"China's Hidden Power" - Background Article on PLAAF

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
yeas it could be reasonable way in my obinion as well, J-10 beeing something for the 'frontal aviation' and dedicated AAW units would operate something bigger....except that the chinese doesent have that 'bigger' unless someone wants to count j-11 to that (where it fits tactically wery well)...but Im not that sure wheter its most best solution to come up with first chinese fighter desing that is par or near par with the rest of the world...to make it pure tactical fighter-bomber....
but who knows?....
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
There have been other indications that the J-10 was intended to have an air-to-ground emphasis. This corroborates a similar statement that I remember reading from Jane's All the World's Aircraft:
"It has also been noted that in 2002 the China People's Daily referred to the J-10 as Qiang Shi (Attack 10), rather than the Jian (Fighter) title that might have been expected."​

I would tend to think of the relationship between the J-10 and J-11 as likely being modeled after that of the American F-16C and F-15C. As demonstrated over Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War, the dedicated air-to-air missions were reserved for the F-15C, with its longer range radar and sophisticated IFF systems (including hostile IFF interrogation, which the F-16C, F-14, and F/A-18 all lacked). The F-16C's were assigned primarily to air-to-ground missions. This did not mean that the F-16 was not expected to take on an air-to-air role as circumstances warranted, merely that this was not its first duty call of the day.

The difference here is that the F-16A was originally developed as an air-to-air weapon, that later had to grow into the F-16C to fulfill the demands of an air-to-ground role. The result was an airplane with much higher weight and poorer wing loading, that lost much of the agility of the original F-16A. If this article is correct, then China started by designing the J-10 to fulfill the role of the F-16C Block 50+, rather than growing it into that role after the fact.

I'd call that smart (and realistic) planning.

but it's not like that with plaaf, J-10 is regarded as the superior air frame, but J-11 is regarded as the one with better range and payload, so more suitable for bombing missions and such. I see China wanting to develop J-11 into something like F-15K or F-15SG in the future. Whereas J-10, they probably want to eventually turn it into a poor man's F-35. That's just the direction I think they are going.
 

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
Re: In Perspective

If the Chinese leadership wanted to fundamentally change their force projection capabilities, vis-a-vis Taiwan or any other possible opponent, the place to invest would have been in their air-to-ground capabilities. This was where they were in need of the most improvement.
Just a thought.

I think some of the air-to-ground capability can be picked up by new multi-role capability of modern fighters. For example J-10's and FC-1's armed with LGB's, glide bombs, and air to ground missiles.

The latest F-22 stealth fighter, for example, was designed to carry 2 x 1000 lb LGB's in its internal bay, without compromising its stealth profile.

Fighters like the F-16 and F-18 have also been sucessfully modified for various mission roles, replacing older ground strike, anti-radiation, and EW aircraft.

Even Navy ships are now adopting multi-mission modules. For example the US LSC(X) carries 12 mission modules and can be customized for a wide range of missions.
 

unknauthr

Junior Member
In Perspective

but Im not that sure wheter its most best solution to come up with first chinese fighter desing that is par or near par with the rest of the world...to make it pure tactical fighter-bomber....

For insight into the possible motivation behind why China's military leadership might have made such a decision, I would refer back to the first part of the Combat Aircraft article. Prior to the early 1990s, the PLAAF had devoted only token resources to the air-to-ground mission, in contrast to Western, or even the Soviet armed forces:

"The Soviet armed forces had traditionally devoted some 40-percent of their combat aircraft inventory towards dedicated attack squadrons, including the likes of the MiG-27, Su-7, Su-17, Su-24 and Su-25 aircraft among their ranks. The PLAAF, in contrast, had typically devoted a mere 12-percent of its inventory towards attack aircraft varieties, with only two dedicated air-to-ground aircraft models, the Q-5 and JH-7, reaching production."​

If the Chinese leadership wanted to fundamentally change their force projection capabilities, vis-a-vis Taiwan or any other possible opponent, the place to invest would have been in their air-to-ground capabilities. This was where they were in need of the most improvement.

Just a thought.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
There is no neglect on the air to ground area. Every PLAAF fighter pilot, including those J-6s and J-7s, are trained to dive bomb and strafe rockets. Even J-11s and J-8IIs have been seen with bombs and rockets. Definitely a waste of a J-11 if you ask me. No doubt J-10s would still have to train for the role.

Its the dedicated high tech AG roles with PGMs ala Su-30MKK that requires more investment. PGM inventory is big bucks however, compared to dumb bombs and rockets. That's why the smart bombs are going to be reserved for high value targets.

I don't think the PLAAF would have any shortage of winged MLRS. You can recruit even obsolete J-6s and J-7s to do that role.
 
Last edited:

FreeAsia2000

Junior Member
There is no neglect on the air to ground area. Every PLAAF fighter pilot, including those J-6s and J-7s, are trained to dive bomb and strafe rockets. Even J-11s and J-8IIs have been seen with bombs and rockets. Definitely a waste of a J-11 if you ask me. No doubt J-10s would still have to train for the role.

Its the dedicated high tech AG roles with PGMs ala Su-30MKK that requires more investment. PGM inventory is big bucks however, compared to dumb bombs and rockets. That's why the smart bombs are going to be reserved for high value targets.

I don't think the PLAAF would have any shortage of winged MLRS. You can recruit even obsolete J-6s and J-7s to do that role.

The key question is whether it's wise to invest in ground attack aircraft when the future is so clearly going to be unmanned vehicles.

Wouldn't it be better to dedicate aircraft to the AA role ?
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
You have to develop those unmanned vehicles first, and those flying robots are not going to be cheap. Before you even go to that, you need to develop your PGM expertise. What's the point of developing UCAVs if you don't have the right weapons.
 
Top