before 2035, meaning it would have had to started initial production about 2-3 years before hand, let's say 2032 (similar to how J-20 only entered proper service some 2-3 years after it began initial production in 2015).

That in turn means the maiden flight of the aircraft would have had to begun at least some 5 years before initial production, in turn meaning active development of the aircraft would have been ongoing for some 3-4 years prior to the maiden flight...

Peel back the numbers, and from 2035 you have to take 2-3 years + 5 years + 3-4 years, which takes us to 2023-2025.


In the 2023-25 period, for SAC, they at that point in time they would already be actively working on the development/testing and starting initial production of the standard carrier based J-XY. As a carrier based 5th generation aircraft (even as a derivative of the FC-31 V1 and V2 airframes), it will be quite reasonably tied up by the challenge of ensuring it works. (This is ignoring the land based J-XY variant btw)

Meanwhile, in the 2023-25 period for CAC, they would not have any new major aircraft project in the works at that point that we can predict. Perhaps one can argue that the WS-15 powered J-20 could be considered a major new aircraft project, but I don't think anyone expects it to be anywhere near the challenge of the J-XY, as it would likely end up just being a J-20 variant with modestly improved avionics and integrated with the new engines without any other meaningful structural enhancements.


So in summary, based on when the 6th gen fighter is projected to enter service, and based on what the timelines for developing a new fighter are, and based on the workloads for developing, testing and establishing production for a new fighter aircraft between CAC and SAC... I find it very unlikely that SAC will have the aerospace resources to develop the primary 6th generation manned fighter in the timescale that would be needed.

you know what's your issue here? is that you set your mind on something and trying to make statements to support your argument, and this will turn a valid analysis into a speculation.

TBH, I like everything you wrote here, timeframe and CAC win the 6th gen contract, what so ever, but I will not use workload as a reason or argument to support on this, because it has been demostrated that in the past, PLA couldn't care less about the production role on SAC and CAC, AVIC is not belong to PLA, so it's not even his concern.

Plus, in the past ten years since J-20, does PLA gave any chance to SAC to 5th gen fighter? no, FC-31 1.0 and 2.0 was for tech demo and export purpose, and yet SAC still have plenty of work to do, J-16, J-16D, J-15, J-15T, J-15D, J-11BG, and J-11D... so you don't have to worry about the workload of SAC, they can manage on their own.

In fact, let me put this way, for a IT/manufacture company. The internal R&D development is always independent to client's, even it serves sole or few big clients. So if SAC won the 6th gen fighter contract, I'm expecting to see very familiar situation happen to CAC as what happened in the last 10 years at SAC.

Certainly, for two major reasons:
1. Land based J-XY is a less structurally complex and less heavily engineered variant of the already flown standard carrier based J-XY, and entire subsystem domains are likely to be shared (sensors, datalinks, general avionics, weapons). Systems integration tests done on the standard J-XY will be able to substantially accelerate the similar development/testing stages of the land based J-XY, and there are likely to be substantial cross over between the flight testing of the J-XY with the land based J-XY as well.
2. Both the J-XY, and the land based J-XY, in terms of flight testing, will likely benefit meaningfully from the years of flight testing done on FC-31 V1 and V2, likely with gains in risk reduction (and therefore cutting down time). There likely will be no benefit in systems integration as the FC-31 V1 and V2 to our knowledge was never equipped with a sensor suite.

Keep in mind the first J-20 tech demo s/n 2001 first flew in early 2011, and the first initial low rate production of J-20 began in late 2015 -- however the first J-20 prototype s/n 2011 first flew in early 2014, barely two years from first initial low rate production of J-20.

In the case of J-XY, the standard carrier J-XY is much closer to J-20 s/n 2011 than 2001, and I expect the land based J-XY to be similar as well.
So yes, I think 2-3 years between the maiden flight of the first land based J-XY, and initial low rate production, is very much within reason and not an exceptional date at all.

let me put this way, it took CF-188 5 years from first fly to IOC, there are certain time you can only shorten to some level.
unless land base and carrier base J-35/XY was developed completely paralle, and airframe is identical, I can't picture a mordent plan to be developed to IOC in 3 years.

Also, same airframe can only save you time in design phase, but not in verification and testing phase, which take even more significant time.

So to me, "land based J-XY/35" is already guaranteed, confirmed.
Just like how in 2008-2010 the idea of J-20 was guaranteed, confirmed -- or how in 2019-2020 the idea of J-XY/35 was guaranteed, confirmed.

