Replacing the Legacy J7 and J8 fighters

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Over the last few years with the Introduction of the J10 family, the unveiling of the J15 and now the J20, plus rumours of other new planes under way, I come back to a question that I ask time and time again.

The old J7 and J8 regiments are more than ready for replacement and this has to be the biggest single issue on the PLAAF planners minds. Recent developments have indeed brought this issue back to public attention and Typhoon has talked about it as part of his latest J20 related blog entry

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


So what are the options for replacing this old legacy fleet? and how far can technology shrink the number of units required to provide China with an enhanced capability.

Is the J-17 the answer? Will it be a new plane altogether? To what degree could many pure Air Defence needs be answered by very low cost UACV's

Are any answers staring us in the face yet?

Discuss
 

Lion

Senior Member
PLAAF Doctrine changes over the years. China in the past used to concern only defence. But with surge in export and import and heavy interaction ewith many foreigner countries. It need to emphazise on power projection. J-7 point blank air defence need to be replaced but will be limited in numbers and not 1:1.

The one really need to increase heavily in numbers and quality will be J-11B and J-11BS. They need to be the workhorse of PLAAF/PLANAF.
 

timepass

Brigadier
In my point of view PLAAF will induct JF-17 in large numbers with J-10A & B & create a joined work horse team for PLAAF (approx 800-1000). While J-11BS/SU30MKK/J-15 (YFC-1E)/J20 will be the high end fighters (approx 500-800).
 

challenge

Banned Idiot
In my point of view PLAAF will induct JF-17 in large numbers with J-10A & B & create a joined work horse team for PLAAF (approx 800-1000). While J-11BS/SU30MKK/J-15 (YFC-1E)/J20 will be the high end fighters (approx 500-800).
fantasy talk, I do not see any large number of JF-17 in service, ,and number of J-10A in service is turn out to be quite small,even if J-20 finally enter service, the aircraft may turn out to be to expensive . number may not even exceed 300.
J-10B may turn out to be back bone for PLAAF ,and proposed single engine F-35 type fighter .(J-16?)
 

HKSDU

Junior Member
More likely I'm following the current trend of what the PLAAF is doing. Future inventory outlook...

PLAAF:

J-7 => J-10 series
J-8 => J-11/J-20 series
Q-5 => JH-7 series
H-6 => J-20
Su-27 => J-20

First line defense: J-11
Special line defense (called out when matters can't be dealt with by J-11): J-20 [sort of acting like SWAT]
Inside nation defense: J-10

PLANAF:
J-11
J-15
J-10

Thoughts why JF-17 won't join service. Provides only a minor improvement over the J-7, will be obsolete when sufficient numbers are reached, and by then another suitable candidate will need to replace them. Further money for re-organizing. J-10 will be the bulk of the PLAAF workhorse. Maybe will be inducted in very small numbers for airfields near borders, with weak airforce. But none will be stationed facing the North-East-South of China.

UCAV won't be replacing manned fighters for awhile, most likely be a force multiplier or an addition to the existing regiments and divisions.

Just some personal thinking
 

Anton Gregori

New Member
I don't see PLAAF significantly reducing the number of fighters as long as they still have fewer than the U.S. They might reduce numbers temporarily while they're waiting for new aircraft to enter service - but only if keeping the old J-7s flying for a few more years is incredibly expensive (which I doubt - on the contrary, they're probably quite cheap to keep running).

The reason is that it takes time to train up new pilots and support crew. You can't just get rid of them and then expect to get back up to speed quickly when the new fighters are ready.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I suspect a wholesale redesign of the PLAAF is currently in progress and that what we will see is not going to be a "class for class" replacement.

Obviously Informationalisation is going to form the nervous system of the new structure and I think roles will be more tightly defined, hence affecting the replacement choice and numbers in any particular instance.

I also have to say that if the J-17 were going to be a major rear echelon replacement, we would already be seeing a lot of them being deployed (albeit quietly) along the quiet periphery.

One thing though that I suspect we will see for the close homeland defence role is the growth of the UACV and that it will be a very stripped down and cost effective system.

