Future PLA combat aircraft composition
- Thread starter Totoro
- Start date
I've paid close attention to this thread and have learned a lot of information from it. With respect to conventional missiles, I personally think you bring up a lot of very good points - which is why I wanted to bring up this insightful post again.
I was thinking of a possible solution to the weaknesses you mentioned with respect to conventional missiles - Why not use tactical nuclear weapons to eliminate the bases? This resolves many of your problems.
2. A single strike is all that's necessary to destroy all those dozens of targets.
3. Only one hit is needed for one base. If only 10 of 24 weapons hit the target, you just need to fire two to three missiles.
5. Runways will be hard to repair after a hit.
6. Most individual planes will be destroyed after a single strike.
6b. No need to worry about clouds or radar satellites. You can use a paper map to set the target and still eliminate most of your objectives.
7. No need for target discrimination. Most targets will be destroyed with a hit.
7b. No need to worry about self-retargeting or visibility. As long as the warhead successfully lands in the general area, the targets are mostly eliminated.
Last edited:
Yep, it open the door wide for a nuclear retaliation... nuclear weapon are paper weapons but they can be used to light big fires.
I have little doubt the PLA has nuclear warheads on most of those DF-21 and DF-26 missiles. I wouldn't be surprised if they have nuclear tipped H-6K launched missiles as well. Once H-20 becomes available carpet bombing targets with conventional weapons will also become possible.
The problem is, with departure of AFB and Jeff Head, it feels like this board has veered into fanboy territory, i.e, a Chinese version of DFI.
As far as J-20 being a failure goes, my point is more that you are twisting my words (it's clear if you've read the exchange I'm discussing if the J-XY becomes the "low" of the PLAAF, as opposed to a Su-57 or single-engined J-20 derivative).
As far as Su-57 procurement goes, I think you might have originally mentioned no possibility whatsoever, when Chinese experts have already suggested they want to pick up Su-57s for evaluation purposes (i.e, check out what the Russians are doing and how it fairs against the J-20).
I've stated my case as to the potentiality of large-scale Su-57 procurement (it depends very much on how much the Russians want to sell it for; their domestic procurement price is extremely cheap that we can overlook all its deficits, but they'd need to sell much cheaper than J-20 procurements for the Chinese to be even interested).
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I think the performance of the J20 against PLAAF legacy fighters might have prompted a significant rethink within PLA top brass on the value of 5th gen fighters (and probably also downgraded their valuation of 4th gen by extension).
The huge numbers of F35s the US and allies are procuring would also be a consideration. The PLAAF might expect a J20 to be able to easily deal with an F35, but when F35s outnumber J20s several to one, that changes things since quantity has a quality of its own, as old Stalin used to love to say.
In that respects, I could see the PLA going with a dual track procurement approach.
The first phase would see the PLAAF procure a significant number of carrier capable J21s to operate from land based airfields fo make up numbers quickly, potentially with PLANAF pilots transferring over to the PLAAF to pilot them.
As J20 numbers build up and new PLAN supercarriers come online, those J21s and their pilots would be transferred back to the Navy and transition to carrier squadrons.
This means that in the medium term, the PLAAF builds up its inventory of 5th gens twice as fast as they could with J20s alone, and in the medium to long term, it means the PLAN’s new nuclear powered supercarriers become fully combat capable in the least amount of time possible with pilots who have already had years of operational experience on their 5th gen fighters. It should also not blow up the budget since in the long run, the total number of J20 and J21s produced should not be significantly more than what would have been planned for had the PLAAF stuck to just the J20 and the J21s were only procured for naval carriers.
On the whole, I do not really see the PLAAF having massive appetite for J21s for the same reason China isn’t unduly worried about hostile F35s at present - geography and range.
PLAAF land based J21s would need land bases to operate from, and there is just no one China needs land based J21s to defend against.
Maybe in the long term, as the belt and road really takes off there might be a need for PLA forces to secure it against the inevitable hostile actions, but those would look to be mostly COIN and ground forces work, since no one would be stupid enough to wage a full scale way against a fully connected Belt and Road country as that would be equivalent to starting a ground war with China. In which case legacy fighters and drones would be the workhorses, and any shock and awe intimidation ops can be carried out by J20s.
I still think the J21 is going to be a mostly naval and export fighter. Which maybe why the Chinese initially stay mum about their plans to ultimately transfer their land based units to naval carriers.
But in developing it and having the PLAAF initially operate it should help it to secure some decent export orders. Pakistan would be interested, and China might even clear it for Iran if relations with America and Israel continue to deteriorate. Hell, even the Russians might be interested if there is meaningful ToT, which might be on the cards.
