Future PLA combat aircraft composition

caohailiang said:

This is reasonable to me. J31 as the low end stealth fighter, and some J10 variant as low low end.
But this basically means PLA wont seek to achieve air power parity with US in west pacific before 2030. Is that plausible?

Click to expand...

I don't fully get the idea what parity exactly entails. Very often the impression I get is that the only way for China to have parity with the US is to have a fully 5th gen air force, or else running the risk of not being able to achieve supremacy in the air. But this simply isn't true. China does not need to have a complete 5th gen air force to accomplish her mission, and yes, even to defeat US in the pacific theatre. For the coming decades I believe the most combat- and cost effective airforce will be one which combines both 4th and 5th gen aircrafts. And please don't call J10 as "low low end". It is not only about the aircraft itself but more importantly about what role the aircraft fulfills in a grander scheme of strategy and tactics. And it is from that perspective that I see that J10 is anything but an "low low end" airplane, the opposite really, paired with 5th gen and future U(C)AVs, J10's role in the future could remain very deadly indeed.

This is a post referring to the discussion in the J-20 thread, about J-20 being modified to a strike variant.

Here are some figures that might give a little context to modifying a fighter into a strike variant.

FB-22 is perhaps a good comparison. It had multiple variants proposed.
The final one retained the fuselage/nose almost completely and enlarged the wings, while also allowing F135 engine integration.
Upside was much more fuel carried and potential for much more weapons carried underneath the wings.
Downside was still quite limited carriage of weapons while in full stealth configuration.

That variant would have cost 5-7 billion in 2002 dollars. That's 7 to 10 billion in today's dollars.
Another, earlier variant with wider and longer fuselage (no word on whether also deeper) for more internal weapons would have costed 25-30% over the said figure. So 9 to 13 billion in today's dollars.

F-22 as a whole cost 32 billion to develop, test and evaluate from 1990s to 2011. If one takes 2000 for some average value, that's 49 billion dollars in today's dollars.
Important to note - that's really developing a whole slew of completely new systems. That pricetag covers novel stealth, new generation engines, new avionics, new plane design, etc etc.

If one uses a lot of off the shelf technologies and if one uses a known design layout, even with completely new engineering for making the layout bigger - the costs overall are fairly small. Example of Superhornet. In 1992 the development contract was just 3.1 billion dollars. That's 5.8 billion in today's dollars. Of course, that means virtually no new technologies and even subsystems but using mostly existing stuff. I am pretty sure that does not cover the avionics for Superhornet (it definitely doesn't cover the radar) and it might not cover the engine integration either.

Anyway, development of just a "simple" scaled up J-20 would might thus cost 15-20% of the J-20 development cost. That plane would likely offer no stealth enhancements over J-20. But would likely offer more range and more internal weapons.

Going for big redesign efforts, like having the engines spaced apart and putting weapon bays between would make the whole thing much more expensive. God knows how much work from scratch would be needed for such a redesign. There'd likely need to be A LOT of additional structure on the plane's back to hold it all together. Especially if one wants to have one long uninterrupted weapon bay. (structural integrity/ weight savings/ performance is the reason why Su-57 for example doesn't feature one long bay but two shorter ones)

Personally, I think it'd be easier to retain the current J20 configuration and try to go for what FB-22 was going for in one of its iterations.
Make the fuselage half a meter longer, retain the width (but make the weapons bay slightly wider by removing the side weapon bays) and make the underside of the fuselage sit lower 10 or so cm in relation to wings/upper fuselage. Basically make the plane a bit fatter, vertically.

Canards might not be needed, perhaps just large lerx would be enough instead, since we're talking about a striker, not a fighter. But of course, if that means a lot of time and money spent to redevelop flight stability, controllability and so on - then that's not worth it. Unless one could also achieve a meaningful stealth improvement at the same time.

Anyway, it'd likely not be cheap. Possibly 20% to 30% of the J20 development cost, depending on the implementation of some new technologies.

That sounds horribly inefficient. Perhaps the Chinese should do like the Soviets and split the factories from the design bureaus.
i.e. once the J-16 finishes production, switch those lines to J-20. It is not just about building factories you also need to train and retain staff.

crash8pilot said:

5th gen J20 clears up the sky with BVR stealth so that J16s can roll in to knock the door down after, while other 4th gen J10 + J11 perform counterair sweep/AWACS+Tanker escort mission. With that game plan in mind, don't think the PLAAF need a large amount of 5th gen fighters to clear up the sky

Click to expand...

I like this analysis.

Phead128 said:

I like this analysis.

Click to expand...

sounds like a good plan, but remember there is a saying "The enemy gets a vote"

caohailiang said:

sounds like a good plan, but remember there is a saying "The enemy gets a vote"

Click to expand...