To me, this is one of the main roles where such a system would be able to operate in a High Tech combat environment as the enemy ability to jam the control over home airspace is going to be minimal (if they can then surrender as they have you well and truly beat!!).

The obvious advantages are unit cost and of course no need for an expensive pilot as a dextrous, tubby, spotty Herbert will do.

I wonder just how simple an Interceptor system could be? The simplest I can think of is effectively just strapping an airframe onto an A2A missile making it re-uasable, but able to discard once fixed on a target. With a data link and external battlefield awareness, you could pretty much control the system with the missiles own electronics. Once the missile goes into kill mode the discarded airframe could either parachute down for later collection or (if powered) tootle back to base under its own steam.

Obviously I have no idea how close you could aim to this level of simplicity, but I would certainly be looking if I was holding the cheque book!
 

HKSDU

Junior Member
I suspect a wholesale redesign of the PLAAF is currently in progress and that what we will see is not going to be a "class for class" replacement.

Obviously Informationalisation is going to form the nervous system of the new structure and I think roles will be more tightly defined, hence affecting the replacement choice and numbers in any particular instance.

I also have to say that if the J-17 were going to be a major rear echelon replacement, we would already be seeing a lot of them being deployed (albeit quietly) along the quiet periphery.

One thing though that I suspect we will see for the close homeland defence role is the growth of the UACV and that it will be a very stripped down and cost effective system.

To me, this is one of the main roles where such a system would be able to operate in a High Tech combat environment as the enemy ability to jam the control over home airspace is going to be minimal (if they can then surrender as they have you well and truly beat!!).

The obvious advantages are unit cost and of course no need for an expensive pilot as a dextrous, tubby, spotty Herbert will do.

I wonder just how simple an Interceptor system could be? The simplest I can think of is effectively just strapping an airframe onto an A2A missile making it re-uasable, but able to discard once fixed on a target. With a data link and external battlefield awareness, you could pretty much control the system with the missiles own electronics. Once the missile goes into kill mode the discarded airframe could either parachute down for later collection or (if powered) tootle back to base under its own steam.

Obviously I have no idea how close you could aim to this level of simplicity, but I would certainly be looking if I was holding the cheque book!

J-17? Did i miss something recently? What is that?
 

Lion

Senior Member
Thoughts why JF-17 won't join service. Provides only a minor improvement over the J-7, will be obsolete when sufficient numbers are reached,

Despite I believe FC-1 will not join service. I believe FC-1/JF-17 is a major leap over J-7 series..

It has

-BVR capabilities
-Bigger nose cone to house better radar
-Precision Strike/ Surface sea Strike too
-Larger Payload( In terms of weapon and Fuel)
-Longer range than J-7
-Agility over J-7(+8.5G)
-Turbo fan(Fuel efficient /higher thrust)
-Glass Cockpit with better situation awareness and battle management

I will say that current PLAAF requirement is so high that even a capable plane like FC-1 may not make it into service. I think few of the high priority for PLAAF now are range and survivability(2 engines is better than one)

Unfortunately FC-1 is disadvanatge in these 2 areas.

But it will be a massive boast for other Smaller Air Force if they induct this Bird.
 
Last edited:

HKSDU

Junior Member
Despite I believe FC-1 will not join service. I believe FC-1/JF-17 is a major leap over J-7 series..

It has

-BVR capabilities
-Bigger nose cone to house better radar
-Precision Strike/ Surface sea Strike too
-Larger Payload( In terms of weapon and Fuel)
-Longer range than J-7
-Agility over J-7(+8.5G)
-Turbo fan(Fuel efficient /higher thrust)
-Glass Cockpit with better situation awareness and battle management

I will say that current PLAAF requirement is so high that even a capable plane like FC-1 may not make it into service. I think few of the high priority for PLAAF now are range and survivability(2 engines is better than one)

Unfortunately FC-1 is disadvanatge in these 2 areas.

But it will be a massive boast for other Smaller Air Force if they induct this Bird.

Major thought is. What major positive and negatives does the JF-17 offer over the J-10, which is already in full production, with production lines already running. J-10 is better in the JF-17 in all areas, why provide something that will require replacement soon after production? J-10 has more potential and can remain in service longer
 
Top