The huge numbers of F35s the US and allies are procuring would also be a consideration. The PLAAF might expect a J20 to be able to easily deal with an F35, but when F35s outnumber J20s several to one, that changes things since quantity has a quality of its own, as old Stalin used to love to say.
In that respects, I could see the PLA going with a dual track procurement approach.
The first phase would see the PLAAF procure a significant number of carrier capable J21s to operate from land based airfields fo make up numbers quickly, potentially with PLANAF pilots transferring over to the PLAAF to pilot them.
As J20 numbers build up and new PLAN supercarriers come online, those J21s and their pilots would be transferred back to the Navy and transition to carrier squadrons.
This means that in the medium term, the PLAAF builds up its inventory of 5th gens twice as fast as they could with J20s alone, and in the medium to long term, it means the PLAN’s new nuclear powered supercarriers become fully combat capable in the least amount of time possible with pilots who have already had years of operational experience on their 5th gen fighters. It should also not blow up the budget since in the long run, the total number of J20 and J21s produced should not be significantly more than what would have been planned for had the PLAAF stuck to just the J20 and the J21s were only procured for naval carriers.
On the whole, I do not really see the PLAAF having massive appetite for J21s for the same reason China isn’t unduly worried about hostile F35s at present - geography and range.
PLAAF land based J21s would need land bases to operate from, and there is just no one China needs land based J21s to defend against.
Maybe in the long term, as the belt and road really takes off there might be a need for PLA forces to secure it against the inevitable hostile actions, but those would look to be mostly COIN and ground forces work, since no one would be stupid enough to wage a full scale way against a fully connected Belt and Road country as that would be equivalent to starting a ground war with China. In which case legacy fighters and drones would be the workhorses, and any shock and awe intimidation ops can be carried out by J20s.
I still think the J21 is going to be a mostly naval and export fighter. Which maybe why the Chinese initially stay mum about their plans to ultimately transfer their land based units to naval carriers.
But in developing it and having the PLAAF initially operate it should help it to secure some decent export orders. Pakistan would be interested, and China might even clear it for Iran if relations with America and Israel continue to deteriorate. Hell, even the Russians might be interested if there is meaningful ToT, which might be on the cards.
It depends how many they will build and if another slightly different line is worth the different costs. If they want a lot of PLAAF types, they will develop a more suitable version. The drawbacks of having unnecessarily bulky and heavy landing gears and more complex failure prone folding wings, is probably not even worth it for 100 or so fighters which should be sensibly estimated as the lower end of likely procurement if there is actually any for PLAAF.
Yes and no. Yes because what you're saying is true and relatively accurate but no because you don't need to necessarily tackle the problem head on this way. China doesn't need to build as many J-20s as they calculate is necessary to match the combined F-35 threat. They can't anyway. They can't outspend and outbuild the Americans it's simply not possible as long as the US hold influence over the rest of the developed world while maintaining dollar hegemony as they have no real "cost" to what they spend... except delayed impending consequences no one truly understands.
F-35s do not have unlimited range. They do not have unlimited payload. Each unit can deal a known maximum damage/threat of damage and be completely worthless after this. All one is required to do is destroy their airfields including the floating ones. Now that's MUCH easier said than done but guaranteeing this outcome is certainly far easier than matching the threat posed by F-35s (as an isolated unit). If they are truly as effective in real near peer war, then the outcomes are either get depleted until defeat or escalate with what you got. At least the latter gives you some chance of escaping defeat. So even if you had no other option (and China has several) than to nuke carriers and airfields/bases in the region, it's something you gotta do. Consequences be damned at that point because not doing so means guaranteed death while doing it is a coin toss between nuclear escalation or peace talks. Personally I doubt any western leader at the moment is insane enough to play nuclear roulette with even North Korea let alone China unless they have groundbreaking new technologies that can ensure outcomes.
The only thing that must be done is build and stockpile enough nukes to make the surface uninhabitable as an insurance against being attacked. Without the safety net (which both Russia and US - the old cold war foes) there is simply no saying for sure. This is why both Russia and US insist on such high warhead stockpiles. I don't see any reason why China should and would have significantly less.