Of course there is "what if" when it comes to strategy - I believe the Americans call it the "good idea fairy". While important to consider "what ifs" in a strategy, accommodating all the "good ideas" the "fairy" suggests may end up making the game plan waaaaaay more complicated and rigid to execute, and might ultimately lead to the demise of the strategy itself. I won't claim to be a military strategist, I do believe that a solid strategy gives flexibility for what the enemy votes. I mean think about it - when US Special Operations went to kill Bin Laden, who would've thought one of their stealth variant Black Hawks would end up crashing in Bin Laden's backyard? Yet their game plan ultimately allowed them to achieve the mission objective... they even flew a non-stealth Chinook into Pakistan to fly their operator out!?!

Tying all this back to the discussion, the J-20/fifth-gen platform's mission objective is to achieve air superiority. If the J-20's AESA radar can effectively pick up targets from BVR range without the enemy detecting it, and if indeed the PL-15 can strike targets like the latest version of the AMRAAMs, well then surely there isn't a need for a massive fleet of expensive J-20s? The PLAAF only gets a finite amount of resources at their disposal, and fifth-gen fighters don't just grow out of trees. If the J-20 is anything like the F-22, it would be pricey to produce, expensive to fly, and costly to maintain. Once air superiority is achieved, would it really be cost effective flying the J-20s around to execute the escort/sweep mission, when non-stealth J-10/J-11s can do the job equally just as well, and more importantly at a lower cost? You'd also have to think with the latest publicity the H-6 has been receiving, the imminent introduction of the H-20, as well as the impressive capabilities/developments of the J-16 to knock the door down on the ground, that the PLAAF doesn't need to develop the J-20 to have the ability to execute a self-escort deep interdiction mission (Although it'd be a really cool idea! But then again, the world doesn't exactly work that way now, does it!)?

Not sure what the exact cost per flight hours are for the different platforms, but I'd go out on a limb and say that for each J-20 the PLAAF flies, they may very well be able to launch more 4/4.5-gen fighters into the sky to counter the enemy's vote. The capabilities of the J-20 are no doubt impressive, especially once the WS-15 comes along. But I firmly believe that the latest variants of the J-10/J-11 would serve as a more flexible and cost effective platform/solution to counter the enemy's vote, especially when aided by AWACs. Achieving air superiority via stealth BVR should ultimately be the bread and butter of the J-20, I hypthesize/theorize that producing more J-20s to counter the enemy's vote wouldn't be the best use of finite resources the PLA has at it's disposal.

Wargames from both the US and China have pretty effectively shown that 5th gen fighters destroy 4th gens, even with AWACS. Whether you believe numbers like 15-0 it is pretty clear 5th gens have a definitive advantage.


Plus, fighter pilots are not like ground troops, losing a pilot is devastating when you consider how long it takes to train one. The age where China could lose n times the troops compared to enemy losses and still win strategically are long over.

crash8pilot said:

Of course there is "what if" when it comes to strategy - I believe the Americans call it the "good idea fairy". While important to consider "what ifs" in a strategy, accommodating all the "good ideas" the "fairy" suggests may end up making the game plan waaaaaay more complicated and rigid to execute, and might ultimately lead to the demise of the strategy itself. I won't claim to be a military strategist, I do believe that a solid strategy gives flexibility for what the enemy votes. I mean think about it - when US Special Operations went to kill Bin Laden, who would've thought one of their stealth variant Black Hawks would end up crashing in Bin Laden's backyard? Yet their game plan ultimately allowed them to achieve the mission objective... they even flew a non-stealth Chinook into Pakistan to fly their operator out!?!

Tying all this back to the discussion, the J-20/fifth-gen platform's mission objective is to achieve air superiority. If the J-20's AESA radar can effectively pick up targets from BVR range without the enemy detecting it, and if indeed the PL-15 can strike targets like the latest version of the AMRAAMs, well then surely there isn't a need for a massive fleet of expensive J-20s? The PLAAF only gets a finite amount of resources at their disposal, and fifth-gen fighters don't just grow out of trees. If the J-20 is anything like the F-22, it would be pricey to produce, expensive to fly, and costly to maintain. Once air superiority is achieved, would it really be cost effective flying the J-20s around to execute the escort/sweep mission, when non-stealth J-10/J-11s can do the job equally just as well, and more importantly at a lower cost? You'd also have to think with the latest publicity the H-6 has been receiving, the imminent introduction of the H-20, as well as the impressive capabilities/developments of the J-16 to knock the door down on the ground, that the PLAAF doesn't need to develop the J-20 to have the ability to execute a self-escort deep interdiction mission (Although it'd be a really cool idea! But then again, the world doesn't exactly work that way now, does it!)?

