Five years ago I might have agreed with point 3, but I suspect now the PLAAF is far more interested in developing modularized networked approaches to expand their offensive capabilities cheaply than in going with a stealthy hi-low combo.
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Having LO nodes of information, as in the case of the F-35, would immensely enhance network-centric warfare regardless of how "advanced" the preexisting networks are.
Yes, but those LO nodes need not be mid sized stealth fighters. Watch the autonomous systems space closely.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Let's look at it this way. The PLAAF does not have the financial means to replace even most of its legacy fighters with the J-20 in the future, nor will it neglect upgrading its fleet in the face of 2000+ USAF/N/MC F-35s planned for the next decade. The only scheme that would fit the bill would be to do what they've done for the past 60+ years: have a hi-lo combination that serves as a compromise between the need for 5th generation platforms and a fairly limited budget. Plus having fighters of different configurations & sizes increases tactical flexibility.
Optimizing procurement strategy for network-centric warfare falls lower on the priority ladder at this point. In fact, I don't think the PLAAF is even centered around building its fleet solely for the purpose of C4ISR networks.
Good point with the numbers vs range and time dilemma. I suppose this will eventually be up to certain variables we're not privy to. Thing I do want to mention is the relatively small wings on J-20. Similar to F-35. I think this trend shows the engineers working on these respective projects understand something advantageous with smaller wings. J-20's wingspan is not much more than FC-31. Length is another question but next gen carriers I'm sure will be designed with upcoming naval LO platforms in mind. So length issue of J-20 could really be dealt with without much compromise. Width isn't too much of an issue. Drones like X-47B, larger EW planes, and carrier borne AWACS are the future for PLAN. Supported by long legged multirole fighters and strikers for defensive or offensive missions.
Long legs can be transferred into more capacity. But more fighters can not translate to long legs. Longer legs also means more load, longer hangtime, per jet. And to achieve the same capacity, less sorties and longer life for the jets and less intensity for the carrier.
J-20's wingspan is over 2 meters longer than FC-31. The notion that the J-20 has small wings really needs to be discarded. Its wingspan and wing area are roughly comparable to that of a F-22 or Su-57, so it does not have "relatively small" wings ... not to mention the coupled canards. Brings me back to the days of the 23 meter long J-20 fallacy ...
I don't imagine PLAAF or PLAN to be able to match US numbers AND technology in the coming decades even with the most optimistic projections. It could very well work out cheaper to go with one LO platform shared between navy and air force. Potential J-31 will NOT be significantly cheaper than J-20 if it is built to be a capable and versatile fighter. They will need a single engine fighter to do that. I wouldn't want to see China try to support that kind of range in fighters. Indians love this method and it is absolutely rubbish.
Financial means depends a lot on how the economy does. A China with middle OECD levels of economic productivity would have an economy two to three times the size of the US. That said, China does not necessarily need to match the US in the number of stealth fighters it fields. The USN is unlikely to deploy all of their F-35s in the Pacific Theater, even in a conflict with China, nor will every F-35 be used for an air superiority role. Furthermore a stealth fighter is not the only or best counter to another stealth fighter. If you can get a lock at range on a stealth fighter with radar or EOS you don't need another stealth fighter to interdict. In addition, China, by function of being native to the theater, can depend on other anti-air defenses to deal with those fighters.
Okay i'm not an expert and haven't actually looked at the pixel comparisons but J-20's wings do look very small for it's body. There's definitely advantage to smaller wings in fifth gen. Maybe the body does some lifting too. I don't believe the idiots who keep claiming the F-35 is a terrible dog fighter. Big wings a la typhoon isn't the only solution. However you are probably right about the 2m difference which is very significant. I always thought it was something like half a metre at most.