Even without Su-57 or any fighters for that matter, Russia would not fear any number of F-35 as long as she has the ability to send those airbases and carriers into a thermonuclear end. If the US want to retaliate with the same, well that matters zero to Russia because it was given a choice of death via F-35 or coin toss between death via MAD or peace talks. A rational actor would choose to use nukes on US bases and carriers. It's the only sensible choice when the outcomes are those. Struggling and playing a conventional who's fighters are better game is just the warm up. Whoever wins it is going to receive thousands of missiles at all their floating and stationary platforms.
As much as war and military technology has evolved over the centuries since the industrial revolution, we still mostly use dumb chemical propulsion and the old principles. Our guns are still projectile kinetic weapons like they were centuries ago albeit improved. The US military is formidable but if you can reach their platforms (which no previous victim of theirs could) then they won't initiate conflict until they have surety over outcomes. If China were militarily weak, the US would have invaded in the early 2000s as soon as it became more clear that PRC isn't going to roll over and play by their rules.
The US actually can't project considerably military power to an area that can challenge it with A2AD. They can project the most but what they can offer that's publicly known, isn't really as much as people realise UNTIL you account for those carriers. They are the real threats. Knock them out and you knock out 90% of US military power projection. Use all means necessary otherwise sure loss. A hypothetical nuclear power state in a war with US would probably first wrestle and find out whether or not a conventional conflict is viable. If not, take out carriers with anti-carrier weapons. Don't have those or they don't work out? Gotta use them nukes. If the Americans retaliate, it's MAD. Do they want to have MAD over the loss of all their carriers for example? Doubt it. Ask yourself whether you'd rather lose your house or lose your life.
Again the ONLY thing that matters is having enough nukes and enough effective delivery systems. At the worst, make sure that even detonating your stockpile within your country is enough to kill surface life. It's the last insurance policy against belligerent aggressor. If it's China doing the invading, then I'd tell the other country to make sure it has enough to kill the imperialist as well. The issue is it's abundantly clear to all fair minded, who is who.
Last edited:
I don't see any rationale for why they would deploy carrier based aircraft on land.
For the PLA as a whole, a J-XY that is produced and in service -- whether it is based on a carrier or based on land -- it is still only one 5th generation fighter.
More importantly, given the development time that the standard carrier based J-XY will take (assuming a maiden flight this year), and going by the pace at which the 003 carrier will be built/launched/commissioned and even accounting for additional 003 pattern carriers that may be built this decade, I do not see any benefit in "delaying" the introduction of carrier based J-XY aircraft to operate them mostly from land before operating them primarily from carriers.
The question IMO is about whether there will be a carrier based variant (that we have all been expecting as the first baseline variant) and whether there will also be a land based variant (which over the last six months we have been getting strong hints of), and what the total number of J-XYs will be built (carrier and land based variants combined) in relation to J-20s.
I agree with you that the PLA has a significant need for a large number of 5th generation fighters, however I think that requirement is likely better served through production of a large run of J-XYs separated between a carrier based variant and a land based variant, in addition to J-20s.
I also believe that the PLA very much does consider the F-35 a threat that deserves to be honored, and for all of the long range strike systems the PLA has to strike the airbases the F-35s operate from in the region, and for all the ways in which they could try to counter tankers that F-35s may depend on for greater combat persistence -- I still believe the PLA would like to have at least parity in terms of deployable 5th generation aircraft from potential adversaries in the region, if not quantitative superiority in the region.
I could envision an ultimate J-20 production run of some nearly 500 aircraft (ending in the mid 2030s), a production run of some 300+ carrier based J-XYs (beginning 2025 and ending after mid 2030s), and a production run of some 600+ land based J-XY (beginning mid/late 2020s and ending 2040).
This of course would be complemented by initiation of production of a 6th generation fighter in the early to mid 2030s (likely by CAC), as well as an unknown number of various MUMT/A2A/loyal wingman, and multirole UCAVs in both the land based and carrier based domains.
In addition, the land based J-XY variant would likely form the basis of an export variant -- i.e.: taking the same airframe but fitting it with export clearance avionics, where the avionics suite will likely prove the biggest "difference" between a domestic PLA variant aircraft and an export variant of the same aircraft.
I could very much see a land based J-XY variant having a larger production run -- potentially double the size -- than the carrier based J-XY "baseline" production run. Both the carrier and land based J-XY variants would enjoy the same avionics suite, weapons suite, engines, and software upgrade spirals, however the difference would primarily be their structural differences in terms of provisions for carrier operations.
Given the numbers involved for carrier and land based variant production for their given airframes, the benefit of having a dedicated land based variant without the complexities of carrier modifications that introduces additional production costs, performance costs and operating costs, would begin to be apparent and worth the development time for a dedicated land based variant.