Not sure what the exact cost per flight hours are for the different platforms, but I'd go out on a limb and say that for each J-20 the PLAAF flies, they may very well be able to launch more 4/4.5-gen fighters into the sky to counter the enemy's vote. The capabilities of the J-20 are no doubt impressive, especially once the WS-15 comes along. But I firmly believe that the latest variants of the J-10/J-11 would serve as a more flexible and cost effective platform/solution to counter the enemy's vote, especially when aided by AWACs. Achieving air superiority via stealth BVR should ultimately be the bread and butter of the J-20, I hypthesize/theorize that producing more J-20s to counter the enemy's vote wouldn't be the best use of finite resources the PLA has at it's disposal.

Click to expand...

Remember that the best place to destroy an aircraft is when it is on the ground, where it spends most of the time anyway.

silentlurker said:

Wargames from both the US and China have pretty effectively shown that 5th gen fighters destroy 4th gens, even with AWACS. Whether you believe numbers like 15-0 it is pretty clear 5th gens have a definitive advantage.


Plus, fighter pilots are not like ground troops, losing a pilot is devastating when you consider how long it takes to train one. The age where China could lose n times the troops compared to enemy losses and still win strategically are long over.

Click to expand...

Well in that case why haven't the Americans picked up the phone to Lockheed Martin to pump out more F-22s, or even take up the full monty of 750 Raptors they ordered in the first place, settling on the mere 187 operational airframes they currently have?.... Cause they're just so gosh darn expensive to procure and operate (I'm sure politics also played a big factor, but ultimately money talks)! The Department of Defense have seemingly settled on a F-22 + F-15C solution to knock out enemy aircraft from the skies and achieve air superiority. Even the "cheaper" fifth-gen fighter in the form of Fat Amy F-35 is proving to be an expensive platform to develop and operate, and as such why 4/4.5-gen fighters like the Viper, Strike Eagle, as well as the older F-15C models continue to play an important role in the USAFs strategy today.

I'm not downplaying the effectiveness or strategic advantage fifth-gen platforms bring to the table. Head to head, a fifth-gen fighter hands down trumps a forth-gen.... But how would a single fifth-gen fighter go up against a division (four ship) or squadron of forth-gen fighters, especially considering how much less it costs to produce + operate + maintain forth-gen platforms as compared to fifth-gen fighters? To put things into perspective it costs an eye watering ~60,000USD per flight hour to operate the F-22, whereas it costs ~30,000USD per flight hour on the F-15C.... or ~7,000USD on the F-16 Block 50! Fifth-gen fighters play a vital role in today's battlefield, but I'm still skeptical that within this decade, and given the finite resources each country's military has at it's disposal, that running an all fifth-gen fleet is the best way of achieving strategic goals... It would be wicked to launch a wall formation of J-20s like the Americans did with their F-15s to counter Iraqi MIGs in Desert Storm, but how economic viable/practical would that be to achieve air superiority?! The PLA would be risking (potentially even sacrificing) a lot to achieve their desired objective. It surely explains why the USAF/USN are in no hurry to phase out F-16s and F-18s for Fat Amy (disregarding the amount of speed bumps the F-35 program has gone up against). Overkill is awesome on paper.... but you have to factor in at what cost? Using the Chinese idiom 紙上談兵, it is easy talking about troops on paper, but much more complicated to field actual troops on the battlefield. That is why I believe the J-10, J-11 and the J-16 will continue to play an important role along with the J-20, even as the FC/J-31 becomes operational.

Looking at the USAF/USN military pilot training system, pilots go through the same training pipeline to get their wings, regardless of whether they end up flying forth or fifth-gen fighters. In fact prior to todays two-track system, every USAF pilot going through undergraduate pilot training went through the T-38, even if they ended up flying heavy C-130s or KC-135s. I've been trying to do more digging on the PLAAF pilot training pipeline, but haven't been able to come out with much... But my point is that while the lives of highly trained pilots are valuable, and losing any pilot would be devastating.... it ultimately costs the same (from a time perspective, less from a financial perspective when you factor in the cost per flight hour operating a forth-gen) to produce a forth or fifth-gen fighter pilot.

Aaaaaanyway I'm not gonna digress further from the J-20 discussion, just thought I'd share my two cents

Talking about J20's role in the world in relation to other aircrafts is not off topic imo(let me know if it is).

Anyways, the US are in no hurry to phase out F16s because they need to bomb insurgents with AK47s. J20s and the PLAAF as a whole need to compete with peer and near-peer air forces of high quality.

Yes, non-stealth 4th gens will still have roles, but they are greatly limited when facing real competition.