I think you oversimply problem, and tick too much on your thought.
for land based J-XY/35, if PLAAF is not going to buy, then the outcome could be very different, and maynot have it at all, until FC-31V4.0 or 5.0 maybe.
As SAC, if current naval based J-35/XY can verify its major air dynamics, sensor fusion, radar, engines, structure, and etc. then without PLAAF investment, it's enough for them to build a wooden model and showcase in Zhuhai in another year.
there is no benifit to build a real jet in design phase, if 90-95% of the design remains indentical. SAC only need to build the real plane, like I mentioned in previous, for verification and testing purpose.

So how come this guaranteed and confirmed? by whom? don't mix analysis and wishful thinking.

The only level of "debate" to me is whether the J-XY/35 is going to have the PLAAF be a definitive launch customer, and that's a simple yes or no answer, which is uninteresting and is not useful for productive discussion.

Therefore to me, the only productive discussion that can be had about this "land based J-XY/35" topic is about how the aircraft could hypothetically make sense for the PLAAF.
Also, how "land based J-XY/35 variant slots into future PLAAF" and "the balance of PLAAF 5th generation fighter fleet" to me is the same discussion, and the same level of "speculation" -- i.e.: they're part of the same "how does the land based J-XY/35 make sense for the PLAAF".

of course not, these two are completely different questions, and likely to be three different questions
1. whether PLAAF will adapte J-XY/35?
this is not neccessarily just an yes/no question, for example, why can't PLAAF just bought some naval based J-XY/35 if the number is small enough? I think USAF has very small batch navy version F-18, and USN has some F-16 as well.

or here is another intresting case, PLAAF don't want J-XY/35 initially, but maybe later realize they need to boost up 5th gen fighter number for something serious, so they went to SAC like they did on JH-7, what happened?
if like I suggested, because PLAAF will have not bought the landbased J-XY/35 initially, so SAC never made a real plane, or the navy J-35 has upgrade to J-35B, will PLAAF going to buy a naval version of J-35B directly or wait for a landbase J-35A to be upgraded to J-35B level?

there are so many different scenarios for PLAAF to J-XY/35, of course it's not as easy as yes or no

2. if PLAAF will adapte J-XY/35, how many?
this number could vary from 0, few dozen, to your number 500, or like I mentioned, PLAAF to buy some naval version J-35XY.
it depends on the answer of question 1, and likely some more factors, like 6th gen fighter project progress, the further development of J-20 and etc.

3. the impact of J-XY/35 to PLAAF
to answer this, you have to answer the previous two questions first, then to other factors like, 6th gen fighter project, UAVs, bases, etc.

So, tell me, how come this a single question? without known the PLAAF evaluation on J-XY/35, number and impact has almost infinate demension of complexity to think.

If you don't want to have this discussion, that is fine, you do not have to participate.

ok, I was trying to be nice, this fourm is not your soapbox, and things won't become true even if you keep repeating it, especially in English.

Like I repeated, the way you discussed or 'analysised' was merely one of the manly possiblilties, and not even the most likely senario, seriously, how can you tell PLAAF will not do the JH-7 things again?

I disagree, I think it is perfectly reasonable, and more importantly it lines up with other rumours that have since proven to be true (J-XY/35 most notably/relevantly).

hahaha, go learn some chinese, please...

 

[Blitzo]

you know what's your issue here? is that you set your mind on something and trying to make statements to support your argument, and this will turn a valid analysis into a speculation.

TBH, I like everything you wrote here, timeframe and CAC win the 6th gen contract, what so ever, but I will not use workload as a reason or argument to support on this, because it has been demostrated that in the past, PLA couldn't care less about the production role on SAC and CAC, AVIC is not belong to PLA, so it's not even his concern.

Plus, in the past ten years since J-20, does PLA gave any chance to SAC to 5th gen fighter? no, FC-31 1.0 and 2.0 was for tech demo and export purpose, and yet SAC still have plenty of work to do, J-16, J-16D, J-15, J-15T, J-15D, J-11BG, and J-11D... so you don't have to worry about the workload of SAC, they can manage on their own.

In fact, let me put this way, for a IT/manufacture company. The internal R&D development is always independent to client's, even it serves sole or few big clients. So if SAC won the 6th gen fighter contract, I'm expecting to see very familiar situation happen to CAC as what happened in the last 10 years at SAC.

I could not care less about whether SAC has work to do or not -- they could produce J-20s for all I care, but that would be quite unprecedented.

I have no particular love or hate for SAC or CAC, but it seems like you are the one here who is overwhelmingly skeptical about SAC's prospects for developing and producing a 5th generation fighter in large numbers.

As for "in the past ten years since J-20, does PLA gave any chance to SAC to 5th gen fighter?" --- uhh yes. The J-XY/35 has been selected as the PLANAF's carrier based fighter years ago, and it made its maiden flight last year.
Is that not considered to be a 5th generation fighter for the PLA?
Heck, as a 5th generation carrier based fighter, one could even argue that the J-XY/35 is in some ways more complex than the J-20 and any other past fighter project that the Chinese aviation industry has taken on up to this point.

let me put this way, it took CF-188 5 years from first fly to IOC, there are certain time you can only shorten to some level.
unless land base and carrier base J-35/XY was developed completely paralle, and airframe is identical, I can't picture a mordent plan to be developed to IOC in 3 years.

The bolded part is what I am suggesting yes (of course with the requisite removal of key carrier modifications like folding wings, tailhook, reinforced structure etc, for the LB J-XY).

Also, same airframe can only save you time in design phase, but not in verification and testing phase, which take even more significant time.


I think you oversimply problem, and tick too much on your thought.
for land based J-XY/35, if PLAAF is not going to buy, then the outcome could be very different, and maynot have it at all, until FC-31V4.0 or 5.0 maybe.
As SAC, if current naval based J-35/XY can verify its major air dynamics, sensor fusion, radar, engines, structure, and etc. then without PLAAF investment, it's enough for them to build a wooden model and showcase in Zhuhai in another year.
there is no benifit to build a real jet in design phase, if 90-95% of the design remains indentical. SAC only need to build the real plane, like I mentioned in previous, for verification and testing purpose.

So how come this guaranteed and confirmed? by whom? don't mix analysis and wishful thinking.


of course not, these two are completely different questions, and likely to be three different questions
1. whether PLAAF will adapte J-XY/35?
this is not neccessarily just an yes/no question, for example, why can't PLAAF just bought some naval based J-XY/35 if the number is small enough? I think USAF has very small batch navy version F-18, and USN has some F-16 as well.

or here is another intresting case, PLAAF don't want J-XY/35 initially, but maybe later realize they need to boost up 5th gen fighter number for something serious, so they went to SAC like they did on JH-7, what happened?
if like I suggested, because PLAAF will have not bought the landbased J-XY/35 initially, so SAC never made a real plane, or the navy J-35 has upgrade to J-35B, will PLAAF going to buy a naval version of J-35B directly or wait for a landbase J-35A to be upgraded to J-35B level?

there are so many different scenarios for PLAAF to J-XY/35, of course it's not as easy as yes or no

2. if PLAAF will adapte J-XY/35, how many?
this number could vary from 0, few dozen, to your number 500, or like I mentioned, PLAAF to buy some naval version J-35XY.
it depends on the answer of question 1, and likely some more factors, like 6th gen fighter project progress, the further development of J-20 and etc.

3. the impact of J-XY/35 to PLAAF
to answer this, you have to answer the previous two questions first, then to other factors like, 6th gen fighter project, UAVs, bases, etc.

So, tell me, how come this a single question? without known the PLAAF evaluation on J-XY/35, number and impact has almost infinate demension of complexity to think.

1. The PLAAF adapting a small number of naval based J-XY/35 doesn't solve the issue that they have a large requirement for 5th generation fighters. Buying a few dozen naval J-XY/35s is a drop in the bucket of the well over 1000 5th generation fighters that they will need by 2040. If for some reason they only wanted to buy a few dozen naval J-XY/35s, then naturally it wouldn't make sense to even build a prototype of the LB J-XY variant.

2. Again, see above. It makes no sense for the LB J-XY to be pursued by the PLA for development unless they were to place a significantly large order. You don't simply invest in a variant of a 5th generation fighter unless you know you want to buy it in meaningful numbers.

3. This question is fundamentally the same as no. 1 and 2.

ok, I was trying to be nice, this fourm is not your soapbox, and things won't become true even if you keep repeating it, especially in English.

Like I repeated, the way you discussed or 'analysised' was merely one of the manly possiblilties, and not even the most likely senario, seriously, how can you tell PLAAF will not do the JH-7 things again?

hahaha, go learn some chinese, please...

This forum is not your soapbox either -- if other people want to discuss future possible procurement strategies, barging in and saying "it's impossible" without any reasonable explanation, except for a seeming dislike or skepticism of SAC is not productive or constructive either.

 

[stannislas]

A) The PLA (which is to be understood as the PLAAF and/or PLANAF's land based fighter units) should aim to have some 1200-1400, land based, 5th (and/or "5.5th") generation fighters in service by around 2040. This does not include PLANAF carrier compatible 5th generation fighter aircraft, which will be deployed aboard carriers but of course have land bases to operate and train from as well when they are not embarked.

why? assume USAF can achieve that number by 2040, why does PLAAF want to chase the same number by then?
Unless the situation change dramatically, I don't see what China want to sacrifice its long term benifits to pursue an 'equivlent' with US, it's so not Chinese.

and most importantly, why ignore PLANAF carrier based fleet, are they not going to have any new jet in the next 20 years? or their procurement don't take CAC and SAC production? Hi, I thought you previous esitmation was 10 catapult carriers and 600 carrier based 5th gen fighter by 2035 was your previous estimation right?

This is your first fundamental errors and it's in your assumption. to reach 1200-1400 for PLA, because that 600 additional steath fighters is going to increase a lot of load of what your estimation.
Also, what about J-16, it seems like China is keep to going to buy for 4.5+ gen fighter and upgrade the existing 4th gen fighters to 4.5th gen fighter for a while, most likely over 2025, or even to late 2030, what about your calculation again?

to achieve such number, regardless of SAC and CAC, they both need to greatly expension to increase its productivity. and I think they have aware of that, even Xi in his speech in 2020, stated they China need to great improve its avaiation industry and productivity, I think he mainly address to civil aviation, but I'm sure AVIC won't miss it.

so I don't understand why

- So alternatively, let's change it and lets assume that similar to the left scenario, we want the PLA to have 1200-1400 J-20s by 2043. That means, in the 21 years between 2022 and 2043, they'll have to produce 1100-1300 aircraft, which amounts to 52-62 aircraft a year. 52-62 aircraft a year on average seems plausible, and is not that much higher than the 36-42 J-20s a year in the left scenario, right?
- But no, wait there's a problem! We have to consider the 6th generation fighter project, which is aimed to begin initial production in 2032! If the J-20 and the 6th generation fighter are both produced by CAC, then can CAC really manage to produce J-20s for that long alongside the ramp up of the 6th generation fighter?

is a problem?
if you can don't think SAC produce LB J-XY and J-XY simutinously will cause productivity issue, why CAC produce J-20 and 6th gen fighter will be an issue? after all the number of 6th gen fighter by 2040 will not exceed carrier based J-XY, which is 600, right?

 

[stannislas]

I could not care less about whether SAC has work to do or not -- they could produce J-20s for all I care, but that would be quite unprecedented.

I have no particular love or hate for SAC or CAC, but it seems like you are the one here who is overwhelmingly skeptical about SAC's prospects for developing and producing a 5th generation fighter in large numbers.

As for "in the past ten years since J-20, does PLA gave any chance to SAC to 5th gen fighter?" --- uhh yes. The J-XY/35 has been selected as the PLANAF's carrier based fighter years ago, and it made its maiden flight last year.
Is that not considered to be a 5th generation fighter for the PLA?

well, for a person who suggest

- To achieve 1200-1400 5th gen land based fighters by around 2040, a "J-20 + LB J-XY" fleet format, with about a 50/50 split between the two types, is viable. It also does not place any undue burden on consumption of WS-15 family engines, because J-20 and LB J-XY will be using two different types of engines with their own separate rate limiting factors on engine production.

of course will see me as 'overwhelmingly skeptical about SAC's prospects for developing and producing a 5th generation fighter in large numbers', you can think me whatever you like, my preference on SAC or CAC, whatever...

I'm merely stating a fact that SAC has not produce a single 5th gen fighter that meet PLA standard till today, or is that not a fact?

Heck, as a 5th generation carrier based fighter, one could even argue that the J-XY/35 is in some ways more complex than the J-20 and any other past fighter project that the Chinese aviation industry has taken on up to this point.

of course, who denies that? but again, what does that matter to do with what I said previously?

The bolded part is what I am suggesting yes (of course with the requisite removal of key carrier modifications like folding wings, tailhook, reinforced structure etc, for the LB J-XY).

i found you are very difficult to understand that even if 90% of them are the same, from an engineering prospective and government procurment prespctive, most of the varification and testament need to be redone.

and done minus is not as easy as you thought, espcially in this case, changing reinforced structure will be very major project in any sense, and will take way more time than you imagine

also, answer me this, if these two, land base and carrier base J-XY are developed in parrell? then why a 'simpler' version need to take longer time?

 

[Blitzo]

why? assume USAF can achieve that number by 2040, why does PLAAF want to chase the same number by then?
Unless the situation change dramatically, I don't see what China want to sacrifice its long term benifits to pursue an 'equivlent' with US, it's so not Chinese.

I never said the PLAAF has to chase the same number as the USAF, however the PLA's overall land based 5th generation fighter fleet size is of course related to what the combined weight of its likely adversaries have.

and most importantly, why ignore PLANAF carrier based fleet, are they not going to have any new jet in the next 20 years? or their procurement don't take CAC and SAC production? Hi, I thought you previous esitmation was 10 catapult carriers and 600 carrier based 5th gen fighter by 2035 was your previous estimation right?

You are mistaken, my most recent estimates is for 300-350 carrierborne J-XY for its entire production run.

Future PLA combat aircraft composition

6.Is there anything photograph or drawing of the generation?

www.sinodefenceforum.com

Future PLA combat aircraft composition

I do think the PLA needs more stealth fighters, either J20 or J21 to deal with Taiwan. It'll be very dangerous if there comes a time of war and they find out J10s can't detect F35s flying over from Okinawa Why? isn't the plan to fly the J10s along with AWACS? So have the AWACS on air, along...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

This is your first fundamental errors and it's in your assumption. to reach 1200-1400 for PLA, because that 600 additional steath fighters is going to increase a lot of load of what your estimation.
Also, what about J-16, it seems like China is keep to going to buy for 4.5+ gen fighter and upgrade the existing 4th gen fighters to 4.5th gen fighter for a while, most likely over 2025, or even to late 2030, what about your calculation again?

to achieve such number, regardless of SAC and CAC, they both need to greatly expension to increase its productivity. and I think they have aware of that, even Xi in his speech in 2020, stated they China need to great improve its avaiation industry and productivity, I think he mainly address to civil aviation, but I'm sure AVIC won't miss it.

What are you talking about?

My estimate for total carrierborne and land based 5th generation fighters would be:
350 carrierborne 5th generation fighters (J-XY)
1200-1400 land based 5th generation fighters (J-20 + LB J/XY, or J-20 alone)


The continued production of 4.5 generation fighters and upgrading of 4.5 generation fighters is entirely factored into my projections, yes. I do not expect SAC or CAC to continue producing mainline 4.5 generation fighters after about 2027, except for perhaps dedicated EW variants like J-16D or J-15D.

so I don't understand why

is a problem?
if you can don't think SAC produce LB J-XY and J-XY simutinously will cause productivity issue, why CAC produce J-20 and 6th gen fighter will be an issue? after all the number of 6th gen fighter by 2040 will not exceed carrier based J-XY, which is 600, right?

As I wrote, I most recently project that the full production run for the carrier based J-XY would be 300-350.

well, for a person who suggest

of course will see me as 'overwhelmingly skeptical about SAC's prospects for developing and producing a 5th generation fighter in large numbers', you can think me whatever you like, my preference on SAC or CAC, whatever...

I'm merely stating a fact that SAC has not produce a single 5th gen fighter that meet PLA standard till today, or is that not a fact?

What about the J-XY/35?
Is that not a 5th generation fighter that meets the PLA's standards?

of course, who denies that? but again, what does that matter to do with what I said previously?

You wrote "SAC has not produced a single 5th gen fighter that meets PLA standards" -- is the J-XY/35 not a fighter that meets the PLA's standards, given it is the fighter that the PLA has selected as its carrierborne 5th generation fighter?

i found you are very difficult to understand that even if 90% of them are the same, from an engineering prospective and government procurment prespctive, most of the varification and testament need to be redone.

and done minus is not as easy as you thought, espcially in this case, changing reinforced structure will be very major project in any sense, and will take way more time than you imagine

also, answer me this, if these two, land base and carrier base J-XY are developed in parrell? then why a 'simpler' version need to take longer time?

I believe the land based J-XY will take less total time to develop than the carrier based J-XY, however the carrier based J-XY was chosen to be prioritized as the more important aircraft of the two initially to meet various testing milestones first, because of the PLAN's demand for a 5th generation carrierborne fighter and to hedge against any potential delays for the carrier based J-XY being a more complex aircraft.


I never said that removing the carrier modifications would be "easy". If it was "easy" then the land based J-XY would not need a 2-3 year testing and development phase as I stated.
If it was "easy" then it would simply do it in six months.

 

[stannislas]

1. The PLAAF adapting a small number of naval based J-XY/35 doesn't solve the issue that they have a large requirement for 5th generation fighters. Buying a few dozen naval J-XY/35s is a drop in the bucket of the well over 1000 5th generation fighters that they will need by 2040. If for some reason they only wanted to buy a few dozen naval J-XY/35s, then naturally it wouldn't make sense to even build a prototype of the LB J-XY variant.

thank you, that's exactly what I'm saying, small batch for LB J-XY make no sense, so stop saying it was concret.

second, yes, there will be a large requirement for 5th generation fighters, but hi, you have already give a 'option B', have you?

and I am really also very curious on the number 2040, why PLA want set that year as the target? what's the magic in it, why not 2030? 2035?or even 2049?

2. Again, see above. It makes no sense for the LB J-XY to be pursued by the PLA for development unless they were to place a significantly large order. You don't simply invest in a variant of a 5th generation fighter unless you know you want to buy it in meaningful numbers.

thank you again, that's excatly what I said, there is a good chance PLAAF is not going to buy a big sum...

This forum is not your soapbox either -- if other people want to discuss future possible procurement strategies, barging in and saying "it's impossible" without any reasonable explanation, except for a seeming dislike or skepticism of SAC is not productive or constructive either.

lol, I must be mistaken, so your post on this forum is not for everyone, I must need to have a 'certificate' or something in order to comment on it? is that right? your mighty super moderator, you humble me.

also, it confused me, was entire argurment and exchanges we have are not explanable enough? or I must follow your mind set in order to award a badge called 'reasonable'?

and for my 'dislike or skepticism of SAC', do you want me to appology to you or all the other two moderator @Deino @siegecrossbow as well?
I'm sorry SAC, I shouldn't dislike or skeptic on you by question @Bltizo 's theory over the existence of so called 'LB J-XY', despite I haven't see it yet
I'm sorry SAC, I shouldn't dislike or skeptic on you by question @Bltizo 's theory over PLAAF that will buy a huge number of so called 'LB J-XY', despite I haven't see it yet
I'm sorry SAC, I shouldn't dislike or skeptic on you by question @Bltizo 's theory over the impact of so called 'LB J-XY' to PLA, despite I haven't see it yet

Happy? or if there is anything else I need to do correct my mistake on 'dislike or skeptic of SAC', sir.

 

[Blitzo]

thank you, that's exactly what I'm saying, small batch for LB J-XY make no sense, so stop saying it was concret.

second, yes, there will be a large requirement for 5th generation fighters, but hi, you have already give a 'option B', have you?

and I am really also very curious on the number 2040, why PLA want set that year as the target? what's the magic in it, why not 2030? 2035?or even 2049?


thank you again, that's excatly what I said, there is a good chance PLAAF is not going to buy a big sum...

I think you've misread or do not understand what I wrote in those posts, and frankly I'm unable to tell what your argument even is now.

lol, I must be mistaken, so your post on this forum is not for everyone, I must need to have a 'certificate' or something in order to comment on it? is that right? your mighty super moderator, you humble me.

also, it confused me, was entire argurment and exchanges we have are not explanable enough? or I must follow your mind set in order to award a badge called 'reasonable'?

and for my 'dislike or skepticism of SAC', do you want me to appology to you or all the other two moderator @Deino @siegecrossbow as well?
I'm sorry SAC, I shouldn't dislike or skeptic on you by question @Bltizo 's theory over the existence of so called 'LB J-XY', despite I haven't see it yet
I'm sorry SAC, I shouldn't dislike or skeptic on you by question @Bltizo 's theory over PLAAF that will buy a huge number of so called 'LB J-XY', despite I haven't see it yet
I'm sorry SAC, I shouldn't dislike or skeptic on you by question @Bltizo 's theory over the impact of so called 'LB J-XY' to PLA, despite I haven't see it yet

Happy? or if there is anything else I need to do correct my mistake on 'dislike or skeptic of SAC', sir.

Don't feel so exceptional, nowhere in this exchange did I write in my status as a moderator. You will know if I did, because moderator statements are highlighted in blue or red.

I am writing as another posting member of the forum. If you want to continue posting the way in which you have been to this discussion, you are free to do so. I get it -- you don't think the PLAAF will procure the LB J-XY, and you've already expressed multiple times that you don't think it's going to happen, without a clear explanation.
Fine.

However, I am going to continue trying to have a discussion about how it could be reasonable for the PLAAF to procure the LB J-XY in context of future PLA fighter orbat, for others who may be interested. It is your choice if you want to continue to contribute to it in the manner that you have.